Tag: Congress

District 1: Western Camden, Gloucester, northern Salem. Camden, Cherry Hill, Haddonfield, Woodbury, Glassboro.

District 2: Cumberland, Southern Salem, Cape May, southeastern Atlantic, Vineland, Bridgeton, Cape May, Cape May Courthouse, Atlantic City, Wildwood.

District 3: Northwestern Atlantic, most of  Ocean, parts of southern Monmouth. Mays Landing, Tuckerton, Manahawkin, Lacy, Jackson, Stafford, New Gretna, Howell, Wall.

District 4: Extreme southwestern Warren, western Hunterdon, western Mercer, northwestern Burlington,Trenton,Lawrenceville,Phillipsburg,

Lambertville,Mt. Holly, Riverside, Ewing, Hamilton.

District 5: Most of Hunterdon, Somerset, extreme western Union, Southwestern Middlesex, central and western Monmouth, Flemington, Sommerville, Bound Brook, Bedminster, Westfield, Jamesburg,

Monroe, Holmdel, Shrewsbury, Freehold, Manalapan.

District 6: Bayshore of Monmouth, coastal Monmouth, coastal Ocean, Keyport, Hazlet, Red Bank, Middletown, Long Branch, Asbury Park, Point Pleasant, Seaside Heights.

District 7: Northeastern Middlesex, most of Union,Metuchen, Edison, Clark, Woodbridge, Sayreville, Old Bridge, Plainfield, Mountainside, Summitt, Liden, Elizabeth, Rahway.  

District 8: Eastern Morris, southeastern Passaic, Morristown, Patterson, Wayne, Pompton Plains.

District 9: Most of Bergen, Hackensack, Ft. Lee, E. Rutherford, Bogota, Tenafly.

District 10: Most of Essex,Newark, West Orange, Irvington, Caldwell.

District 11: Most of Warren, Sussex, northwestern Passaic, western and central Morris,Newton, Sparta, Ogdensburg, Belvidere, Cedar Knolls, Mahwah, Totowa.

District 12: Most of Hudson, parts of southern Bergen, West New York, Bayonne, Jersey City, Weehawken, Union City, Hoboken.

Progressive Punch has added a new and incredibly useful layer of analysis to its rankings of members of Congress by voting record.

The “Select by Score” pages now indicate how progressive representatives and senators are compared to the districts and states they represent.

Select by Score Senate rankings

Select by Score House rankings

As before, you see members of the House and Senate ranked from most progressive to least progressive, based on all votes as well as on certain “crucial votes.” Calculating a separate score for “crucial votes” reveals which Democrats are not reliable when the chips are down. This helps prevent gaming of the system, as when Joe Lieberman voted against filibustering Samuel Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court, then turned around and voted against confirming him.

For the new feature, Progressive Punch has placed every state and Congressional district into one of five categories: strong D, lean D, swing, lean R, and strong R. Each Congress-critter’s “crucial vote” score is then compared to the political lean of the district or state. In the right-hand column on the “Select by Score” pages, every member of Congress now has a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most progressive. Progressive Punch explains:

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress’ voting record has been in relation to his/her district. We’re grading on a curve. Five stars in the “Rating” column indicate members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states or districts. Those with one star are performing the worst in relation to their districts.

For more details on the methodology behind this analysis, click here for House ratings and here for Senate ratings.

Why is this useful? It’s now much easier to see which Democrats in Congress are voting about as well as could be expected, and which ones should be doing a lot better.  

Here are a few examples. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have identical lifetime progressive scores on crucial votes. However, since Feinstein represents a strong Democratic state (CA) and Reid represents a swing state (NV), Feinstein gets a 1 while Reid gets a 3.

Ron Wyden (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) have very similar lifetime scores, but Wyden and Klobuchar get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat states. Mikulski gets a 3 when graded on a curve that takes into account Maryland’s solid Democratic profile.

Similarly, Daniel Inouye (HI) gets a 1, while Jon Tester (MT) gets a 3 for almost the same “crucial vote” score, because Montana leans Republican.

Jeff Bingaman (NM), Jim Webb (VA) and Byron Dorgan (ND) have very similar progressive lifetime scores, but Bingaman gets a 2 for representing a lean-Democrat state, Webb gets a 3 for representing a swing state, and Dorgan gets a 4 for representing a lean-Republican state.

Scanning down the Select by Score House page, a few Democrats stand out. There’s Timothy Bishop (NY-01) with a 5 rating for how he represents his swing district, while most of the House members with similar lifetime scores get 3s, because they represent strong Democratic districts.

Dave Obey (WI-07) and Peter DeFazio (OR-04) get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat districts. Most of the House members with similar lifetime progressive scores get 3s.

Amid a large group of House Democrats who get a 2 when their crucial vote score is compared to how strongly Democratic their districts are, James Oberstar (MN-08) gets a 4 for a similar progressive score because he represents a swing district, while Michael Michaud (ME-02) and Paul Hodes (NH-02) get a 3 because their districts lean Democratic.

How can progressives use this information? One way would be to determine which incumbents in safe Democratic seats should face more pressure from the left. In extreme cases, this pressure could include a primary challenge.

Also, these rankings reveal which Democratic primaries should become top priorities for progressives when incumbents retire. For example, John Murtha (PA-12) and Henry Cuellar (TX-28) represent strongly Democratic districts but vote like Democrats representing swing or Republican districts.

I discussed Iowa representatives’ rankings in more detail at Bleeding Heartland. The relatively low score for Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was no surprise, but Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) didn’t fare much better when graded on the Progressive Punch curve that took into account their strongly Democratic districts.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running radio ads in 28 Congressional districts held by Republicans.

Link:

The ads focus on the Republicans out of step priorities by putting bank bail outs and building schools in Iraq before the needs of the Americans in the struggling economy. The Putting Families First ads begin airing on Tuesday morning during drive time and will run for a week.

In addition to the strategic radio ads in 28 Republican districts, the DCCC will also begin a grassroots initiative which includes targeted e-mails to 3 million voters and nearly 100,000 person-to-person telephone calls.

House Republicans just don’t get it.  They celebrate being the party of no and status quo, while more than 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs, the stock market has plummeted wiping out nearly $7 trillion stock market wealth and endangering thousands of investors’ nest eggs, and one in 10 homeowners was delinquent on mortgage payments or in foreclosure this fall.

“These are serious times, hard working families are worried about keeping their jobs, health care and homes – they want action, not House Republicans cheering about doing nothing,” said Brian Wolff, Executive Director of the DCCC. “Republicans’ champagne wishes and caviar dreams simply don’t connect with middle class families struggling to make ends meet and furious that their tax dollars are going to bail out banks, build schools in Iraq, or send American jobs overseas.  The Putting Families First campaign is only the first step, we will continue to go district by district to hold Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep with party leaders and against the folks in their districts accountable.”

There are several versions of the ad, all featuring elements of the economic stimulus bill (click here for transcripts). Here is one focusing on the education angle:

Did you know Congressman Thad McCotter opposed over $526 million to modernize crumbling Michigan schools, but supported building new schools in Iraq?  Times are tough, tell Thad McCotter to put American jobs first.

If you’ve heard any of these radio ads, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) to let me know where you are and what issue it covered.

There is a lot of overlap between the 28 districts where DCCC ads are running and this list of the 20 most vulnerable House Republicans going into 2010, which Crisitunity compiled at Swing State Project last month. However, there are a handful of Republicans on Crisitunity’s list who are not (yet) being targeted by the DCCC’s ad campaign.

Conversely, the ads are running in some districts where the incumbents may not seem vulnerable at first glance. Tom Latham did not make Crisitunity’s list after he won re-election by more than 20 points in November, despite the fact that Barack Obama carried Iowa’s fourth district. However, the DCCC is running ads in IA-04 and clearly has not ruled out making a serious play for this district in 2010.

It’s worth noting that Bruce Braley (IA-01) is now the DCCC’s vice chair responsible for “offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.”

Taking out Latham in 2010 would make it highly likely for Iowa Democrats to hold three out of the four Congressional districts we will have after the next census. Even if we don’t beat him in 2010, running a strong campaign against Latham could bring down his favorables and improve our chances of holding IA-03 if that district includes Story County in 2012.

UPDATE: At Daily Kos, brownsox demolishes Fred Hiatt’s criticism of this ad campaign.

Hello! I’m Charlie Wheelan and I’m running for Congress in the 5th District of Illinois to replace Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who has resigned to serve as Barack Obama’s chief of staff.

You can learn more about me at

http://www.WheelanforCongress.com

This was a remarkable day. I remember when Barack Obama spoke at our neighbor’s house, just over the back alley, when he was beginning his run for the Senate. I remember sitting with Leah at the kitchen table reading in the Sun-Times that Obama might run for president, and being thrilled by the mere idea of it. And I remember standing outside the old Capitol in Springfield on a cold January day when he made his official announcement for president-the bookend to what we watched today.

Obama was obviously on the front page of today’s Chicago Tribune. But I want to draw your attention to David Greising’s column in the business section, which focuses on my candidacy. He writes of my candidacy, “This is part of what makes this country great. Congress is chock-full of politicians, certainly. But there are also are a smattering of citizens who get motivated, leave lives of comfort, put themselves in front of the people and try to do some good.”

The timing of the column is not coincidence. Greising writes that Inauguration Day-“when a once-obscure former University of Chicago law professor takes the presidential oath of office”-is a good time to contemplate how a tough race can turn out well. I urge you to read the whole article and pass it on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…

If you’re inspired today, please help us capture that momentum to upgrade Congress as well.

Thanks,

Charlie

This is part one of my three part series of diaries that I will be publishing this weekend handicapping the major 2010 races in the state of Michigan.

Today I will be publishing my U.S. House outlook, tomorrow the State Senate, and Sunday the State House of Representatives.  

House District 1: Upper Peninsula and Northern Lower Peninsula.  On Monday, Republicans announced that they plan to challenge Bart Stupak again in 2010.  Apparently Pete Sessions has not learned the lesson that Tom Cole learned in 2008.  For those not familiar with the story, State Rep. Tom Casperson was recruited to run against Stupak by Tom Cole, and national Republicans hyped Casperson as a top tier challenger and golden opportunity for Republicans to knock off the popular moderate Democrat.  No such thing happened, and Casperson was pounded by Stupak 65-33.  

Now, maybe Sessions thinks that Stupak will retire.  I’ll admit, it’s possible.  But that still leaves them with the problem of recruiting a Republican with any significant name recognition.  Casperson may run again, or he may run for the State Senate.  Either way, if he couldn’t break 35% against Stupak, I doubt he could win an open seat.  Another Republican possibility is State Rep. Kevin Elsenheimer who will be term limited in 2010, but Elsenheimer is from the lower peninsula, not the U.P.  I doubt that any Republican could win this if they aren’t from the U.P., and even a downstate Democrat would have a hard time if the Republican is from the U.P.  Elsenheimer is the only Republican state legislator who lives in the 1st District, so he may start out as a front runner if he runs.

As for Democrat Candidates if there’s an open seat, the favorite should be term limited State Senator and Minority Leader Mike Prusi, but State Reps. Mike Lindberg, Mike Lahti, and Gary McDowell would all be formidable opponents to any Republican.

Rating: Safe Democrat, (Leans Democrat if Stupak Retires).

District 2: Lake Michigan Shoreline, Muskegon, Ottawa County.  The 2nd District is the most Repulbican in the state of Michigan.  It is historically conservative, very Evangelical, and has a high Dutch population.  Congressman Pete Hoekstra has already announced that he is going to retire in 2010, probably to run for Governor.

Encouraged by Barack Obama’s good showing in this district, some might be inclined to view this as a potential Democratic pickup.  I think that the chances of a Democrat winning this district is slim to none.  Republican state legislators are already lining up to succeed Hoekstra, and I doubt any notable Democrat would risk there political career to run against any one of them.

State Senator Wayne Kuipers (R) and State Rep. Bill Huizenga (R) are both running already.  Both are from Ottawa county, the conservative base of the District.  State Senator Gerald VanWoerkom, a Republican from Muskegon, may run as well.  VanWoerkom is far more moderate, and if Kuipers and Huizenga split the conservative, Ottawa County vote, VanWoerkom could sneak up and win the Republican primary.

Democrat State Reps. Mary Valentine and Doug Bennett are the only Democrat elected officials in the district, but I doubt either would take on such a suicide mission.  Former State Rep. Julie Dennis may run, but I do not think she would be a very legitimate candidate.

Rating: Likely Republican

District 3:  Kent County (Grand Rapids).  The third District is also very republican, but not as conservative as the second District.  Vern Ehlers is safe if he runs for re election.  If he retires, Republicans would have a clear advantage, but the right Democrat could win this district.

If Ehlers retires, State Senators Jud Gilbert or Mike Hardiman would be likely replacements.  Former State Representative Michael Sak, a Democrat, would make a good candidate.  He is moderate, and from Grand Rapids city, but was recently criticized for alledgedly appearing drunk at a Governors assosciation meeting.  State Reps. Robert Dean or Wayne Schmidt could also run.

Rating: Safe Republican (Leans Republic an in Ehlers Retires)

District 4: Central lower Peninsula, Midland.  Rep. Dave Camp will likely run for re-election in 2010, and Democrats will likely not give him a vigorous challenge, even though the 4th is a swing district that Barack Obama won.  Freshman State Rep. Mike Huckleberry may challenge Camp, he already did so in 2006, but he is unlikely to do any better than he did then.  And I doubt he would want to give up his new seat, anyway.

Rating: Safe Republican

District 5: Flint, Saginaw, Bay City.  If Dale Kildee does not retire in 2010, expect a primary challenge from State Senator John Gleason.  Gleason considered challenging Kildee in 2008, but opted to stay in the Senate.  He is term limited in 2010.  Republicans will not seriously contest this seat, no matter who wins the Democratic Primary.  

Rating: Safe Democrat

District 6: South-West MI, Kalamzoo.  Moderate Republican Fred Upton may or may not run for re-election in 2010.  If he does, he is probably safe.  If not, the 6th District becomes a pure tossup.  Obama got 54% in this District, but Democrats have no significant bench of candidates here.

Robert Jones is the only elected Democratic legislator in the district, but he and his predeccessor, Alexander Lipsey, are both African-American.  I doubt an African American could win this district (it has a lot of conservative voters in Berrien and Van Buren Counties).  However, former Kalamazoo mayor and current Vice-Mayor Hannah McKinney would make a decent candidate.

Republicans Tonya Schuitimaker, John Proos, and Ron Jelinek could all run to succeed Upton if he retired.

Rating: Safe Republican (Tossup if Upton retires)

District 7:  South MI, Battle Creek, Jackson.  Freshman Mark Schauer will likely face a difficult re-election in 2010.  He only beat Rep. Tim Walberg 49-46 in 2008, certainly a smaller margin than I expected.

Possible Republican candidates include former Rep. Mike Nofs, Sen. Cameron Brown, and Rep. Rick Jones.  Walberg may run agian, but he is unlikely to beat Schauer in a rematch.  

Obama won this district, and the Republicans in this district tend to vote for Conservative Republicans in the Primary, rather than moderates (See Schwarz, Joe vs. Walberg, Tim).  A conservative Republican would have an uphill climb against Schauer.  All in all, Schauer will have the advantage of incumbency going for him, and should be favored.

Rating: Leans Democrat

District 8:  Lansing, Livingston County, N. Oakland County.  This may finally be the year that Democrats seriously challenge Mike Rogers.  In 2000, Rogers barely beat Democrat Diane Byrum to succeed Democrat Debbie Stabenow, who ran successfully for the Senate.  Since then, he has not been seriously challenged in this marginal district.

Rogers may run for governor, which would give Democrats an even better chance at picking up this district.  we have a strong bench here, as the district is centered around heavily Democratic Ingham County, home of Lansing.  Possible Democrats include Lansing mayor and former State Senator Virg Bernero, State Rep. and former East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows, State Senator Gretchen Whitimer, State Rep. Joan Bauer, and State Rep. Barb Byrum, daughter of 2000 candidate Diane Byrum.

If Rogers does run for Governor, Livingston State Senator Valde Garcia would be the likely Republican candidate.

Rating: Likely Republican (Tossup if Rogers runs for Governor)

District 9: Central Oakland County.  Freshman Gary Peters is the heavy favorite in this suburban Detroit district, even though he just defeated Republican incumbent Joe Knollenberg last November.  Like many suburban districts nationwide, this one has been trending Democratic for a while now.  Joe Knollenberg’s son state Rep. Marty Knollenberg may try to retak his father’s seat, but when an incumbent loses by 9%, his son is unlikely to do much better.

Rating: Likely Democrat

District 10: “The Thumb”, Northern Macomb County.  Republican Candice Miller is not likely to be challenged in 2010.  The former secretary of state may run for governor, however.  If she does, advantage still goes to the Republicans here.  Dem. John Espinoza may run for the open seat.  Republican Sen. Alan Sanborn is the likely favorite in an open seat.

Rating:  Safe Republican

District 11:  West Oakland County, North-East Wayne County.  Thad McCotter is in a very dangerous spot right now, and he knows it.  He only managed 51% in this once strongly Republican suburban district against a nobody in 2010.  He apparently senses the danger, and is willing to sell his soul to save his seat.

Democrats have a very strong bench in this district.  House speaker Andy Dillon lives here, and the DCCC will likely try to recruit him, as well as State Senator Glenn Anderson, who represents the Conservative city of Livonia.  Other candidates include State Reps. Marc Courriveau and Richard LeBlanc.  

McCotter used to be able to count on his base in Livonia to get re elected, but Livonia, like all of Wayne county, continues to trend Democratic. Novi, in Oakland County, was also a reliably Democratic part of the District.  But like the 11th District as a whole, Novi was won by Barack Obama.

Rating: Tossup

District 12: Parts of Oakland and Macomb Counties. Sander Levin is likely to run for re-election, but if he doesn’t look for his son, Andy Levin to run for his seat.  If not Levin, State Senator Gilda Jacobs may run.  Either way, the district is safe.

Rating: Safe Democrat

District 13:  Detroit.  The big question here is: Has the Kilpatrick scandal blown over?  If so, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick will be safe.  If there are still lingering doubts about her suport for her son, then she may well see a another vigorous Primary Challenge.  Mary Waters will probably run again, but there are other Detroit area legislators that may want to take her on as well.  Barack Obama may have broken 90% in this majority Black District, so the winning the Democratic Primary will be tantamount to winning the General Election.

Rating: Safe Democrat.

District 14:  Detroit.  Nothing to see here.  John Conyers is safe.

Rating: Safe Democrat

District 15:  Detroit suburbs, Monroe County, Ann Arbor.  I fully expect John Dingell to retire in 2010.  He just lost his committee chairmanship, and on top of that, he can barely walk.  If he does, watch either his wife, Debbie Dingell, or his son, Christopher Dingell.  Also watch former Congresswoman Lynn Rivers, who lost the 2002 primary to Dingell after the two were drawn together by redistricting.  Rivers is quite liberal and would made a very good congresswoman, in my opinion.

Rating: Safe Democrat

Representative Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has appointed two out of the DCCC’s three vice chairs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is the DCCC Vice Chair for incumbent retention. Bruce Braley of Iowa will be responsible for “offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.”

The third vice chair, yet to be named, “will seek to increase House member participation in DCCC efforts,” which presumably means getting more safe Democratic incumbents to pay their DCCC dues.

That’s going to be a big job, since the DCCC ended the 2008 campaign some $21 million in debt.

The debt has reportedly been reduced to $13 million, with the help of a $3.5 million transfer from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. But that is still a large debt, especially since Democrats have a lot of one-term and two-term representatives to defend in 2010, which will probably be a less favorable political environment for the party.

According to Politico,

Democrats are gearing up for a tougher, more defensive cycle. While Democrats want to take advantage of Obama’s bank account, party officials are anxious about getting out of the red and are telling members and donors to pay up – quickly.

Democratic leaders put the squeeze on last month, asking each member in a memo for $35,000 before Christmas. The memo also listed, by name, those who had paid their committee dues and those who hadn’t.

Shortly before the election, Chris Bowers spearheaded an effort to put grassroots pressure on safe Democratic incumbents who had not paid their DCCC dues. We all have a lot on our plate this year, and Bowers is recovering from a broken arm, but the netroots need to assist the DCCC vice chair for member participation once that person has been named. We should not wait until a few weeks before the 2010 election to start pressuring incumbents who are delinquent on DCCC dues. The sooner the DCCC retires its debt, the easier it will be to recruit strong challengers and build a healthy bank balance for the next campaign.

If you are willing to help with this effort in any way (such as compiling a spreadsheet showing who has not paid and how to contact those representatives), please post a comment in this thread.

Bruce Braley was elected to Congress in 2006 with the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program. In 2008 he helped manage the DCCC’s Red to Blue efforts. For the next election cycle, he’s been promoted again.

From a release Braley’s office sent out on Tuesday:

The DCCC today named the second of its three Vice Chairs – Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) will serve as Vice Chair for candidate services, responsible for the DCCC’s offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.  

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said, “The DCCC will stay aggressive this cycle and continue to challenge Republicans who are out of step with their districts.  As a former chair and former member of the Red to Blue program, Bruce Braley knows first hand what it takes to be a successful candidate; his battle tested leadership will be a real asset to our candidates facing tough elections.”

Congressman Bruce Braley brings his experience as chair of the DCCC’s successful and effective 2008 Red to Blue Program and as a former member of the Red to Blue Program.

Vice Chair Bruce Braley said, “I’m looking forward to continuing my work at the DCCC in this new leadership role.  It’s critical for us to continue assisting our candidates with the money, messaging and mobilization they will need to get elected in the 2010 election cycle.  I will work hard to help our candidates win their races.”

Congressman Bruce Braley will serve as Vice Chair for candidate services.  The DCCC’s candidate services include recruiting, money, and training.  A Vice Chair focusing on Member participation will be named at a later date.

Last month, Van Hollen named Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida the DCCC Vice Chair for incumbent retention. Given her refusal to endorse three Democratic challengers to Republican incumbents in south Florida, it was appropriate for Van Hollen to remove her from a leadership role in the Red to Blue program.

The third vice chair “will seek to increase House member participation in DCCC efforts,” which presumably means getting more safe Democratic incumbents to pay their DCCC dues.

So Braley’s niche will be finding and capitalizing on opportunities to pick up Republican-held seats. 2010 is likely to be a more challenging environment for Democratic candidates than the past two cycles, but it’s good to know the DCCC is planning to remain on offense as well. We have a chance to achieve a political realignment, given the Democratic advantages with certain demographic groups in recent elections. Building on our success in 2006 and 2008 will require the DCCC to do more than protect our own vulnerable incumbents.

Good luck to Representative Braley in his new role. He’ll be quite busy the next couple of years, with a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a Populist Caucus to lead.

(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a preliminary report of the 2008 election showing congressional districts won by a member of a party other than the winner of the presidential vote in the district (i.e. “ticket-splitting” districts that voted Obama-R or McCain-D). I performed my analysis using a combination of factors, most importantly: county by county federal election returns in 2008 compared to prior years, familiarity with the partisan breakdowns of the respective congressional districts (using tools like PVI, 2006 Almanac of American Politics etc) and in some cases, the margin of victory in congressional districts won by the opposing party or where the incumbent held on narrowly. Not all states break down their results by Congressional districts (VA and NE are immediate exceptions), but some states are easier to report absent this metric (e.g. At-Large as well as small states like NH, ME, etc).  

Update: Some posters have noted that I may be wrong about IN-2, in that Obama may have carried it (i.e. McCain may have won 49 seats) while I may have incorrectly excluded MI-11 from Obama’s total (because he dominated Oakland Count in MI). I will go back and check my data and correct ASAP. In the mean time, pls keep firing away. Tks

Update 2: Rechecked the data on Donnelly and have corrected accordingly. Obama did win IN-02, so McCain/D is down by 1. Also, a very sharp poster pointed out Obama won WI-6 by the itsy bitiest margin, which surpised me a lot about that district, so chalk one up for an additional Obama/R +1. Will still look at MI-11 and KS-3.

Update 3: Looks like Mary Jo Kilroy won OH-15, so 111th Congress will be 257 (D) to 178 (R). Basically, the GOP goes back to what it had in Jan 1993. Well…you play the cards you are dealt.

I have been following this metric since the 1980s and even going back to the 1970s, when, in some elections, 40% or more congressional districts were ticket-splitters (e.g. in 1972 and 1984, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively, each, won over 180 Democratic held congressional districts). I am very familiar with the federal voting patterns of many of these districts even after redistricting, but I will not claim that my analysis is 100% correct. I believe I am sure of 90% of them and may be within a few hundred or 1-2k of the remaining 10%. Of these 10%, I included an asterisk (*) after the district number, as noted below, I did not expect would be ticket-splitters but don’t have enough data to say that otherwise (or vice versa)

The more accurate reports for the incoming 111th Congress will be published by folks like Congressional Quarterly or the Almanac of American Politics by Feb or March 2009 at the earliest. However, I did my own analysis and came up with what I believe is close to what the final data will reveal. I don’t believe Virgil Goode can win the recount against Tom Periello in VA-5 nor do I see Carmouche (sadly, since he was by far the better candidate) overtaking Fleming in LA-4 as it was such a low turnout election). Based on this allocation, the Obama-R and McCain-D districts are as follows:

OBAMA/R CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS (32 total)

Gallegly (CA-24); Dreier (CA-26)*; Bono-Mack (CA-45)*; Bilbray (CA-50); Castle (DE-AL); Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)*; Young (FL-10); Latham (IA-4); Roskam (IL-6); Kirk (IL-10); Biggert (IL-13); Johnson (IL-15)*; Manzullo (IL-16); Schock (IL-18)*; Cao (LA-2); Camp (MI-4); Upton (MI-6); Rogers (MI-8); Paulsen (MN-3); Terry (NE-2); Lobiondo (NJ-2); Smith (NJ-4); Lance (NJ-7); King (NY-3)*; LaTourette (OH-14); Gerlach (PA-6); Dent (PA-15); Forbes (VA-4); Wolf (VA-10); Reichert (WA-8); Ryan(WI-1) and Petri (WI-6).

MCCAIN/D CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS (49 total)

Bright (AL-2); Griffith (AL-5); Berry (AR-1); Snyder (AR-2); Ross (AR-4); Kirkpatrick (AZ-1); Mitchell (AZ-5); Giffords (AZ-8)*; Markey (CO-4); Salazar (CO-3); Boyd (FL-2); Marshall (GA-8); Minnick (ID-1); Ellsworth (IN-8); Hill (IN-9); Moore (KS-3); Chandler (KY-6); Melancon (LA-3); Kratovil (MD-1); Peterson (MN-07); Childers (MS-1); Taylor (MS-4); Skelton (MO-4); Pomeroy (ND-AL); Teague (NM-2); McMahon (NY-13); Massa (NY-29); Etheridge (NC-2); McIntyre (NC-7); Shuler (NC-11); Wilson (OH-6); Boccieri (OH-16); Space (OH-18); Boren (OK-2); Dahlkemper (PA-3); Altmire (PA-4); Carney (PA-10); Murtha (PA-12); Spratt (SC-5); Hersheth-Sandlin (SD-AL); Davis (TN-4); Gordon (TN-6); Tanner (TN-8); Periello (VA-5); Boucher (VA-9); Mollohan (WV-1); Rahall (WV-3); Edwards (TX-17) and Matheson (UT-2).

Obama will have won 208 Democratic held congressional districts and 32 Republican held congressional districts: total of 240; McCain will have won 146 Republican held congressional districts and 49 Democratic-held congressional districts: total of 195.

A few key things to keep in mind:

Historical Patterns: As has been the case since 1968, but with the exception of Bill Clinton in 1996, the GOP Presidential nominee, win or lose, has won more ticket-splitting districts than the Democratic Presidential nominee. Compared to 2004 when John Kerry won 18 Republican held congressional districts while George Bush won 41 Democratic held congressional districts, Obama did better than Kerry by wining 14 more GOP held districts while McCain got 8 more Democratic-held districts. However, this “improvement” is masked by the fact that Democrats retook the House in 2006 with a 31 seat pickup and appear to have increased their margin by 21 seats in 2008. One way of looking at this data is to see which ticket-splitting districts are held by freshman members and/or which ones are held by freshman members succeeding or defeating a politician from the opposing party. On that metric, only 1 Obama-R district, Aaron Schock of IL-18*, is held by a freshmen and no Obama-R district switched from Democrat to Republican control (i.e. they were all GOP retentions); whereas all but 1 of the 12 McCain-D districts won by a freshman was a Democratic retention (Parker Griffith AL-5 succeed retiring Democrat Bud Cramer). This suggests that virtually all ticket-splitting districts held by freshmen are Democratic defenses. This may be a good or bad thing: good in that they may have a better chance to hold in an off-year election when turnout is lower but bad in that absent the weight of Bush or a poorly run GOP presidential campaign, the GOP may be able to focus more intently on partisan affiliation in these districts.

As for how this portends for Obama getting difficult measures through the 111th Congress, note that just because Obama won a district that voted for the GOP doesn’t mean he can expect the Republican to support him more often than not. For example, Bill Clinton won 50 ticket-splitting seats in 1992 yet not one single House Republican (or even Senate Republican for that matter) voted for his Budget Bill in August 1993; a mere 10 months after he won their districts. A president is only as strong as his popularity projects and seeing that there are now fewer Republican moderates in the House, I won’t be surprised if Obama has to pass a lot of difficult legislation on Democratic only votes.

Redistricting and Partisanship Voting: One cannot underestimate how big an impact this has had on voting results in some districts. This may in part explain why wave elections may be less frequent and evenly distributed across the country than before. In TX and CA, many Democratic under-funded challengers to non-stellar GOP house members lost. In the case of CA, redistricting was a major firewall for them even though Obama, in dominating the state, won 4 GOP held seats. In TX it was a combination of redistricting and straight ticket voting which hurt folks like Larry Joe Daugherty and Mike Skelly and almost brought down Chet Edwards. For Democrats to have a better shot at improving their margins, they have to look at redistricting. I happen to think that non-partisan redistricting using what I call the “contiguous-county rule” (see an example by Andrew White at Albany Project http://www.thealbanyproject.co… would help Democrats (and Republicans) in the long run, but that is a debate for another day and another diary. Suffice to say, had Dems faced districts like that in CA, David Dreier, Mary Bono-Mack (I love this hyphenated name), Brian Bilbray, Dan Lundgren and possibly Dana Rohrabacher would have lost while Nick Lampson and Charlie Brown would have won.

Surprises: I’m not surprised that Obama may have won all but one GOP held seat in his home state of Illinois* or that McCain may have won 3 of the 5 Democratic held congressional districts in his home state of Arizona*. However, a few things to note across the regions:

• EAST COAST: Not sure what else is here but suffice to say New England is to the Democrats what the Deep South is to the GOP. Obama’s only weak Dem seats are in NY-13, NY-29 (both of which he lost) and NY-3 (which he won narrowly). In NY-13, I suspect Obama’s narrow loss may have been due to residual racism among conservative Jewish voters in southwestern Brooklyn and unfounded fears that Obama may be a Muslim; NY-29 is the most republican district in NY state so his loss there was not unexpected, but NY-3 was weaker for Obama because he underperformed Kerry and Gore among the white-working class voters in the southern portion of the district where most voters live and with the wealthier and heavily Jewish neighborhoods in the northern portion of the district. In NJ, Obama did win one additional ticket-splitting seat by capturing Leonard Lance’s NJ-7 (which, but for a flawed nominee, was ripe for a Dem takeover). No other real surprises were noted from DE down to MD, though it appears that Obama improved on all prior Democratic performances in MD’s Anne Arundel County, a critical Republican leaning area.

• MID-WEST: Obama over-performed Gore and Kerry in the Mid-West not only because of huge margins in the cities but also did very well in many suburban Republican counties that even Bill Clinton did not carry. The clearest example was Cincinnati, OH; GOP counties around Indianapolis and Dupage County in Illinois. However, Obama does have an Appalachia problem (or the other way round) and for the first time since 1988, the Democratic nominee lost PA-12, Jack Murtha’s district (though Obama won Tim Holden’s PA-17 thanks to his smashing victory in Berks County, which Bill Clinton, Gore and Kerry all lost). Obama suffered heavy losses across KY, Southern OH and IN which accounted for McCain’s ticket-splitting seats in some of these districts (Charlie Wilson OH-6 and Baron Hill in IN-9, to mention a few). Yet even though he lost most of the congressional districts in OH and IN, he still won both states. Obama won Paul Ryan’s southern Wisconsin district (which I guess, makes Ryan one of a handful of very conservative GOP members representing a district won by Obama). Michigan was a case where the GOP effectively collapsed at all levels when McCain pulled out (might have happened regardless) and Obama’s coattails probably helped Mike Schaeur and Gary Peters win longtime GOP districts. Additionally, Obama came very close to winning John Kline’s district in MN-2 and Colin Peterson’s in MN-7 but underperformed Elwynn Tinkelberg who narrowly lost to Michelle Bachmann. Finally, while Missouri was not the bellwether in 2008, it was the narrowest state (Obama lost by less than 4k votes). I think he will carry the state in 2012 but 4 years is a lifetime in politics.

• SOUTH: This is a tough area for Dems regardless of who the nominee is. With the exception of six Democratic held districts (Kissel, Price and Miller in NC; Nye in VA, Cooper in TN and Barrow in GA) Obama lost every majority-white district held by a Southern white democrat from Virginia through the Florida panhandle to Texas. He even lost the ancestrally democratic AR-1, AR-4 and TN-8. Some might chalk this up to racially polarized voting but that is too easy an explanation. I’m sure some voters were fearful of a black President but those folks just don’t vote Democratic in the south anymore. These districts are populated by socially conservative folks and Obama, at least in my view, is probably the most socially liberal Democrat ever nominated. I think he could have minimized his losses had he campaigned more in these places but I suspect many of these Dems preferred he stayed away, which he did and I can understand why. In any event, only Republican dominated TX and GA will see population increases in 2010 but because these are Section 5 states, I doubt their GOP legislatures can squeeze out that many more GOP friendly districts to pass the smell test with Eric Holder’s Justice Department. However, in the case of TN, the GOP has taken over the TN legislature and Democratic Gov. Bredesen is term-limited so Dems must hold the TN Governorship in 2010 or risk adverse gerrymandering.

• WEST: Obama held on to sleeper GOP presidential voting but Democratic held districts like Pete De Fazio in OR (yes, while he is a very liberal his district was a ticket-splitter until narrowly going for Kerry and staying with Obama) and Jerry McNerney’s in CA However, nothing beats Obama’s impressive margins in CO and Southern CA and while he did not win any GOP held seats in the former, his margin in San Diego and Riverside counties helped him tremendously in wining two GOP seats that last voted Democratic eons ago. On the other hand, Walter Minnick of ID-1 is now the most endangered House member and unless he catches a solid break, I’m doubtful he can hold on to his seat in 2010. But if Jim Matheson can survive, there may be hope for Walter, but don’t be surprised if he loses in 2010.  

Future Prospects: The 50 state strategy or what I call “cast your net as wide as reasonably possible” works and I think both parties should compete everywhere as it is good for the American people. However, a lot of these gains and improvements depend on the success of the Obama presidency. More importantly, it depends heavily on Obama defining what a 21st century Democratic office holder should stand for (a la Reagan and Republicans of the 1980s) and showing that those principles will generate lasting results. It also depends on enacting enduring legislation like health care and putting into place long lasting policies that will foster growth of good paying American jobs so people don’t despair and buy into the false choices created by mindless culture wars.  

Nate Silver is handicapping the 2010 U.S. Senate races at Fivethirtyeight.com and had this to say about Iowa’s seat, held by five-term incumbent Chuck Grassley:

Grassley will be 77 in 2010 and could retire, in which case the race probably leans Democrat. Absent a retirement, a kamikaze mission by someone like Tom Vilsack against the popular incumbent is unlikely to succeed.

Over at Iowa Independent, Chase Martyn begs to differ:

Grassley has not had a truly difficult race in some time.  […]

In 2004, Art Small […] received no institutional support from the Democratic party, which essentially conceded the race before it began.

In 2010, the picture is very different.  While Grassley’s approval rating remains high, almost everything else has changed.

Democrats have begun to truly dominate Iowa’s political scene. […]

What happens if former Gov. Tom Vilsack jumps into the race for Senate?

Fending off Vilsack’s challenge, Grassley could face deficits in both fundraising and name identification for the first time in decades. […]

Far from a ‘kamikaze mission,’ as Silver calls it, the emerging conventional wisdom around here is that Vilsack would have a real chance against Grassley in 2010.

Perhaps “kamikaze mission” is too strong a phrase, but we need to acknowledge that Tom Vilsack or any other Democrat would be a serious underdog against Grassley. Yes, Iowa now has far more registered Democrats than Republicans (about 106,000 more, last I heard), but Grassley has always benefited from a strong crossover vote.

Grassley will face substantial pressure not to retire in 2010, in part because several other Republican-held Senate seats are likely to be vulnerable. Furthermore, Iowa Republicans hoping to unseat Governor Chet Culver would love to be able to focus their spending on that campaign, rather than divide their resources between the gubernatorial race and defending an open Senate seat.

As I see it, four factors could push Grassley toward retirement:

1. A health problem (God forbid).

2. An unpleasant 2009 in the Senate minority. Grassley loves his job and has gotten along well with Montana Senator Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. But what if the enlarged and emboldened Democratic majority doesn’t need to cut as many deals with Grassley as Baucus has done in the past?

3. Deteriorating relations between Grassley and the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party of Iowa. For background on this tension, click here or click here.

4. A top-tier Democratic challenger who can raise a lot of money and has free time to campaign.

And that brings me to the paradox in the title of this post. Clearly Grassley’s retirement would give Democrats the best chance (some might say only chance) to win this seat. However, Grassley is more likely to retire if Tom Vilsack or another major-league Democrat jumps in now, instead of waiting a year or longer to see whether the incumbent will decide to step down for some other reason.

Challenging Grassley means embarking on long and exhausting uphill battle. But putting Grassley on notice soon that Democrats will not give him a pass is one of the few things we could do to improve the odds that he will retire.