Tag: Virginia

Deeds took in $3.4 million to $1.8M for McDonnell. Even if you take out the $1 million combined from the DGA, SEIU and AFSCME you are still left with $600k extra. Granted, McDonnell has $5 million CoH to $2.7 million for Deeds but if Creigh can keep this up then money is not going to be the problem it was for him in 2005. And remember, Kaine was badly outraised by Kilgore four years ago but was still able to win.

http://hotlineoncall.nationalj…

I have a feeling this race will define the fallout from this November. The results here and in New Jersey won’t mean anything with regard to 2010 really but Dems have to win at least one to stop Republicans crowing and being able to use that to build some momentum.

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

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

While 2010 will be chock-full of exciting races at all levels of government.  In 2009, though, there will be two marquee races across the country: the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey.  Republicans are favored in both races, but both races should come down to the wire, and Democrats can hold both seats – with your help.

In Virginia, Democratic State Senator Creigh Deeds won an impressive, come-from-behind victory for the nomination this past Tuesday, demonstrating a strong ground game.  The Republican nominee will be far-right-winger Bob McDonnell.  The best description for McDonnell’s brand of Republicanism is that he is a Pat Robertson disciple.  You can learn more about McDonnell at TheRealBobMcDonnell.com.  Deeds and McDonnell have tangled before, in the 2005 Virginia Attorney General race, where McDonnell barely edged Deeds by 323 votes (yes, just 323 votes – that’s not a typo with zeroes missing) out of over 1.94 million votes counted.  This race will be exceptionally close, so every single dollar contributed and every single hour spent volunteering will make a real difference.  A bit of good news is that the first poll taken after Tuesday’s primary, by Rasmussen Reports, shows Deeds with a 47-41 lead over McDonnell, but this could just be due to a primary bump.  Rasmussen’s last poll showed McDonnell leading Deeds 45-30.  Your support will help Deeds sustain his new lead.

In New Jersey, Democratic incumbent Governor Jon Corzine will square off against Republican former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie.  Christie is very much at home in the Republican Culture of Corruption.  Republican Christie has faced scandals involving no-bid contracts, abuse of the state pension system, pay-to-play, and even allegedly cutting a deal to get his younger brother’s sentence reduced after being implicated for fraudulent trading practices on Wall Street.  Despite Christie’s mountain of scandal, New Jersey’s lagging economy has hurt Governor Corzine’s poll numbers.  Recent polling gives Christie a 7 to 13 point lead over Corzine.  Research 2000, May 25-27: Christie 46, Corzine 39; Rasmussen Reports, June 4: Christie 51, Corzine 38; and, Quinnipiac, June 10: Christie 50, Corzine 40.  In other words, Christie has an edge, but the fundamentals of the race moving forward favor Governor Corzine.  As the economy gradually picks up over the coming months and voters learn more about Christie’s corrupt background, New Jersey’s blue state status will shine through and Governor Corzine should tighten the race back up.  Your support will help Governor Corzine tighten the race up even faster.

Below are the links to how you can connect with the gubernatorial campaigns (and – please – contribute anything you can to these campaigns, and spread the word!).  Republicans are expecting (and expected) to win both of these races.  However, after being upset in the NY-20 special U.S. House election and losing a U.S. Senator to a Party switch, the GOP is reeling.  Losing either (or both!) VA-Gov or/and NJ-Gov would be a major body blow and simply crush Republicans heading into the 2010 calendar year.  If Democrats across the country are able to support these Democratic campaigns, we can flush the conventional wisdom down the toilet and deliver two more embarrassments to the Rush-Newt-Cheney Republican Party and two more losses to the Michael Steele RNC.

Creigh Deeds for Governor of Virginia	Deeds Website	Deeds Facebook	Deeds Twitter	Deeds YouTube	Deeds Blog	Deeds CONTRIBUTE
Jon Corzine for Governor of New Jersey	Corzine Website	Corzine Facebook	Corzine Twitter	Corzine YouTube	Corzine Blog	Corzine CONTRIBUTE

As was the case with INDIANA and OHIO, I have now completed a massive county-by-county study of the results of the GE 2008 for VIRGINIA.

President Obama, who won the Commonwealth of Virginia with a +6.30% margin, was the first Democratic candidate to win this state since 1964 and the second Democratic candidate to win since 1948. Of note: VIRGINIA and COLORADO, both Democratic pick-ups in 2008, are the no. 1 and 2 states that came closest to Obama’s national winning margin; VIRGINIA went „blue” for slightly less than the national margin while COLORADO went for President Obama with slightly more than the national margin. It is rare when an unexpected battleground state flips and also mirrors the national numbers, but even rarer when this happens with two such states. Note also that these two states are in completely different regions of the Union, more proof that the GE 2008 was a so-called “re-alignment election”.

In a nutshell:

1.) Obama set a new VIRGINIA raw vote record for a candidate of any party: 1,959,932 votes, 242,573 votes more than Bush’s record-breaking raw vote from 2004. This is also the largest increase in votes for one party from one cycle the the next in VA history; the Democratic party added 504,790 votes to it’s total over 2004. Incidentally, McCain also did better than Bush (2004) in VIRGINIA: he bested Bush’s PV take by 8,046 votes. However, the ratio of the democratic vote increase over the GOP vote increase was 63.74 to 1! The popular vote growth rate for VIRGINIA was 16.91%.

2.) Obama won VIRGINIA with the 11th largest winning percent, the 11th largest winning margin, the 4th largest state partisan shift and the 4th largest Partisan Value* in US history for a Democratic candidate. Of the 14 Democratic winning cycles in VIRGINIA, this puts Obama roughly in the middle of the standings. That 4th largest partisan-shift, by the way, is larger than Johnson’s from 1964. You have to go back to 1912 to find a Democratic partisan shift in VA larger than this one. The dynamics of President Obama’s win in VIRGINIA are very, very different than in the other two states (IN, OH); this information is critical and has far reaching ramifications for both the Democrats and the GOP in future elections. For this reason, I’ve done such an analysis.

*Partisan Value = the difference between the state partisan shift and the national partisan shift. For instance, the partisan shift in Virginia was +14.50%, while the national partisan shift was +9.73%, which means that Virginia was +4.77% stronger than the national pull toward the democratic party in 2008.

I’ve divided the information into three parts, and that data is in the extended text.  

In Part I, there is important background information on Virginia, including details on the 14 DEM election cycles where a democratic candidate won the state.  Also in Part I is the general overview of the county-wide results. You can link via Google Docs.

Part II contains a very large, detailed and enhanced (in comparison to the analyses of INDIANA and OHIO) table of the 134 counties/independent cities in Virginia, first by descending partisan shift and an analysis of the partisan shift ranges, and then by county size (% of the 2008 statewide popular vote), descending. Harrisburg (independent city), Fairfax and Buchanan counties are used as a prime examples of how Obama won Virginia, even through counties where he lost. We also see statistical proof of the “appalachian phenomenon” in the southwest part of the state. You can link via Google Docs.

Part III is an analysis of the democratic pick-up counties and also of the “tipping-point” counties, including some colorful maps. The conclusion draws pointed differences between Obama’s historic win in Virginia and his wins in Indiana and Ohio (quoted also below). You can link via Google Docs.

Auxiliary sources:

I took the county-wide raw data for the entire state for both 2008 and 2004 and plugged it into an excel spreadsheet, which you can find here. Subsidiary data for all 134 counties/independent cities in VIRGINIA can be found here. Should you have difficulty calling up the spreadsheet, if you email me, I can send you a copy.

—————————————————————————————————————

Here a full quote from the conclusion:

“In INDIANA, every single county trended more or less democratic, without exception – there was a blue shift that moved the entire state and those overwhelmingly white, rural counties contributed greatly to Obama’s narrow win here – yes, the counties that he still lost to McCain. This shows a large level of GOP defection to Obama in 2008. Here, Obama gained 405,028 raw votes over Kerry from 2004, while McCain lost 133,790 raw votes over Bush from 2004, an uneven shift. Indiana’s PV growth rate over 2004 was 11.47%. And Obama won by +1.03%.

In OHIO, not every county trended democratic (11 trended GOP), but there were no GOP county pick-ups. Also, in Ohio, the largest cities, all five of them, played the crucial role in moving the state into the democratic column and those overwhelmingly white, rural counties contributed very little to Obama’s narrow win, in contrast to INDIANA. Surely there were some moderate GOP defections, but there were also a moderate amount of newly registered voters. Here, Obama gained 198,877 raw votes over Kerry’s total from 2004, while McCain lost 181,948 raw votes over Bush’s total from 2004, a moderate mirror image shift. Ohio’s PV growth rate over 2004 was a nominal 1.36%, way under the national PV growth rate of 7.46%. And Obama won by +4.58%.

However, in VIRGINIA, there was real resistance to Obama, but this resistance occured in counties that are „emptying out”, so to speak. We see a large poli-demographic shift in VA, with the north and the southeast gaining greatly in political strength for the democratic party. Here there were obviously far fewer GOP defections, if at all (McCain scored more raw votes in VA than Bush from 2004), but far more newly registered and democratic dedicated voters. This poses a far larger problem for the GOP than either Indiana or Ohio, for Obama’s +1.03% margin in Indiana can be overcome and Ohio is expected to be a battleground state in virtually every cycle, but the addition of more then 500,000 voters to the democratic rolls in just one cycle is much harder for the opposition to overcome. The best case scenario for the GOP is that VIRGINIA becomes a bitter battleground state. However, +6.30% is hardly a battleground margin. It is a better margin than Obama scored in OHIO, FLORIDA, INDIANA and NORTH CAROLINA. It is a lean winning margin, but a comfortable one and will require a minimum 12.60% shift back in order for the GOP to regain the state; I doubt that this shift will come from those 500,000 new voters. The worst case scenario for the GOP is that Obama cements VIRGINIA into the democratic column in his first term, adding the state to core democratic territory and thus making the electoral math for the GOP more difficult.”

Today, the Zeitz for Congress campaign unveiled a new radio advertisement titled “Eight Nights.” The ad draws attention to Chris Smith’s failure to live in New Jersey, having spent only eight nights in the state during 2007, and the recent revelation that Smith received nearly $80,000 in tuition breaks reserved only for official Virginia residents.

You can listen to the ad here.

“After twenty-eight years in Congress, Chris Smith has become a creature of Washington. The voters I speak with are shocked and outraged when they learn Chris Smith refuses to live in New Jersey and does not pay our high property taxes. For many of them, learning Smith receives in-state tuition discounts in Virginia is the final straw,” said Josh Zeitz. “It’s not too much to ask that our representative in Congress actually lives in New Jersey.”

Key Facts:

   * Chris Smith spent only eight days in 2007. [PolitickerNJ 4/28/08]

    * Chris Smith is the only member of the New Jersey delegation to not own a home in New Jersey. [PolitickerNJ 4/28/08] He’s saved nearly $60,000 in property taxes by living in Virginia.

    * Chris Smith receives in-state tuition benefits reserved only for official Virginia residents. [Politico 10/20/08]

Josh needs your help to defeat Chris Smith. Please consider volunteering as well as contributing to the campaign. To put it bluntly, the more money we can raise the more play this ad gets on the radio, and the more undecided voters we can reach. We also need volunteers to help get out the vote. To volunteer contact ian_at_joshzeitz_dot_com.

The Zeitz for Congress campaign today requested that the Mercer County Superintendent of Elections investigate Chris Smith’s voter registration, and revoke it if she discovers fraud.

The Facts:

1) Smith filed for, and received, in-state tuition rates for his children attending Virginia public colleges.

2) In Virginia, dependent students are assigned the residency of their parents for determining tuition rates.

3) Virginia code requires the parents to have “abandoned any previous domicile,” in New Jersey in order to receive the $80,000 tuition breaks.

4) Chris Smith claims he was legally entitled to these benefits reserved for Virginians, but won’t produce the documentation to confirm his claim.

More after the jump.

                                                           

“In the best case scenario, Smith is cheating taxpayers by receiving $80,000 worth of in-state tuition breaks to an out-of-state university,” said Zeitz Campaign Manager Steve D’Amico. “The alternative scenario, of course, is that he has domiciled in Virginia and is eligible for in-state tuition at UVA, but that would mean he has “abandoned” New Jersey and has no legal right to vote in New Jersey or represent its citizens in Congress. Our request to the Superintendent is aimed at discovering the truth.”

A full copy of the Zeitz Campaign request follows:

October 22, 2008

Bettye Monroe

Mercer County Superintendent of Elections, Commissioner of Registration

Dear Superintendent Monroe:

We are writing regarding Chris Smith, candidate for Congress in New Jersey’s Fourth Congressional District and registered voter in Hamilton. We are concerned that Congressman Smith filed a fraudulent voter registration application. In that registration, we believe Smith falsely claimed that he is a New Jersey resident.  

During each of the last few years, Smith filed an application for in-state educational privileges for his children at the University of Virginia (UVA).   UVA, a school supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia, provides in-state tuition benefits only to those who claim Virginia as their domicile. (See attached excerpt from Office of Undergraduate Admissions)   Under Virginia law, “domicile is a technical, legal concept that refers to the present, fixed, home of an individual to which he or she returns following temporary absences and at which he or she intends to remain indefinitely – one’s permanent and lasting home.” Id.

Additionally, Virginia code requires that a “dependent student or unemancipated minor must establish by clear and convincing evidence that for a period of least one year immediately prior to the date of alleged entitlement, the parent or legal guardian through whom the student claims eligibility was domiciled in Virginia and had abandoned any previous domicile.” Id.

We request an explanation of how Chris Smith may vote in New Jersey after having “abandoned” New Jersey as a domicile.   Smith’s voluntary application for Virginia in-state educational benefits demonstrates his choice that Virginia, not New Jersey, is his domicile. Smith cannot be a registered voter in New Jersey and a Virginia domicile at the same time, particularly as Virginia requires that its domiciles “intend to remain indefinitely.” Smith cannot tell Virginia that he intends to remain in Virginia indefinitely while simultaneously claiming that he is domiciled in New Jersey.   Since no one compelled Smith to apply for in-state educational benefits, his voluntary act of filing the in-state tuition application clearly signals that he has chosen to be a Virginia resident.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that you revoke Smith’s registration. Given the timing of the election, we request that you rule on this request immediately.

Sincerely,                                                          

ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS  

This story at Politico is truly amazing. Josh Zeitz’s opponent, long-time incumbent (and ‘pro-life’ House caucus chair) Chris Smith, is paying in state tuition for his child enrolled at the University of Virginia. Smith is, in theory, representing the people of the Fourth District of New Jersey.

As if we didn’t already know that Chris Smith was out of touch with his New Jersey constituents. We learned not long ago that, in the last eight years, he has spent maybe two dozen nights a year in his home district (which is not in, say, Alaska, but only a reasonable two hours-plus by train from Washington, DC). He is basically a full-time resident of the great state (no disrespect meant here) of Virginia.

More after the jump.

This is a huge story that has the potential to reshape the media narrative in this fight. A number of major bloggers are covering this already.

Matt Stoller at Open Left has a diary up, as does Josh Marshall at TPM, and Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress. Blue Jersey has front paged this story as well, and is doing a great job of getting the word out to New Jersey Democrats.

This is a wave election, and this is our best chance in more than 25 years to sweep out a pro-deregulation, pro-Bush foreign policy conservative who is radical on social issues, especially those related to reproductive rights. Remember that Smith has introduced, on twenty two occasions, bills that would outlaw the common, everyday birth control pill and the IUD.

Josh Zeitz needs your help. Please consider volunteering as well as donating. To volunteer contact steve_at_joshzeitz_dot_com.

Thanks!

UPDATE: On September 16 EMILY’s List announced their endorsement of two more Congressional challengers: Becky Greenwald in IA-04 (D+0) and Sharen Neuhardt in OH-07 (R+6).



Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY’s List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district.

I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY’s List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to denigrate any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.

However, after comparing Greenwald’s race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY’s list is not more involved in IA-04.

Follow me after the jump for more.

First things first: IA-04 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+0. Since 2004, every Congressional district in Iowa has seen big gains in Democratic voter registration, which surged in connection with this year’s presidential caucuses. For the first time since Iowa’s districts were last redrawn, IA-04 now has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Democrats have an advantage in the generic Congressional ballot nationwide, but what may be more relevant for this district is Barack Obama’s big lead over John McCain in Iowa (double-digits according to the two most recent polls). The Obama campaign’s enormous ground game in Iowa will be working in Greenwald’s favor too. Her staffers and volunteers seem pleased with the level of coordination between the campaigns’ turnout efforts.

Turning to Greenwald as a candidate, you can see from her bio that she has strong roots in the district as well as experience in the business world and a history of volunteering for causes including the Iowa Democratic Party. She dominated the four-way Demomcratic primary on June 3, winning over 50 percent of the vote. As of June 30, she had raised about $143,000 for her campaign but had only about $82,000 cash on hand because of her competitive primary.

Several Iowa political analysts observed this summer that Greenwald can beat Tom Latham if she can raise enough money to compete. Latham serves on the House Appropriations Committee and was sitting on more than $800,000 cash on hand as of June 30. Then again, plenty of well-funded incumbents have lost seats in Congress when facing a big wave toward the other party. Cook has this race as likely R, but I would consider it lean R. There have been no public polls on the race yet.

The current reporting period ends September 30. I don’t have inside information about Greenwald’s cash on hand now, but I know she has been aggressively fundraising all summer long. I assume things have gone fairly well on that front, because the DCCC just put IA-04 on its “Emerging Races” list. One thing working in Greenwald’s favor is that the Des Moines and Mason City markets, which cover most of the 28 counties in the district, are not too expensive for advertising. So, she can be up on the air for several weeks, even though she clearly won’t be able to match Latham dollar for dollar.

Side note: Shortly after the Democratic primary in IA-04, the sore loser who finished third vowed to run for Congress as an independent. However, he quickly turned his attention to the fight against Iowa’s new smoking ban. He then failed to submit petitions to qualify for the ballot, took down his Congressional campaign website and reportedly moved to Florida. In other words, he won’t be a factor in November.

Why should EMILY’s list get involved in this race? Not only is Greenwald a good fit for the district, she is pro-choice whereas Latham has a perfect zero rating on votes related to abortion rights.

As a bonus, Greenwald has the potential to end Iowa’s disgrace as one of only two states that have never sent a woman to Congress or elected a woman governor.

Now, I will briefly examine the six candidates for U.S. House whom EMILY’s list most recently endorsed. As I said earlier, I don’t mean to knock any of these candidates, but I do question why these districts would be considered more winnable than IA-04.

1. Anne Barth. She is running against incumbent Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia’s second district (R+5, somewhat more Republican than IA-04). Cook has this race as lean R, Swing State Project sees it as likely R. As of June 30, Barth had about $353,000 cash on hand, compared to more than $1.2 million for Capito. My understanding is that this district is quite expensive for advertising because of its proximity to Washington, DC.

2. Sam Bennett. She is running against incumbent Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District (D+2, slightly more Democratic than IA-04). Cook and Swing State Project both rate this race as likely R, although Chris Bowers is optimistic given the partisan lean of the district. As of June 30, Bennett had just under $354,000 cash on hand, compared to about $687,000 for Dent.

3. Jill Derby. She is running against incumbent Dean Heller, who beat her in the 2006 election to represent Nevada’s second district (R+8, markedly more Republican than IA-04). It’s not too uncommon for Congressional candidates to win on their second attempt, but Cook and Swing State Project both view this district as likely R. As of June 30, Derby had about $314,000 cash on hand, while Heller had just over $1 million in the bank.

4. Judy Feder. This is another rematch campaign, as incumbent Frank Wolf beat Feder by a comfortable margin in 2006 in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District (R+5). Again, Cook and Swing State Project agree that this is a likely R district. As of June 30, Feder was doing quite well in the money race with about $812,000 cash on hand, not too far behind Wolf’s $849,000.

5. Annette Taddeo. She is running against incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Florida’s 18th Congressional District (R+4). Cook and Swing State Project both rank this district as likely R. Taddeo made a great impression on people at Netroots Nation and had just under $444,000 in the bank on June 30, while the incumbent reported nearly $1.9 million.

6. Victoria Wulsin. In 2006, she fell just short against incumbent “Mean Jean” Schmidt in Ohio’s second district (R+13). Granted, Schmidt is ineffective as an incumbent, which is probably why Swing State Project has this in the lean R category (it’s likely R according to Cook). Wulsin also had about $378,000 in the bank on June 30, compared to about $390,000 for Schmidt. Still, this is a markedly more Republican district than IA-04.

I understand that EMILY’s List does not have unlimited resources, but I still find it surprising that they have not jumped in to support Greenwald. A little money goes a long way in the Mason City and Des Moines media markets.

If you want to help send her to Congress, go here and give what you can. September 15 is her birthday, by the way.

I look forward to reading your comments about EMILY’s list or any of these Congressional races.

 

Cross-posted at Election Inspection

 Before looking at whether or not the Democrats can expect to get the magic sixty, lets review the seats which have the potential to flip, starting from the ones most likely to flip to the ones least likely to flip (anything not listed here means that we consider the seats to be completely safe). (Note, these are all Election Inspection's ratings) 

Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

• Virginia (Warner)
• New Mexico (Domenici)

• Sununu (New Hampshire)
• Landrieu (Lousiana)
• Colorado (Allard)
• Stevens (Alaska)

Leans Republican

• Smith (Oregon)
• Coleman (Minnesota)
• Collins (Maine)
• Wicker (Mississippi-B)
• McConnell (Kentucky)

Likely Republican (Open Seat retention)

• Idaho (Craig)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republican Incumbent)

• Dole (North Carolina)
• Cornyn (Texas)
• Inhofe (Oklahoma)
• Roberts (Kansas)

First of all, I think we can safely assume that Democrats will win in New Mexico and Virginia, so we can start off with a net gain of two seats for the Democrats. So, to start off with in the second session, the Democrats are basically guaranteed to start from a vantage point of 50 seats. With the way the Leans Democratic races have been playing out (including the newly added AK-Sen), I'm pretty confident that the Democrats will win at least three and probably all four (Pollster shows Democrats leading by at least 5 points in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Alaska) and while it seems like it's close in Louisiana, with the exception of Zogby, Landrieu has shown to have a consistent lead of no less than 3 points (with the most recent Rasmussen poll giving Landrieu a 5 point edge). So, we'll give the Democrats three more seats and put them up to 53 seats (by the way, this doesn't include Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman who caucus with the Democrats). Alright, so the score now should be at Democrats 53 guaranteed seats and Republicans with 34 guaranteed seats. Now then, let's assume that Republicans win all of the seats which I consider to be either Likely or a potential Dark-horse (which, realistically, is more likely to happen than not), Republicans will have 38 seats (from now on, I'm going to consider Sanders to be a Democrat, for the purposes of voting, which gives the Democrats 54 seats and I'm going to consider Lieberman a wild-card as far as voting in concerned since, even though Lieberman has taken a more Conservative position on several issues, he is still considered to be more likely to support Democratic domestic agendas than Republican ones). So we have a score of 54-39-1, which means that for Democrats to win a filibuster-proof Senate which doesn't rely on Lieberman, they'll have to win 6 additional seats on top of the 5 which I'm projecting for them to win already, now how realistic a shot to Democrats have at this? 

I believe that more likely than not, Democrats will win in Louisiana, so we'll give the Democrats that extra seat which puts the score at 55-39-1 (5 undecided). I also think that Republicans should win in Kentucky. so the score now stands at 55-40-1 (4 undecided), which also basically eliminates any reasonable possibility of Democrats getting to the magic 60 number without Lieberman (which, might not be as bad as people think). So, that means that whether or not the Democrats can get to a filibuster proof senate rests on Minnesota, Maine, Oregon, and Mississippi-B. Mississippi-B and Oregon look to be within striking distance but Maine and Minnesota, seem to be moving away from us, so right now, I'd say that, at most, Democrats will probably end up with 57 seats (including Sanders) Republicans with 42 seats, and Joe Lieberman as a wild-card in the Senate.

Doesn't look like we're going to get our filibuster-proof majority this time around, but we'll do well enough that it's possible we can set 2010 up to get there.

Cross-posted at Election Inspection under elliotka and at Daily Kos under NMLib

Ok, for a bit of a break in the primary action, it’s time to start looking at some Senate races. Basically, what I’m going to do is do a ranking system much like Charlie Cook does, only I will also be giving a fairly detailed analysis of each race, also the races which would normally be classified as “likely” for incumbent parties, I’m going to label as Possible Darkhorse Races. Finally, I’m going to do this list in multiple posts, as to be more thorough with each race. I will not be giving an analysis of any incumbent races which I see as being completely uncompetitive, just because there’s no reason for it.

(Formating note: races with an incumbent running for re-election will have that incumbent followed by the state in parenthesis, and vice-versa for open seat contests)

Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

• Virginia (Warner)

Solid Democratic (Retention)

• Kerry (Massachusetts)
• Durbin (Illinois)
• Baucus (Montana)
• Johnson (South Dakota)
• Levin (Michigan)
• Lautenberg (New Jersey)
• Harkin (Iowa)
• Biden (Delaware)
• Reed (Rhode Island)
• Pryor (Arkansas)
• Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Leans Democratic (Pick-up)

• New Mexico (Domenici)
• Sununu (New Hampshire)

Leans Democratic (Retention)

• Landrieu (Lousiana)

Toss-up

• Colorado (Allard)
• Coleman (Minnesota)

Leans Republican (Retention)

• Smith (Oregon)
• Collins (Maine)

Solid Republican (Retention)

• Graham (South Carolina)
• McConnell (Kentucky)
• Enzi (Wyoming-A)
• Barrasso (Wyoming-B)
• Sessions (Alabama)
• Roberts (Kansas)
• Cochran (Mississippi-A)
• Chambliss (Georgia)
• Alexander (Tennessee)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republicans)

• Idaho (Craig)
• Wicker (Mississippi-B)
• Dole (North Carolina)
• Stevens (Alaska)*
• Nebraska (Hagel)
• Cornyn (Texas)
• Inhofe (Oklahoma)

I’m going to try to break these posts into looking at each category separately. And so we’ll start with the single Solid Democratic pick-up seat:

Virginia

• Status: Open Seat
• Ranking: Solid Democratic (Pick-up)

Democrat running: Mark Warner (former governor)

• Money raised Quarter 4: $2.7 million
• Cash on Hand as of 2007: $2.9 million

Republican running: Jim Gilmore

• Money raised Quarter 4: $343,000
• Cash on Hand as of 2007: $183,000

Polling from Virginia

• Rasmussen (Released January 3) Warner 53% Gilmore 38%
• Survey USA (Released November 5) Warner 57% Gilmore 35%

Analysis: This is probably going to be the most lop-sided victory by the challenging party in the entire season. What’s really ironic is that this race could’ve been a lot more competitive had the Republicans rallied behind Northern Virginia Congressman Tom Davis, who not only had a base of support in Democratic-leaning Northern Virginia, but could actually fundraise effectively. Instead the Republicans rallied behind decidedly unpopular former governor Jim Gilmore (who was forced to drop out of the presidential race because of, you guessed it, lack of funds). The only possible way to describe Gilmore is with what Senate2008Guru has said “Jim Gilmore… hahahahahahahahaha”  The real irony of this particular race is that Mark Warner was also considering a presidential run this time around, but one of the more interesting rumors I’ve heard is that he decided against running because many of the donors who would’ve given to his campaign had already pledged themselves to Barack Obama (this hasn’t generated bad blood though, since Warner is, behind the scenes, rooting for Obama). So what we are left with is a race with a top-tier Democratic candidate who could’ve easily run a fifty-state strategy against an third-tier candidate who no one knows or likes. You can see why I rank this race Solid Democratic.

Next time: New Mexico and New Hampshire (and possibly Louisiana)