Tag: Iowa

Voters will elect a new state representative for Iowa House district 90 in a special election on September 1. The southeastern Iowa district leans slightly Democratic in terms of voter registration, but political scientists have found that special elections and by-elections often favor opposition parties, whose supporters are more motivated to turn out. (Democrats control both chambers of the Iowa legislature as well as the governor’s chair.)

Neither Republican Stephen Burgmeier nor Democrat Curt Hanson has highlighted same-sex marriage rights during the brief campaign in district 90, but a major advertising campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage is likely to put the issue front and center during the final stretch.  

Burgmeier is one of three Republican supervisors in Jefferson County, most of which lies in Iowa House district 90. He made a show of posturing against same-sex marriage on April 27, the day the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. He mentioned his support for giving Iowans “a right to vote on the definition of marriage” in the press release announcing his candidacy for the special election.

However, the Republican-aligned interest groups that are staffing his campaign have decided to focus on taxes and the state budget (for instance, in this television ad). The issues page on Burgmeier’s campaign site does not mention gay marriage or abortion. That has angered a right-winger who calls Burgmeier a “sellout” and is running in district 90 with an emphasis on social issues.

Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent posted yesterday that the National Organization for Marriage “has purchased $86,060 worth of television and radio ads” to help Burgmeier. That is a major ad buy for an Iowa legislative district. Martyn uploaded an independent expenditure report (pdf file) that the group filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, but that document didn’t include information about the content or placement of the ads.

I don’t know yet how the NOM is framing the marriage equality issue for this campaign. I also haven’t heard whether the ads mainly support the Republican or also attack the Democratic candidate. I have asked Iowans in the viewing area for this district to post comments in this thread at Bleeding Heartland.

I hope the NOM’s Iowa ads turn out to be as laughable as the group’s “Gathering Storm” commercial from April, which spawned many parodies on YouTube and a brilliant response from Stephen Colbert.

The Democratic candidate for the special election is Curt Hanson, a retired driver’s education teacher who has won various teaching awards. Hanson is campaigning on bread-and-butter issues: jobs, health care, education, and balancing the budget. He doesn’t mention marriage equality or the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on his site’s issues page.

Democrats hold a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House. House Speaker Pat Murphy strongly supported the Varnum v Brien ruling and has made clear he will block efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the House floor. A victory in this special election would be a shot in the arm for the Republican Party of Iowa, which has suffered net losses of seats in the Iowa legislature for four straight elections. In fact, Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn has called the district 90 special election a “must win.”

If Burgmeier is successful on September 1, expect his campaign strategy to be copied in competitive legislative districts next year. Republican candidates can focus on economic issues while outside groups pay for ads attacking gay marriage.

Less than three months after saying he would not run against Governor Chet Culver next year, former four-term governor Terry Branstad (1983-1999) now tells the Des Moines Register he is “not ruling it out.” Moreover,

Branstad is accepting invitations to meet with party activists. Two weeks ago, he met with about 50 political and business leaders at the Alden home of Bruce Rastetter, an influential Republican fundraiser and ethanol industry executive.

New calls for Branstad’s candidacy, and encouraging words from key donors such as West Des Moines developer Gary Kirke, underscore a growing feeling in his party that Democrat Gov. Chet Culver is vulnerable as he finishes his first term and that the emerging GOP field lacks a contender who can beat him.

A recent poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog found Branstad leading Culver 53-37, while Culver leads the other two best-known Republican gubernatorial candidates. Culver brings a lot of strengths to the re-election campaign, and his approval and favorability numbers weren’t bad in that Republican poll, but Branstad appears to be a stronger candidate than the declared contenders.

Branstad isn’t guaranteed a smooth path to the Republican nomination, though.

A Branstad candidacy would force some of the lesser-known Republicans from the race, but the current front-runner Bob Vander Plaats is signaling that he would stay in. He plays to the social conservative constituency that saved Branstad’s bacon in his tough 1994 primary against then-Congressman Fred Grandy.

I think there would be a niche for a third candidate who might emphasize Vander Plaats’ poor general election prospects and Branstad’s record of fiscal mismanagement as governor. When voters are reminded that Branstad kept two sets of books to enable him to run deficits, he will look less appealing as an alternative to Culver, under whom Iowa has a gold star bond rating.

Many Iowa Republicans deeply distrust Doug Gross, the 2002 gubernatorial nominee who was a top aide to Branstad and has been shopping for a candidate to support all year. An opinion poll Gross commissioned on behalf of the Iowa First Foundation in March sparked the Branstad for governor rumors.

Businessmen Bruce Rastetter and Gary Kirke, who are fueling the Branstad recruitment efforts, are big Republican players but not without controversy in Iowa GOP circles either. Rastetter gave a lot of money to Republican candidates in 2008 and may have been involved in a group running ads against Culver. But he also gave Culver’s campaign committee $25,000 in 2007, as did Kirke. Rastetter gave the maximum allowable contribution to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, and we all remember how highly Iowa Republicans thought of Rudy.

I do not think that rank and file Republicans are going to sit back and let these kingmakers choose Branstad as their candidate against Culver. Then again, I still think Branstad is not going to run for governor, so I could be proven wrong.

In other news on the GOP race for governor, Jason Hancock wrote a good piece for Iowa Independent on the pros and cons of a competitive Republican primary. I tend to agree with Republicans who think a tough primary will help the GOP by generating media buzz and starting to close the voter registration gap with Iowa Democrats (now around 114,000). On the other hand, there’s a chance that harsh infighting could damage the eventual nominee. The most disastrous outcome for Republicans is still John Deeth’s dream of Vander Plaats winning the nomination at a state convention. A Branstad candidacy would eliminate that possibility.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Iowans in House district 90 will elect a new state representative in a special election on September 1, and the Republican candidate appears to be planning to make same-sex marriage a major campaign issue.

The seat opened up when State Representative John Whitaker, a Democrat, accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Republicans didn’t even run a candidate against Whitaker in 2008, but Iowa House district 90 has been competitive in the recent past. The southeastern Iowa district contains all of Van Buren County and parts of Wapello and Jefferson counties, including the Fairfield area (home to Maharishi University and the so-called “Silicorn Valley”).

The Democratic candidate for the special election is Curt Hanson, a retired driver’s education teacher who has won various teaching awards. Hanson plans to campaign on bread-and-butter issues: jobs, health care, education, and balancing the budget.

The Republican candidate is Jefferson County supervisor Steve Burgmeier. His name rang a bell for me because the Jefferson County supervisors made a show of posturing against same-sex marriage on April 27, the day the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. Burgmeier and his colleagues passed a resolution calling on Iowa legislators to take a stand against same-sex marriage. Since the Iowa Legislature had just adjourned for the year on April 26, the resolution served no purpose other than to put Burgmeier and on record loudly opposing marriage equality. He was probably planning to run for the legislature even before Whitaker’s seat opened up; a Republican Bleeding Heartland commenter had been recruiting Burgmeier to run next year in Iowa Senate district 45 (one of the GOP’s better pickup opportunities in the upper chamber).

Burgmeier’s press release announcing his candidacy for Iowa House district 90 highlighted two issues: cutting government spending and giving Iowans “a right to vote on the definition of marriage.” This is the new politically-correct Republican messaging. Instead of acknowledging that they want to write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution, Republicans say, “Iowans deserve the right to vote” on a marriage amendment, as if we were in the habit of subjecting minority rights to a majority vote in this country.

Republicans would like to win this special election for many reasons, not least to fire up their base about the potential to demagogue against committed same-sex Iowa couples next year. Democrats hold a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House. House Speaker Pat Murphy strongly supported the Varnum v Brien ruling and has made clear he will block efforts to bring a marriage amendment to the House floor.

You can donate to Curt Hanson’s campaign by clicking here. A strong volunteer effort will be crucial in this low-turnout special election, so if you live within striking distance of southeast Iowa, please consider volunteering for Hanson’s campaign before September 1.

Survey USA released a new batch of approval ratings for governors based on polls taken June 16. Iowa’s Chet Culver was at 42 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval. The previous SUSA poll in Iowa, taken in late April, found similar numbers for Culver: 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval.

CORRECTION: I did not realize that SUSA also conducted a poll in late May, which showed somewhat better numbers for Culver: 48 approve, 47 disapprove.

Probably this is just statistical noise, and Culver’s support is somewhere in the 40s. Alternatively, if you have some hypothesis that would explain why the governor’s support rose in May but dropped by mid-June, please post a comment.

Click here to see all of SUSA’s approval numbers for Culver since he became governor.

It would be nice if some other polling firm released a new Iowa survey soon.

Having noticed that Culver’s SUSA numbers bounced up last May and June after being in net negative territory from February through April 2008, I wondered whether a “legislative session effect” might have dragged him down from February through April of this year. Either that was not the case, or the weaker economy this year has prevented the governor from getting a post-session bounce.

Approval ratings in the low 40s are outside the comfort zone for an incumbent, but I wouldn’t hit the panic button yet. SUSA has tended to measure Culver’s support at lower levels than some other pollsters, and most governors have seen their approval ratings slip during the past year, presumably because of the economy and the fiscal problems affecting almost every state.

I couldn’t find any breakdown of Culver’s support among Democrats, Republicans and independents either at this site or on Survey USA’s site. If anyone has those numbers, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I still think a large number of Democrats and independents who may not “approve” of Culver would choose him in a heartbeat over Chris Rants or Bob Vander Plaats, who are most committed to running for governor.

We’ll have a better idea of the governor’s re-election prospects when we see polling of head-to-head matchups with potential Republican challengers. Some of the Republicans considering this race would be stronger than others in terms of personal appeal or fundraising (though Culver will probably be able to outspend even the best GOP fundraisers).

Finally, keep in mind that despite ups and downs in the economy, Iowa hasn’t voted an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

Share any thoughts about Culver’s chances or the GOP gubernatorial primary in this thread. Who has the potential to overcome Vander Plaats’ head start on campaigning? Can Rants reinvent himself as a likable politician? Who would benefit from a more crowded Republican field? Will the GOP primary be negative enough to do lasting damage to the eventual nominee?

Final note: Swing State Project currently considers the Iowa governor’s race to be safe D. I would rate it as likely D, and the Culver-skeptic contingent at Bleeding Heartland would probably argue for a lean D rating.

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.

Now that all 9 Democratic pick-up states plus NE-02 have been analysed, I have also provided an exhaustive and most unique non-partisan summary of the pick-up states. I can guarantee you that there is information in this summary that you will not find anywhere else in this quality, clarity or combination.

There are a number of side-documents that go with the summary, plus links to all of the nine analyses and the GE 2008 final analysis for the entire Union.

I want to explain again that I have farmed this kind of thing out to Google Docs as it makes it easier for me to publish charts, tables and graphics. It is my hope that you will read the summary in it’s entirety. There are surprises all over the place that only become apparent when one scratches under the surface and researches the GE 2008 at the county level, county for county. In the case of the 9.25 pick-ups, we are talking about 696 counties.

The summary is divided into 2 parts and all of this information is after the jump.

Part I of the summary contains:

– links for the individual analyses for all the pick-up states plus the links for the GE 2008 analysis for the entire Union are given again. They will be reproduced at the bottom of this diary entry.

– an overview of the raw vote and percentage totals for the pick-ups states, first for 2008 only and then a comparison to 2004.

– three maps. One shows the geographic position of the pick-ups within the USA. The second shows the geographical relationship between the pick-ups and the Democratic retentions from 2004. The third shows the Democratic states from 2008 plus the 5 leanest GOP wins from 2008.

– a question: “How does this compare on a historical level?”

The question is referring to the number of electoral votes that changed parties in 2008, namely, 113 EV. I then provide a table showing each general election back to 1948 and how many electors changed parties, and in which direction. The answer to the question is that Obama’s EC shift is on par with the last election cycle, but less than in the 1980s.

Afterward, there is an introduction to the county-level analysis, including an exact numeric count of counties per state: Democratic retentions, Democratic pick-ups, Republican retentions and Republican pick-ups.

Quote:

“In the pick-up states, the Democratic party retained 146 of 148 Democratic counties from 2004 and then picked-up an additional 89 counties, for a total of 235 counties (33.76%). The Republican party lost 89 counties from 2004, retaining 459 counties and then picked-up 2 counties, for a total of 461 (66.24%). 235 + 461 = 696 counties.”

“Nationally, all 9 states trended Democratic as Obama won them and their electors according to the WTA (winner-takes-all) system, but when we look at the inner details, the picture is much clearer: 642 of 696 counties in the pick-up states (92.24%) swung Democratic. The remaining 54 counties (7.76%) swing Republican. This indicates a statistical grand sweep for the Democratic party in the pick-up states.

In 4 states, the ENTIRE state trended Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada (all three western pick-ups) and Indiana.The pick-up in Indiana is historic not only because this is the first time since 1964 that a Democrat has won the state, but it also had the largest partisan shift of all 50 states in the GE 2008: +21.71%

The state with the largest contra-trend (Republican) against the national trend: Florida.”

Part I ends with maps of Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina, showing the geographic position of the 28 counties that swung Republican, showing their proximity to Appalachia.

You can link to Part I via Google Docs.

Part II starts with an extensive study of the 39 largest counties out of the 9.25 pick-ups states, plus Durham County (NC) as honorable mention.

Quote:

“I have done a statistical analysis of the 39 largest counties of the 9.25 pick-ups. These are all counties that had a total vote of more than 170,000 and at least one candidate should have also gotten at least 100,000 of those votes or very,very close to it. All of those counties meet both criteria. Two counties (Stark County / OH, Washoe County / NV) had no candidate with 100,000 votes or more, but in both cases one candidate was very close to 100,000 and the countwide total vote was well over 170,000.  Those 39 counties accounted for 44.49% of the total popular vote of the pick-up states, which is actually slightly LESS than it was in 2004 for the same states: 44.91%. Nonetheless, when only 39 of 696 analysed counties (5.60%, numerically) have almost half the electoral firepower of the region, then it is statistically very clear that the large urban areas have the real electoral firepower in presidential elections. The candidate who sweeps the urban areas has a far better chance of winning the presidency.

Of these 39 counties, there were 21 Democratic retentions, 8 Democratic pick-ups and 10 Republican retentions. This means that of the same 39 counties in 2004, the picture was much more even: in 2004, there were 21 Democratic counties of these 39 and 18 Republican counties.

The Democratic party picked up Hillsborough (Tampa) and Pinellas (Clearwater) counties in Florida, Wake (Raleigh) county in North Carolina, Washoe (Reno) County in Nevada, Hamilton (Cincinnati) County in Ohio, Jefferson (Golden) and Arahapoe (Littleton) counties in Colorado and Douglas (Omaha) County in Nebraska.”

The important thing about this study is it’s depth and breadth: each of the 39 (40) counties are analysed comparing 2008 to 2004, measuring raw vote and margin differences, also the counties’ percentual take of their respective states’ popular vote and also their take of the pick-up states combined. But the counties are also each given a spreadsheet to trace their voting history back to 1960 and the results are nothing less than amazing!

Next, from the analysis in Part II:

Superlatives:

– the largest raw vote total of all 39 counties: Miami-Dade County, FL: 864,636 votes

– the largest Democratic winning raw vote total: Miami-Dade County, FL: 499,831 votes

– the largest Democratic raw-vote margin of the pick-ups: Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland): +258,542 vote margin

– the three highest Democratic winning percentages: Denver- CO,  Boulder, CO and Cuyahoga- OH: 75.45%, 72.29% and 68.70%, respectively.

– the three largest Democratic winning margins (by percent): Denver- CO,  Boulder- CO and Cuyahoga- OH: +52.41%, +46.14% and +38.74%, respectively

– the highest democratic margin-shift (swing): Marion County, IN: +26.40% margin shift. This is especially impressive, as this shift was not from a pick-up, but rather, a Democratic retention county.

– the largest Republican winning raw vote total: Duval County, FL: 210,537 votes

– the largest Republican raw-vote margin of the pick-ups: El Paso County, CO: +51,419 vote margin

– the three highest Republican winning percentages: Butler – OH, El Paso- Co and Lee- FL:  60.52%, 58.69% and 54.67%, respectively

– the three largest Republican winning margins (by percent): Butler – OH, El Paso- CO and Brevard- FL: +22.58%, +18.82% and +10.37%, respectively

– the lowest negative Republican margin-shift (swing): Brevard County, FL: -5.73% margin shift

All of the Democratic retentions and pick-ups showed raw vote, percentual and margin GAINS.

All of the Republican retentions showed percentual and margin LOSSES.

4 of the Republican retentions showed raw-vote gains: Brevard, Lee, Polk and Pasco counties, all in Florida. The other 6 Republican retentions showed raw-vote losses.

9 Republican or Democratic tipping-point (margin = less than 4%) counties from 2004 became solid Democratic wins in 2008: Pinellas, Volusia and Orange Counties-FL, Wake, Guilford and Mecklenburg Counties- NC, Montgomery and Stark Counties – OH, Arapahoe County- CO

5 Republican retentions have become tipping point counties for 2012: Sarasota (+0.10%), Virginia Beach (+0.71%), Duval (+1.90), Seminole (+2.70%) and Pasco (+3.75%) . Statistically this means that 1/2 of the Republican retentions studied here are endangered territory for 2012 and (this has been proven historically many times over) in the case of a sucessful re-election campaign for the Democratic party in 2012, these five counties are the most likely candidates to become Democratic pick-ups in 2012.

O Democratic retentions or pick-ups are tipping-point counties for 2012.

Here is the EXCEL SPREADSHEET that has all of the raw calculations for the 39 (40) largest counties.

In order to simplify the look of the table and make the information easier to see, I created a table to show the chronological progression of each county from 1960 to 2008. For each county and year, I have assigned either a D, R or an I, depending on which party won the county in that year. And then I have shaded each cell according to winning party. I then organized the table in order from CORE GOP counties to CORE DEM counties. Take a good, hard look at the table when you read Part II, it is most enlightening.

You can link to Part II via Google Docs.

Quotes:

“In the case of some counties that visually look as if they should be core GOP counties there is instead the marking steady; these are GOP counties that should be core counties, but which almost flipped in 2008, so their status is now uncertain. And some Democratic counties are marked as steady as the margins are very lean.

But the table makes it very easy to see which years are landslide years: 1972 and 1984, to a smaller extent 1992 and 2008. In 1972, we see a sea of red go through all counties except Lucas County, OH. In 1984, we see a sea of red go through all counties except the bottom 5. At the top we see 3 core GOP counties that also resisted the Johnson landslide of 1964. Notice that all three counties are in Florida.

Starting in 1988, the Democratic party started re-building in the urban areas:

3 counties were added to the Democratic column in 1988, resisting the GOP pull in that year: Boulder, Summit and Lucas counties. And those counties have become core DEM counties since then.

8 counties joined the Democratic column in 1992 and have stayed there since then: Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia, Bernalillo, Franklin, Montgomery, Clark, Miami-Dade. They are mostly strong DEM counties, save for Montgomery and Volusia, which tend to go with leans margins. There are 4 more counties that joined the Democratic column in 1992, but were reclaimed by the GOP in either 1996 or 2000: Pasco, Wake, Stark, Guilford. Pasco returned to the GOP in 2004 and has stayed there. It is therefore the only county to complete buck the blue trend, in spite of reduced margins in 2008.

Mecklenburg and Pinellas counties joined the Democratic column in 1996, were reclaimed by the GOP in 2000 or 2004 and were reclaimed by the Democratic party in 2004 or 2008.

Fairfax joined the Democratic column in 2000 and has stayed there since, with ever increasing margins.

Orange and Marion counties joined in 2004 and were retained in 2008. Both of these retentions had massive margin shifts toward the Democratic party in 2008: +18.41 and +26.40%, respectively.

The 8 counties that Obama picked-up are clear to see in the middle of the table. Six of those counties have one thing in common: this is the first time they have gone Democratic since 1964, statistical evidence of a sweep similar to but not as extreme as Johnson in 1964: Hamilton, Douglas, Jefferson, Wake, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties were slightly smaller wins for the Democratic party than in 1964. However, Washoe and Arapahoe counties were larger wins for the Democratic party than in 1964, thus breaking a 44 year record. Notice that both of those counties are in the west.

We can see clearly from the table that the last time a party had flipped 8 counties or more was in 1992, when Bill Clinton picked-up 12 counties. George W. Bush, Jr. picked up 3 counties in 2000 and 1 more in 2004. Those counties returned to the Democratic party in 2000 or 2004.

In 1988- just analyzing these 40 counties- there were 8 Democratic counties and 32 Republican counties. In 1992, out of the same mix of 40 counties, there were 20 Republican counties and 20 Democratic counties, an even split. In 2000, there were 21 Republican counties and 19 Democratic counties. But in 2004, in spite of a republican re-election, the Democrats had 22 counties, the Republicans 18. And now in 2008, it’s 30 Democratic, 10 Republican. There can be no doubt about it: statistically, the urban areas in the Union have moved decisively to the Democratic party in 47 of 50 states (the evidence for which I will present before the end of 2009). This example from the 9.25 Democratic pick-ups is mild in comparison to the statistical data that came out of cities in core Democratic territory: Philadelphia (83% for Obama), Detroit (74% for Obama), New York (86% for Obama), Los Angeles (69% for Obama), Seattle (70% for Obama), Portland (77% for Obama) Chicago (76% for Obama), Boston (64% for Obama), Honolulu (70% for Obama), Milwaukee (67% for Obama), Madison (73% for Obama), New Orleans (79%), Baton Rouge, Dallas (deep in GOP territory: 57% for Obama), St. Louis (60% for Obama) etc, etc, etc.”

Conclusion:

“The Democratic wins in the pick-up states, as in the retentions, was not the example of the Democratic party barely holding on the to so-called “blue” states plus one “red” state or getting to one vote over 50%. The sweep through the pick-ups is statistically clear. The last time a sweep like this happened in the Republican party, it held the white house for 12 years. On the other hand, Johnson and Nixon had massive sweeps in 1964 and 1972 and in spite of this,the White House switched hands in the following cycles. So, though such a sweep is no forecast for the future, the data tells us quite clearly where the new battle lines will form in these nine states for the 2012 General Election. And both parties will be targeting key counties in key districts in 2010 in order to sway the affected area to their side before 2012 even gets off the ground.”

————————————————————–

Here the links to the individual analyses, with a detailed description afterwards:

Mid-west:

OHIO – Part I, Part II, Part III , raw data / INDIANA – Part I, Part II and Part III, raw data

IOWA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data / NEBRASKA CD-02 – raw data

South:

VIRGINIA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data / NORTH CAROLINA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data  

FLORIDA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data

West:  

COLORADO – Part I , Part II , Part III , raw data, special 9-county 48-year voting history study

Supplemental to Colorado: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of Colorado (p.4, hispanic population)

NEW MEXICO – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data, special 12 county 48-year voting history study   Supplemental to Nevada: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of New Mexico (p.4, hispanic population)  

NEVADA – Part I, Part II , Part III, raw data, special 6 county 48-year voting history study  

Supplemental to Nevada: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of Nevada (p.4, hispanic population)   Quick Census facts on Nevada  

An analysis for NE-02 (which is the „.25″ part of „9.25″) will be published when I have received the complete precinct data for Douglas and (part of) Sarpy counties from election officials who are willing to dig up the data over 48 years for me. But a comparison 2008 to 2004 is already possible and here is the raw-data.

Links to the large analysis for the entire Union

Full analysis Part I

Full analysis Part II  

Full analysis Part III

Full analysis Part IV  

Full analysis Part V

raw-vote total data  

Obama’s standing in the national rankings since 1824  

Obama’s standing in the rankings, per state

Former Iowa GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey told CQ Politics that he is thinking about running against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. (Hat tip to WHO-TV’s Dave Price.) Boswell barely defeated Mahaffey in his first bid for Congress in 1996.

CQ Politics highlights a big obstacle for Mahaffey if he runs:

A Boswell-Mahaffey rematch after a 14-year hiatus would also take place on quite different turf from their first race. The 3rd District in 1996 was located mainly in southern Iowa and was heavily rural; Boswell was aided in that race by the fact that he had spent his life outside of politics in farming. But redistricting, performed in a non-partisan procedure in Iowa, move the district’s boundaries north and east to take in the state capital of Des Moines, to which Boswell relocated from his rural hometown.

It will take a lot to convince me that Mahaffey, a small-town lawyer and part-time Poweshiek County attorney, poses a serious threat to Boswell in a district dominated by Polk County. So far IA-03 doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s list of competitive U.S. House districts, even though the DCCC still has Boswell in the Frontline program.

Iowa is among the small number of states that use a bipartisan (or nonpartisan) commission to perform redistricting every 10 years. The resulting maps are often very competitive and fair when compared with those of many other states.

However, I started thinking anout what would happen if, hypothetically, the party in charge of the legislature controlled redistricting rather than the commission. What would such a map look like? How would the current incumbents be affected?

The map the I created was designed to help Democrats because currently the legislature is under Democratic control and the governor is a Democrat. In this hypothetical scenario, Republicans cannot block the plan through filibusters or avoiding a quorum. Also, since Iowa is set to lose one of its districts after the 2010 census, my plan uses four districts rather than the five that currently exist.

My main goals were to:

-Maintain Democratic advantages in eastern Iowa

-Protect Leonard Boswell

-Dismantle Tom Latham’s district and force him to run against Steve King

Here is the current map:

And here is the map that I ended up creating:

Here is some information about this new districts:

1st District (Blue)

Obama-55.21%

McCain-44.79%

Major Cities: Davenport. Dubuque, Waterloo

The new 1st district has all but two of the counties of the current 1st (Jones and Fayette). It picks up all of the counties along the Minnesota border, as well as a number of adjacent counties (basically the northern bits of Latham and King’s districts). It is still considerably Democratic, although less so than before. However, the district is still largely centered in Democratic-leaning northeastern Iowa, so it should elect Bruce Braley or another Democrat easily enough.

2nd District (Red)

Obama-58.89%

McCain-41.11%

Major Cities: Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Burlington

This district keeps all of the counties currently located in Dave Loebsack’s southeastern district, and it gains Jones County from the 1st, as well as a few Republican counties from Steve King’s 5th district (Decatur, Ringgold, and Taylor). It also picks up 6 of the 12 counties in Leonard Boswell’s 3rd district (5 of those 6 counties went for McCain, so this takes some of the pressure off of Boswell). The result is a very Democratic district in southeastern Iowa that is now able to dilute Republican influence from some of the neighboring districts. Loebsack or another Democrat would have no trouble getting reelected here.

3rd District (Purple)

Obama-60.03%

McCain-39.97%

Major Cities: Carroll, Des Moines, Fort Dodge

This district retains roughly half of the counties in Leonard Boswell’s 3rd district, but also picks up Democratic counties from the 4th and 5th districts. Over half of the population in the district lives in Polk County (Des Moines). My main goal was to protect Leonard Boswell since he seems to have frequent trouble in his current district. He would be more than safe here; this district went for Obama by over 20 points, making it the most Democratic district in Iowa. If Tom Latham wanted to run against Boswell, he would first have to move to the 3rd (his Ames home is located outside of the district), and even then he would have a difficult race given the new nature of the district. Steve King’s home in Crawford County has also been moved into this district, but it would be hopeless for him to run here, given his ultraconservative profile. This district would favor most any Democrat.

4th District (Green)

Obama-50.46%

McCain-49.54%

Major Cities: Ames, Council Bluffs, Sioux City, Storm Lake

At first, I thought it would be impossible to put western Iowa into a Democratic district, but it was indeed possible. Obama only won this district by about 1%, but making it much more Democratic would have put Braley or Boswell in danger. The 4th keeps most of its current western base, but loses several western counties to the other 3 districts (including Crawford County, where Steve King lives). It gains many of the counties in Tom Latham’s current 4th district, including Dallas and Story (where Latham lives) and Fayette County (located in the current 1st dstrict). This district has much of Latham’s former territory, so he would have the best chance of winning in this district. But first he would probably have to face Steve King in a Republican primary. If the primary was divisive enough, or if King was the GOP nominee, this marginally Democratic district could be won by a moderate-to-conservative Democrat.

So while none of this will probably ever happen, I thought that it would be interesting to examine a hypothetical scenario.  So what do you all think? Comments, suggestions, ideas?

Note: Iowa Democrats will almost certainly be able to block any constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if they retain control of either the Iowa House or Senate in 2010.

Conservative blogger Craig Robinson argued earlier this month that “Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate” in 2010. The GOP has almost nowhere to go but up. Republicans currently hold 18 of the 50 seats in the Iowa Senate, fewer than at any previous time in this state’s history. After making gains in the last four general elections, Democrats now hold 19 of the 25 Iowa Senate seats that will be on the ballot in 2010. Also, several Democratic incumbents are in their first term, having won their seats during the wave election of 2006.

To win back the upper chamber, Republicans would need a net gain of seven seats in 2010, and Robinson lists the seven districts where he sees the best chances for the GOP.

I generally agree with John Deeth’s view that only a few Senate districts are strong pickup opportunities for Republicans next year. Winning back the upper chamber will take the GOP at least two cycles, with redistricting likely to create who knows how many open or winnable seats in 2012.

After the jump I’ll examine the seven Iowa Senate districts Robinson views as worthwhile targets as well as one Republican-held district that Democrats should be able to pick up. Here is a map (pdf file) of the current Iowa Senate districts.

I’ll address these districts in the same order Robinson presents them, starting with the longest of the long-shots.

7. Like Robinson (but for different reasons), I would love to see wingnut Bill Salier challenge Senator Amanda Ragan in district 7 (Cerro Gordo County). Democrats have a big voter registration edge, and Ragan won re-election in 2006 with more than 70 percent of the vote. Crushing Salier would be particularly sweet, because it would show that Iowans are not interested in electing someone who’s done little lately besides speak out against same-sex marriage. I doubt Salier would take on this challenge. He seems more interested in threatening to support primary challengers against mainstream Republicans he views as insufficiently committed to overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien.

6. Robinson thinks Steve Warnstadt is vulnerable in Senate District 1 (Woodbury County) because the Democrats representing the two Iowa House districts in this Senate district only won by narrow margins in 2008. He thinks either of the Republican candidates who almost won House races in 2008 would be strong challengers to Warnstadt. Don’t get your hopes up, Republicans. In 2008 the Obama campaign’s GOTV was extremely weak in western Iowa, leading to poor Democratic turnout in Woodbury County and elsewhere in the fifth Congressional district. Don’t count on the Iowa Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign repeating this mistake in 2010.

5. Robinson would like to see Mariannette Miller-Meeks take on Senator Keith Kreiman in district 47 (Wapello, Wayne, Appanoose, Davis Counties). I actually agree with him that Miller-Meeks has a better chance of getting elected to the statehouse someday than of beating Dave Loebsack in the Democratic-leaning second Congressional district. However, I don’t see her beating Kreiman, who won his district in 2006 by almost a 2-1 margin. Miller-Meeks would do better to run for an open Iowa House or Senate seat. Anyway, after seeing her speak at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines late last year, I got the impression that she plans to run for Congress again.

4. Robinson thinks Staci Appel is vulnerable in district 37 (Warren and Madison Counties) because she won by only 772 votes in 2006 despite “raising massive amounts of money […] She is also the wife of Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel, adding a unique twist to her re-election campaign.” State Representative Kent Sorenson would be the perfect candidate against Appel, having upset Mark Davitt in House district 74 in 2008: “An Appel/Sorenson race would be ground zero for the debate on gay marriage in Iowa.” To which I say, bring it on. Let the Republicans run Sorenson, who has endorsed Bob Vander Plaats for governor and whose clerk erroneously told the Warren County recorder that she did not need to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Then let Appel talk about her many achievements during her first term in the Senate.

Another reason I would welcome this challenge is that it would open up House district 74. House Democrats were caught napping in 2008; they didn’t hire a campaign manager to focus on Davitt’s re-election, and he wasn’t the hardest-working incumbent in terms of voter contacts. We should be able to win back the district with a Democrat willing to pound the pavement and knock on doors–especially if Sorenson vacates the seat to challenge Appel.

3. Now we’re getting to the more realistic pickup opportunities for Iowa Republicans. Democratic Senator Rich Olive won district 5 (Wright, Hamilton, Story Counties) by only 62 votes in 2006. Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in the district. Even though Olive is not particularly liberal, Iowa Democrats will need to work hard to hold this district.

2. If Republicans can convince former State Senator Sandy Greiner to run against Becky Schmitz in district 45 (Washington, Wapello, Jefferson, Van Buren Counties), I agree with Robinson that this would be a very competitive race. Schmitz won narrowly in 2006 and is in her first term.

1. I don’t share Robinson’s opinion that former State Representative Bill Dix would be a particularly strong challenger to Bill Heckroth in district 9 (Butler, Bremer, Black Hawk, Fayette Counties). That said, Heckroth is a freshman and Republicans have a registration edge, so defending this seat will be high on the Iowa Democrats’ agenda.

Generally speaking, recruiting strong Senate candidates won’t be easy for Republicans, because the party is perceived to have a much better chance of retaking the Iowa House. Life in the minority isn’t much fun.

With only six Republican-held Iowa Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, there’s not much room for Iowa Democrats to make further gains in the upper chamber. It goes without saying that we should leave no Republican unchallenged, but most of the Republican incumbents will cruise. Deeth thinks Republicans may need to play defense in Senate district 35. I am less optimistic. Democrats had a strong and well-known candidate in 2006, former Ankeny Mayor Merle Johnson. The party spent a lot of money in the district, but Johnson lost to Larry Noble by more than 1,200 votes.

Instead, I would encourage the Iowa Democratic Party to make a major play for Senate district 41 (Scott County), held by David Hartsuch of Bettendorf. Here’s why:

1. Hartsuch is a first-term incumbent who won by only 436 votes in 2006.

2. Since then, Democratic voter registration has grown significantly in Scott County.  

3. A lot of moderate Republicans dislike Hartsuch because he defeated the well-regarded incumbent Maggie Tinsman in the 2006 GOP primary.

4. He is a polarizing figure. It’s fine to be a Steve King sound-alike if you represent a heavily Republican district, but Hartsuch doesn’t.

5. Deeth says of Hartsuch, “His failed Congressional bid [in 2008] may have helped his name ID, but not necessarily in a good way.” That’s putting it mildly.

Compare the results from the 2006 and 2008 elections in Iowa’s first Congressional district.  You can find them, along with the results of the state legislative elections from that year, on the Iowa Secretary of State’s website. Both years the Republicans nominated a candidate from Scott County. Bruce Braley won the district with about 55.1 percent of the vote against businessman Mike Whalen in 2006.

Now look at how Hartsuch underperformed in 2008. IA-01 has a partisan voter index of D+4, meaning that in a typical year we would expect it to vote about 4 percent more Democratic than the country as a whole. In 2008 Democratic candidates averaged 56 percent of the vote in U.S. House races, so we would expect Braley to win about 60 percent of the vote given the lean of the district. In fact, he won 64.6 percent against Hartsuch. Granted, Democratic turnout tends to be higher in a presidential year, and Braley turned out to be remarkably effective for a first-term Congressman. Still, Hartsuch’s performance was underwhelming.

Hartsuch didn’t look particularly strong in his home base of Scott County either. Whalen kept it close in Scott County in 2006, winning about 25,142 votes in the county to 29,465 for Braley. In 2008 it was a blowout, with Braley beating Hartsuch by 49,732 to 32,766 votes in this county. I did not look up the precinct-level results for the Congressional voting; presumably Hartsuch did somewhat better in the precincts that are in Iowa Senate district 41. Still, he doesn’t look like a hometown favorite to me.

I have no idea who would be the ideal Democratic candidate against Hartsuch in 2010. Hartsuch’s opponent in 2006 was Phyllis Thede, who went on to defeat Republican incumbent Jamie Van Fossen in Iowa House district 81 in 2008. As much as I like Thede, I would prefer not to leave any of our Democratic-held House seats open next year. There must be another good Democrat in Scott County who could beat Hartsuch.

UPDATE: On May 21 Republican attorney and former State Senator Chuck Larson of Cedar Rapids said he’s not running for governor either.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver’s approval numbers have declined since the start of the year, but Republicans aren’t exactly beating down the doors to run against him. Earlier this month former Republican Governor Terry Branstad and Vermeer Corporation chief executive Mary Andringa both quashed speculation that they might challenge Culver next year.

Today State Auditor David Vaudt announced that he won’t run for governor either. It’s bad news for Republicans who were hoping to recruit a candidate known for expertise on fiscal matters.

More details and analysis are after the jump.

At a press conference, Vaudt cited Iowa’s budget problems as his reason for not running:

“I know that if I were to run for governor, there would be some that would try to discredit important financial information that I’m providing to Iowans. They would do that by simply questioning the motives, since I would be running for governor.”

The last thing he wants to do, Vaudt said, is diminish his ability to keep Iowans informed about what’s happening with state finances.

Other factors might also have influenced Vaudt’s decision. He’s virtually guaranteed re-election if he stays in his current position, whereas he might have trouble in a Republican gubernatorial primary. Or, perhaps he doesn’t think Culver is particularly vulnerable. Even though Culver is below 50 percent in some polls, he still has time to bounce back. It’s worth remembering that Iowans haven’t turned an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

I doubt Vaudt would have won the Republican nomination for reasons I described here, but he would have been a stronger general-election candidate than Bob Vander Plaats, the only Republican who seems certain to run. Vander Plaats is a Sioux City businessman who was Jim Nussle’s running mate in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Since then, Vander Plaats has served as Iowa chair for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and has argued that Republicans are losing elections in Iowa because they’re not conservative enough.

Vaudt’s decision is a blow to Republicans who are hoping the 2010 race will revolve around economic and fiscal issues. It also removes from the mix one of the most seasoned office-holders from a party that’s had a bad run in Iowa for the last decade.

Hill Research sent me partial results from the poll they took in March about the Iowa governor’s race. They redacted some of the most interesting findings, such as how appealing respondents found various types of candidates (including an “auditor who has kept track of how state money is spent”). Still, I found this result intriguing:

   Do you want an experienced and effective elected official, or an outsider with a fresh perspective and new ideas?

   Strongly want an experienced elected official: 34%

   Want an experienced elected official: 19%

   Fresh perspective: 14%

   Strongly want a fresh perspective: 27%

Vaudt is by far the most experienced statewide official who was considering running for governor. (Former Governor Terry Branstad has no desire to get back in the game.)

Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, the only other Republican currently holding a statewide elected position, is leaning toward running for re-election rather than governor. It makes sense. He would be heavily favored against Francis Thicke, the most likely Democratic candidate for secretary of agriculture. In contrast, I believe Northey would be a long-shot for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, having gone on record supporting a gas tax increase. Besides, the same-sex marriage controversy will probably give an edge to religious conservatives in next year’s primary. Even if Northey won the GOP nomination, I think that with no base of support in eastern Iowa population centers, he would be an underdog against Culver in the general.

One or two Iowa House Republicans seem likely to challenge Culver. Former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants has been thinking about running for governor for a long time. Earlier this month he sent an e-mail to potential supporters saying that since the 2009 legislative session ended,

I’ve put 2,300 miles on my car driving around the state talking to donors and activists about running for Governor.

I’m not making any official announcements or anything like that just yet. I’m taking stock first to see if I can find the support, and if I do, then I’ll let the press know. I have my eyes wide open. Its at least an $8M – $10M endeavor – or $110,000 a week as I like to say… I want to put some money in the bank, and be sure of financial backing before I take a stab at that.

So far it’s been encouraging. I have a series of fundraisers set up, and people who have agreed to help organize and set things up for me. I’ll be on the road this coming week again – back to the east coast of the state.

If he runs, Rants will compete with Vander Plaats for the conservative vote. Rants tried several times last month to bring legislation banning same-sex marriage to a vote on the Iowa House floor.

State Representative Rod Roberts told the Daily Times-Herald of Carroll he is “very seriously considering” a gubernatorial bid. He’s an ordained pastor, but some fellow Republicans claim he can communicate a broader message than abortion and gay marriage. Whether a state legislator from western Iowa can raise enough money and gain enough name recognition to seriously challenge Culver is another question.

Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican blog thinks there is room for another Republican candidate besides Rants and Vander Plaats, but

A candidate from the business community or a candidate that hadn’t previously weighed in on the marriage debate may find the primary more difficult to navigate than it would have been if the [Iowa Supreme] Court’s decision had been different. This may be the reason why, out of nowhere, we have seen some long-time GOP powerbrokers like Dave Roederer and Doug Gross warning Iowa Republicans that the focus cannot be on the issue of gay marriage if we want to win elections. […]

Gross has not been shy about his belief that the fiscal issues create an agenda which will unite the Republican Party. Many, if not most, Republicans probably agree with that. The only problem is that the issue of gay marriage has been thrust to the forefront in Iowa by the Court’s decision. Ignoring the issue or trying to diminish its importance is simply not an option.

With only 397 days until the primary, it is likely that the gubernatorial primary will be between Vander Plaats, Rants, and maybe one other candidate. While it is true that there is plenty of time for candidates to emerge, the clock is ticking. It takes time to organize people and raise the huge amounts of money needed to run statewide campaigns.

Robinson asserts that Roederer and Gross “are probably having difficulty recruiting a candidate of their liking.” Vermeer Corporation chief executive Mary Andringa has already said she’s not running for governor next year.

In theory, today’s announcement from Vaudt could leave an opening for a Republican moderate hoping conservatives will split the primary vote. On the other hand, there aren’t many moderates left in Republican political ranks, and Culver doesn’t look endangered enough to make this race attractive for someone from the business community, in my opinion.

Pleas share any relevant thoughts in this thread.