Tag: Democrats

Florida can be considered as three regions distinct in culture, economics, and voting patterns. Northern Florida is deep red; the I-4 corridor is light red; and the Miami metropolis is moderately blue.

Until recently, Florida was far different from what it looks like today. It was the quintessential Southern state, and it was fairly empty in term of people. Florida’s voting record reflected its southern roots. Until Eisenhower won it twice, Florida was part of the Solid South. In 1964, LBJ ran well behind his national average, due to his support for civil rights. The next election, George Wallace took 29% of the vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter resurrected the Solid South for the last time, winning Florida by 5%. That was also the last time a Democrat ran above the national average in Florida.

Northern Florida and the Panhandle

Florida still is a Southern state to some extent. This is especially true in northern Florida and the panhandle, which borders Alabama and Georgia. Northern Florida is very conservative; it is not uncommon to see a Republican taking 70% or more of the vote in a number of counties there.

As the picture indicates, northern Florida constituted the place in which McCain performed best. There were no counties in which Obama won over 70% of the vote, although he comes fairly close in majority-black Gadsden County (where he won 69.1% of the vote).

Gadsden County provides a neat encapsulation of all that makes northern Florida tough going for Democrats. Like much of the Deep South, voting is racially polarized. If a county is like Gadsden, it votes blue; if, on the other hand, a county does not have many blacks, it is usually deep red. There are not many independents in this region; voting habits are deeply entrenched. The “average” voter and the “average” county is a hard-core Republican.

The result is something like this:

This is northern Florida in the 2008 presidential election.

There are three noticeable blue areas (out of five Democratic counties). One is Gadsden County, which is majority black. The other two are homes of major public universities: Tallahassee hosts Florida A&M University and Florida State University, while Alachua County is home to the University of Florida.

This is the Democratic “base,” such as it is. Blacks and college students have historically been the most faithful Democrats, and in northern Florida they are the only Democrats.

A final note before moving on to central Florida. Although Jacksonville most always votes Republican, there is a substantial black minority within it that, unfortunately, has had historically poor turn-out. A strong Democrat can mobilize these voters and essentially erase Republican margins in this county. Barack Obama was extremely successful at doing so, which is why the red circle is relatively small in the map. On the other hand, John Kerry was not as successful; he lost Jacksonville by 17 points, as the picture below indicates.



–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won Colorado by 9.0%, Florida by 2.8%, and Indiana by 1.0%. Guess which one was the “swing state” in 2004.

The answer is Florida, and if that seems strange in light of the above – it is. In fairness, one might counter that Obama did relatively poorly in Florida (where he didn’t campaign in the primaries) and relatively well in Colorado (where the Democratic convention was held).

Here’s another question. Colorado, Florida, Indiana. Only one of these three sends a majority-Republican delegation to the House of Representatives. Which one is it? (A hint: it’s not Indiana.)

It turns out that Florida elects 15 Republican congressmen and 10 Democratic congressmen. Again, to be fair, one might note that Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered Florida’s congressional districts to achieve an unbalanced result. This is relatively easy – most Democrats live in tightly clustered South Florida.

But that’s just it: Florida’s state legislature is Republican-controlled. In fact, Republicans have 60%+ majorities in both chambers. Florida’s governor is Republican Charlie Crist. Florida was voted Democratic in only two of the last eight presidential elections. John Kerry’s campaign was shocked by the margin he lost by in Florida. Bill Clinton won Georgia, of all states, while losing Florida in1992.

To be fair, I’m picking and choosing my numbers. If you go back to the past nine presidential elections, you’ll find Democrats batting three for nine, not two for eight. And three of those eight elections were big Republican victories.

But there’s only so many times one can say “to be fair.” There’s only so many excuses one can make for yet another indication of Republican dominance in Florida.

Because the closer one inspects as Florida, the more it begins to look less like a swing state than a conservative state with an unusually big Democratic base – which the media happens to call a swing state.

In the next section, I’ll be analyzing why exactly this is so.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won Colorado by 9.0%, Florida by 2.8%, and Indiana by 1.0%. Guess which one was the “swing state” in 2004.

The answer is Florida, and if that seems strange in light of the above – it is. In fairness, one might counter that Obama did relatively poorly in Florida (where he didn’t campaign in the primaries) and relatively well in Colorado (where the Democratic convention was held).

Here’s another question. Colorado, Florida, Indiana. Only one of these three sends a majority-Republican delegation to the House of Representatives. Which one is it? (A hint: it’s not Indiana.)

It turns out that Florida elects 15 Republican congressmen and 10 Democratic congressmen. Again, to be fair, one might note that Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered Florida’s congressional districts to achieve an unbalanced result. This is relatively easy – most Democrats live in tightly clustered South Florida.

But that’s just it: Florida’s state legislature is Republican-controlled. In fact, Republicans have 60%+ majorities in both chambers. Florida’s governor is Republican Charlie Crist. Florida was voted Democratic in only two of the last eight presidential elections. John Kerry’s campaign was shocked by the margin he lost by in Florida. Bill Clinton won Georgia, of all states, while losing Florida in1992.

To be fair, I’m picking and choosing my numbers. If you go back to the past nine presidential elections, you’ll find Democrats batting three for nine, not two for eight. And three of those eight elections were big Republican victories.

But there’s only so many times one can say “to be fair.” There’s only so many excuses one can make for yet another indication of Republican dominance in Florida.

Because the closer one inspects as Florida, the more it begins to look less like a swing state than a conservative state with an unusually big Democratic base – which the media happens to call a swing state.

In the next section, I’ll be analyzing why exactly this is so.

They’re considered a minority in the United States, composing a rapidly growing sub-set of the population. The majority are immigrants; public sentiment, aroused by nativism, is sometimes hostile towards them. They vote heavily Democratic, but because many are immigrants they turn-out in numbers not as great as the share of the population they compose.

I’m not talking about Latinos. I’m talking about white Catholics in the early 20th century.

Today, Democrats hope that the Latino vote will be an essential part of a permanent majority, the keys to an unyielding period of Democratic dominance. Latinos were a major part of Obama’s victory in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. They’ve turned California blue for the foreseeable future. Red states Arizona and Texas are home to millions of Latinos, who represent a threat to the Republican character of those two states. Opportunity beckons.

Or so it seems.

In reality, however, it seems that the path of the Latino vote is the same as that of the white Catholic vote. The more Catholics that entered the country and the more time that passed, the more assimilated they became. In the early 20th century, Catholics were seen as an “other,” as Italian and Irish immigrants not fully part of the Unite States. Today, however, such sentiment is long gone. We regard white Catholics as normal, dull. The days of anti-Catholic discrimination are long gone.

With it has disappeared the Democratic hold over the Catholic vote. JFK won nearly 80% of Catholics because he was Catholic, and because in that time there was still anti-Catholic sentiment. 40 years later, John Kerry lost the Catholic vote, despite being a Catholic.

Will Latinos follow the same path? It seems likely. A large part of what connects Latinos to the Democratic Party is that they are an immigrant community – and Democrats have always represented immigrants. If – when – they assimilate, and the word Latino becomes just another synonym for white, Latinos will behave much as white Catholics do today. Which is to say that they will vote no different from the rest of America.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Okay, so as my first diary, I’m sure this is overly long, but I wanted to add a lot of data and analysis as I could because I am relentlessly geeky.

So read on, if you dare…

Shout-out: Dave’s Redistricting App.

Missouri Congressional districts Post-2010 Census

With Missouri most likely dropping a seat and with the redistricting authority evenly split between the Democratic Governor and Republican Legislature, incumbency protection and relatively even numbers of safe and swing districts should be considered priorities. Plus, with the political battles likely to be intense enough to be settled by an independent-ish panel, I figured that drawing geographically-sensical boundaries would also be important.

Therefore, I tried to keep each county in the same district (which I did successfully, barring the expected biggies–Kansas City’s Jackson and St. Louis city and county). This was done as a proxy for the “communities of interest” standard that seems to crop up when redistricting time rolls around, but I ain’t a lawyer and don’t know about no redistrictin’.  

An added bonus of this map is that each area is contiguous and geographically-sensible. Finally, in terms of population, each of the 8 districts clocks in around 739,000 using the awesome Dave App’s “Use New Pop Est” feature. The biggest variance is less than 5,000 + or – and I figure some changes from the estimate are to be expected, so some tussling around the edges should be expected. The counties of Gasconade, Crawford, Phelps, Dent, Iron, St. Francois, Montgomery and St. Clair could all be shifted between at least 3 Congressional districts to equalize populations and still be a part of pretty sensible, contiguous districts. So what I’m trying for is a good working template for starting negotiations.

Relevant recent races:

Governor – 2008 — Democrat Jay Nixon vs. Republican Kenny Hulshof 58.4-39.5

Longtime Attorney General Jay Nixon stomped the lackluster Hulshof (after Sarah Steelman weakened him severely in the primary). I use this as a sort of shorthand for what a reasonably strong Democrat could potentially do. (although some Congressmen like Ike Skelton defy the odds even further once they’re entrenched incumbents). Basically, a solid, local but new-to-a-seat Democrat could outpoll Nixon by a few points, perhaps, but not much more.

President – 2008 — Democrat Barack Obama vs. Republican John McCain 50-50

Missouri’s bellweather status ended when McCain took a 4,000 vote victory over Obama out of almost 3 million ballots cast (ftr, national average was 53-47-ish). It’s an interesting shorthand for outsiders, but its variance from the Nixon numbers is an important insight into the actual voters of a county.

With that, here we go….

St. Louis Close-Up

———–

Blue-District 1: Rep. Clay, D

Residence: St. Louis

Old Cook PVI: D+27

Gains: much of the city of St. Charles, plus that county’s eastern reaches

Loses: fairly small parts of St. Louis county & St. Louis proper

Keeps: Half of St. Louis proper, northeast chunk of St. Louis county

Analysis: As drawn, the massively-Dem PVI will shrink, but only modestly, probably to around D+16 or so. I would expect neighborhood tweaks because STL is the most densely-populated part of the state. Instead of black-majority, this district will be almost evenly matched, about 51% white to 42% black according to the app, but I’m going out on a limb and saying that shifts in population (ie-the inner suburbs getting more racially-mixed) will make this really, really close by the time the Census is held.

Effectively, St. Charles may tip the racial balance, but likely not the political one. Clay, one of MO’s two African-American Congressmen, should definitely be safe in this district, whatever its racial makeup. If the Voting Rights Act requires a black district, it should be easy enough to shift a few precincts on the margins (ie-losing parts of St. Charles, adding parts of STL) to bump it up to 50% black.

———————-

Green-District 2: Todd Akin, R

Old PVI: R+9

Residence: Town & Country

Gains: Montgomery County (pop. 12,000), Warren Co. (30,000), Franklin (100,000), Crawford (23,000), Washington (23,000), Iron (10,000), southwestern St. Charles county

Loses: Lincoln county (pop. 51,500), eastern St. Charles county

Keeps: Most of St. Charles county (though not St. Charles itself) and southwest St. Louis county

Franklin:   Obama-McCain 43-55, Nixon-Hulshof 51-47

Warren: Obama-McCain 43-56, Nixon-Hulshof 49-49

Washington:  Obama-McCain tie (5-vote margin), Nixon vs. Hulshof 67-31

Crawford: Obama-McCain 40-60, Nixon-Hulshof 52-46

Iron: Nixon-Hulshof 64-33, Obama-McCain 50-47

Analysis: Akin keeps most of his base in the western and southern sections of St. Louis county, but he loses part of St. Charles and picks up a set of rural-ish counties in return. Those rural-ish counties aren’t quite as Republican-friendly as he’d like–Obama won Washington & Iron, and stayed competitive in the rest, while Dem Gov. Nixon did very well in all of them.

The rural counties provide about 200,000 residents, while suburbanites (read: most of Akin’s base) make up the rest of this district. Akin is weakened, but only slightly. This should count as a “safe Republican” seat, especially because most of the St. Charles areas I removed are the swingiest parts of the county.

————

Purple-District 3: Russ Carnahan, D

Residence: St. Louis

Old PVI: D+7

Gains: A few more bits of St. Louis, plus St. Francois & Perry counties

–St. Francois county, pop. 63,000

Nixon-Hulshof 64-35

McCain-Obama won 51.5-47

–Perry county, pop. 18,800

Hulshof-Nixon 52-46

McCain-Obama 64-35

Loses: Not too much–a few St. Louis county and city neighborhoods where borders were tweaked.

Keeps: The aforementioned, Ste. Genevieve, Jefferson, southeastern bits of St. Louis county, roughly half of St. Louis proper

Analysis: The bits of urban St. Louis added to this district keep it from leaning too far right, and St. Francois is actually fairly moderate–Jay Nixon outperformed his statewide average here. Conservative Perry County is too small to have much effect. Carnahan should be able to hold this district.  

————-

Red-District 4: Ike Skelton, D

Residence: Lexington (Lafayette County)

Old PVI: R+14 (Obama 38-McCain 61)

Gains: Howard, Cooper, Boone, Callaway, Osage, Maries, Phelps, Gasconade, plus the south & eastern suburbs of Jackson County (Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Lone Jack)

Loses: Barton, Vernon, Dade, Cedar, part of Polk, Dallas, Webster, Laclede, Pulaski, Camden, Ray

Keeps: Lafayette, Johnson, Henry, Pettis, Saline, Morgan, Moniteau, Cole

Analysis: This district sees some big changes to make it the probably the most swing-tastic of the new map. While Skelton can easily hold the old MO-4, it’s unlikely another Democrat could. The new MO-4 changes that to an extent, refocusing the district on the mid-section of Missouri, linking the Kansas City suburbs to Columbia and Jefferson City. In terms of community interests, it could be the “River District”, as it roughly follows the outline of the Missouri River through the middle of Missouri. But notice what else it is–an education/govt/services district. Behold….

Boone County (155,000): O-Mc 55-43, Nix-Hul 55-43  –>Columbia (MU, 30,000 students)

Cole (70,000): O-Mc 36-63, Nix-Hul 49-50  —> Jeff City (state capitol)

Johnson (50,000): O-Mc 43-55, Nix-Hul 54-43   —> Warrensburg (UCM, formerly CMSU, 10,000 students)

Phelps (43,000): O-Mc 38-60, Nix-Hul 53-44  —> Rolla (6500 students)

Pettis (40,000): O-Mc 38-60.5, Nix-Hul 55-43   —> Sedalia, state fair/services

Callaway (40,000): O-Mc 40-59, Nix-Hul 49-50 —> Fulton? Jeff City suburbs

Saline (24,000): O-Mc 48-50, Nix-Hul 57-33  —> Marshall, Missouri Valley College, 1500-ish students

Morgan (21,000): Nix-Hul 50-48

Cooper (17,000): Nix-Hul 46-52

Gasconade (15,000)

Moniteau (15,000)

Howard (10,000)

Maries (9,000)

——-

Yellow-District 5: Emanuel Cleaver

Residence: Kansas City

Old PVI: D+10

Gains: most of Cass county, all of Bates

Loses: Modest bits of southeastern suburbs of KC, like Lee’s Summit

Keeps: Most of Jackson County (Kansas City)

Analysis: Lost suburban bits compensated by swaps from northern suburbs, and the overwhelming urban tilt cancels the Cass/Bates suburban/rural tinge–no huge changes here and geographically it’s pretty similar, with mostly changes at the margins. Remains an urban district, perhaps now a smidge more conservative for a left-ish Dem like Cleaver, the former mayor of Kansas City, but still a pretty safe Dem seat.

Population centers: urban Kansas City, which went for Obama 78-21, is the majority of this district.

Cass County: Mc-O 60-40, Nix-Hul 52-46

Bates County: Mc-O 58-40, Nix-Hul 55-42

————

District 6: Sam Graves

Residence: Tarkio

Old PVI: R+7 (Bush-Kerry 57-43)

Gains: Practically every county in northern Missouri

Loses: Some Kansas City suburbs- wealthy Blue Springs and the closer-in Clay county districts

New PVI: Much more heavily Republican, probably R+15-20

Analysis: It’s the northern Missouri exurban-rural district, stretching from the northern Kansas City suburbs all the way to the outskirts of St. Louis. It becomes a blood-red district … Sam Graves is safe here as long as he wants. It’s perhaps not quite as ironclad as numbers might suggest–Nixon won a number of these counties, especially the ones that have higher populations (Buchanan, Platte, Clay). But the northeast is especially Republican and Sam Graves or a competent Republican should have no trouble holding this heavily-stacked district.

Main population centers: St. Joseph, Kansas City suburbs (Platte/Clay), rural northern Missouri

————

District 7: Roy Blunt (until the next election)

Old PVI: R+17

Gains: Barton, Vernon, Cedar, Dade, half of Taney

Loses: Polk

New PVI: Probably about the same, still heavily Republican

Analysis: It may not technically have the highest number of Republicans in terms of percentage of registered voters, but southwest Missouri is full of religious conservatives and this district will be safely, probably wingnuttily-Republican. But then again, it pretty much was before, so no major changes here. The borders expand modestly, but the flavor remains the same.

Main population centers are Joplin, Springfield and Branson (whose county, Taney, is now entirely in the 7th).

——–

District 8: Jo Ann Emerson, R

Residence:

Old PVI: R+15

Gains: Webster, Dallas, Polk, Hickory, Laclede, Benton, Camden, Miller, Pulaski, St. Clair

Loses: (other) Half of Taney, Washington, Iron, St. Francois, Perry, Phelps

Analysis: Jo Ann should like her new district–she loses the most Democrat-friendly parts (Washington, Iron, St. Francois) and picks up a slew of more conservative counties in south-central Missouri, stretching her district into the Ozarks. Although Emerson has been drifting gently toward the center (which basically means support stem cell research and uh…) since being elected in 1998, she’s still definitely conservative enough to represent this new district–after all, a lot of her new counties would be used to voting for Democrat Ike Skelton, so a center-right, but not far-right representative should do the trick.

“Main population centers” are…Cape Girardeau? Poplar Bluff?

Southern MO map:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4…

———

District 9: Blaine Lueketmeyer

Residence: St. Elizabeth, Miller County

Old PVI: R+9

Disappeared!

His district is eaten by several others, and he now lives in Jo Ann Emerson’s new 8th. He has little chance to defeat her in primary as her base makes up the vast majority of this district.

But his previous district is now split between the new ones of Skelton, Akin and Carnahan, wi

So why would Republicans sacrifice ole Blaine?

Blaine will lose because he has the least seniority, other than whoever Blunt’s replacement is. But Blunt’s district makes sense–southwest Missouri–as opposed to Blaine’s crazy-shaped current 9th (“Little Dixie” …yeah, good try).

Why else dump Blaine? Because Republicans get a lot in return. Three totally safe districts, one mostly safe one, and they have a chance on at least one, if not two, of the “Democratic” districts. Democrats will like it because it’s a better balance and they may have a chance with Akin in the future. And with Skelton unlikely to make it another decade in Congress (though I hope and pray to God he does) they’re gonna lose one forever if they don’t agree to act now. Basically, you can gerrymander Missouri a lot worse.

Overall, despite its 2008 performance, Missouri is still the ultimate swing state, and having a 4-4 delegation (with one seat that could go to Republicans) seems right.

———

Other Missouri redistricting maps:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Source:

MO Gov Race – http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrMaps/…  (MO Sec. of State’s office)

{Originally posted with poll at my blog Senate Guru.  Head over to vote in the poll.}

With conservative former Congressman Pat Toomey set to challenge incumbent Arlen Specter in the 2010 Republican Senate primary, I think it’s safe to assume that we’ll see a bloodbath in which Specter is labeled a convictionless flip-flopper and Toomey is dubbed an unelectable right-winger.  No doubt both Specter and Toomey will spend the bulk of their resources just to get through the primary, leaving the eventual Republican nominee politically battered and financially near-broke, having to re-build a bankroll from almost scratch.

Naturally, this raises the question: who do you want the Democratic nominee to be?  With the Republican nominee starting the general election in rough shape from a bloody primary, and with Pennsylvania Democrats continuing to grow their voter registration edge over Pennsylvania Republicans, Democrats are in the driver’s seat.  Without further ado, here is the cattle call of potential candidates, in alphabetical order:

District Attorney Lynne Abraham

During late-December of last year, both KYW Newsradio 1060 Philadelphia and CBS-3 Philadelphia reported that District Attorney Abraham was considering a bid.  As for bio, she was head of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority in the 1970’s and subsequently a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  She has been District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia since 1991 and has won four elections during her tenure – but she has already announced that she is not running for re-election to the post this year.  A knock on her as a candidate, though, is related to the strength of her resume: in 2010, she will turn 69-years-old.  I don’t imagine she’d plan on seeking several six-year terms to build her seniority.

State Representative Dwight Evans

The 54-year-old State Representative is a powerhouse in the state Legislature as the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, having served in the state House for nearly thirty years, but has also had his share of electoral losses.  He finished third in the 1986 Democratic primary for Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor, finished third in the 1994 Democratic gubernatorial primary, and had fifth-place showings in two crowded Philadelphia Mayoral runs in 1999 and 2007.  Still as the Democrats’ Appropriations chief for nearly twenty of his thirty years in the state House, he has wielded considerable power for a long time.  The Executive Director of the PA-Dems was talking Representative Evans up this past January as a possible 2010 Senate candidate.  Representative Evans has done a great deal to improve Philadelphians’ lives, but has had difficulty translating that success in bids for higher office.

Congressman Patrick Murphy

At only 35-years-old, Congressman Murphy, an Iraq War veteran now serving his second term in Congress, is considered a rising star in the Party.  Some of his pluses are quite obvious: his military experience brings unique perspective and his relative youth would allow him to build seniority over the years for Pennsylvania.  According to the National Journal’s 2008 Vote Ratings, Congressman Murphy was the 187th most liberal member and the 240th most conservative member – in other words, he was fairly centrist.  Given the political carnage that is expected at the end of Specter-Toomey: The Sequel, PA-Dems may want to elect someone more liberal than Congressman Murphy has been.  Also, while Congressman Murphy appears to be a more-than-decent fundraiser, as of the end of 2008, he had just under $150,000 on hand, with just over $100,000 in debt, which means he’s starting from nearly scratch on the money front.

Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz

Now serving in her third term, Congresswoman Schwartz is one of only two women in Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation.  Her bio includes: executive director of the Elizabeth Blackwell Center, a Planned parenthood clinic in Philadelphia, ’75-’88; acting Deputy Commissioner of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services, ’88-’90; State Senator, ’91-’04; Congresswoman, ’05-present.  According to the National Journal’s 2008 Vote Ratings, Congresswoman Schwartz was the 112th most liberal member and the 316th most conservative member, i.e.she was a bit to Congressman Murphy’s political left.  Also, known for being a strong fundraiser, she closed out 2008 with just under $2 million on hand and no debt.  On Election Day 2010, Congresswoman Schwartz will be 62-years-old, suggesting perhaps only a tenure of two-terms tops if she ran.

Congressman Joe Sestak

The 57-year-old military veteran is in his second term in Congress.  After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1974, Congressman Sestak picked up an M.P.A. and a Ph.D. from Harvard before embarking on an impressive naval career.  According to the National Journal’s 2008 Vote Ratings, Congressman Sestak was the 150th most liberal member and the 277th most conservative member, putting him in between Congressman Murphy and Congresswoman Schwartz in the ranking.  Also a very solid fundraiser, Congressman Sestak ended 2008 with over $2.9 million on hand and no debt.  Back in December, Congressman Sestak’s office suggested that he wouldn’t be a candidate for Senate in 2010; however, with the new political dynamic of the combative Republican primary, perhaps Congressman Sestak might reconsider.

State Representative Josh Shapiro

Like Congressman Murphy, Representative Shapiro is only 35-years-old.  He is in his third term in the state Legislature, and was named Deputy Speaker of the House in his second term.  Prior to his time in the state Legislature, Representative Shapiro spent about eight years on Capitol Hill working for several elected officials, including service as Chief of Staff to Congressman Joe Hoeffel, Arlen Specter’s last Democratic opponent.  Representative Shapiro has met with the DSCC to discuss a possible bid; and, he has begun an aggressive outreach campaign to determine whether or not he’ll run.

State Board of Education Chairman Joe Torsella

The 45-year-old Torsella has worn many hats: state Board of Education Chairman, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning for the City of Philadelphia under then-Mayor and now-Governor Ed Rendell.  He also ran for Congress in 2004 and narrowly lost the Democratic primary to now-Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz, who won her first term in that election cycle.  He is also the only announced candidate for Senate in 2010 on the Democratic side, though he has yet to launch a campaign website (that I can find, anyway) despite having announced two months ago.  It is rumored that Torsella enjoys the support of Governor Rendell’s political machine behind the scenes.  Through contacts from his numerous civic roles and possible assistance from the Rendell machine, Torsella was able to raise a respectable $600,000 in Q1 (having only started campaign fundraising in mid-February).  The amount is enough to demonstrate capable fundraising, but far from strong enough to scare off primary challengers, especially members of Congress with seven-figure campaign bankrolls.

State Auditor Jack Wagner

Auditor Wagner began serving as a statewide official in this capacity in 2005, succeeding Bob Casey Jr., who, of course, defeated Republican Rick Santorum for Senate in 2006.  Prior to his tenure as Auditor, Wagner spent a little over a decade in the Pennsylvania state Senate.  Auditor Wagner is also a Purple Heart recipient from his time with the Marine Corps in Vietnam.  Auditor Wagner is the only person on this list from western Pennsylvania, which could provide a geographic advantage.  On Election Day 2010, Auditor Wagner will be 62-years-old, like Congresswoman Schwartz, suggesting a limit to his possible tenure in the Senate.  Additionally, it’s been reported that Auditor Wagner has told friends that he will not run for the Senate seat.

Former State Treasurer Robin Wiessmann

Former Treasurer Wiessman had a largely financial services background before filling the remainder of Bob Casey’s Treasurer term after he ascended to the U.S. Senate.  She spent the 90’s as President of Artemis Capital Group and went on to serve as a Vice-president at Goldman Sachs.  She also put in a stint as Deputy Director of Finance for the City of Philadelphia.  If Wiessman was interested in a prolonged political career, one suspects that she would have run for Treasurer last year instead of ceding the office, though.  If she does decide to run, fundraising won’t be as difficult as it would be for other first-time candidates as her husband is reportedly a major Democratic fundraiser.

With Governor Ed Rendell serious about retiring from electoral politics and with current state Treasurer Rob McCord in only his fourth month in the role and having expressed no interest in a Senate bid thus far, this appears to be the pool from which a Democratic nominee will arise.  You’re encouraged to make your case for your candidate in the comments.  If there is someone you would like to see as the Democratic nominee in PA-Sen who hasn’t been listed, share your thoughts in the comments, as well.

Thanks to David here at Swing State Project, we now have data on how every congressional district voted for POTUS for the last several elections.  This is a treasure trove for geeks like me.  That list is here.

Today, I look at districts with conservative Democrats as representatives

Perhaps the best way to rate the liberalness of a representative is that taken by Jeff Lewis, Keith Poole, and their associates in the nominate data.  They rank the House, from 1 to 435.  I’ve provided the list of districts, and their ranks (1 is most liberal, 435 most conservative).

The most conservative Democrat is ranked 241.  Here are the 42 most conservative Democrats (from least to most conservative), with the election results for POTUS :



Dist    Rep          Obama %  Kerry %    Gore %

TX 17   EDWARDS       32        30       32

CA 18   CARDOZA       59        49       53

CA 20   COSTA         60        51       55

FL 22   KLEIN         52        52       52  

CO 7    PERLMUTTER    59        51       50

FL 2    BOYD          45        46       47

OH 6    WILSON        48        49       47

CO 3    SALAZAR       47        44       39

MO 4    SKELTON       38        35       40

TN 6    GORDON        37        40       49

AL 5    CRAMER (now Griffith - D)

                     38        39       44        

KY 6    CHANDLER      43        41       42

KS 2    BOYDA      (now Republican)

AR 4    ROSS          39        49       49

MN 7    PETERSON      47        43       40

SD AL   HERSETH       45        38       38

TX 28   CUELLAR       56        46       50

OH 18   SPACE         45        43       41

LA  3   MELANCON      37        41       45

MS  4   TAYLOR        32        31       33

TN  8   TANNER        43        47       51

TN  4   DAVIS         34        41       49

FL 16   MAHONEY       (now Republican)

NC  7   MCINTYRE      47        44       48

NY 20   GILLIBRAND    (to be decided)

                     51        46       44

OK  2   BOREN         34        41       47

IL  8   BEAN          56        44       42

UT  2   MATHESON      39        31       31

IL 14   FOSTER        55        44       43

IN  9   HILL          49        40       42

AZ  5  MITCHELL       47        45       43

AZ  8  GIFFORDS       46        46       46

NC 11  SHULER         47        43       40

IN  8  ELLSWORTH      47        38       42

PA 10  CARNEY         45        40       41

IN  2  DONNELLY       54        43       45

PA  4  ALTMIRE        44        45       46

GA  8  MARSHALL       43        39       42

GA 12  BARROW         54        49       52

MS  1  CHILDERS       38        37       40

LA  6  CAZAYOUX       (now Republican)

TX 22  LAMPSON        (now Republican)

Personally, I am on the left edge of the Democratic party.  I very much like my representative, Jerry Nadler, who, per Nominate data, is the 50th most liberal (I’d have to look to find where he differs from the top few); I also like that NY-08 gave over 70% to all three Democratic POTUS candidates.  But not every district is like mine.

More Democrats; better Democrats.   Not better Democrats, fewer Democrats.  Only a few of the above seem to be in districts that could remotely be called ‘safe’.  Many are in Republican strongholds.  Would you rather have Cazayoux or Cassidy?  Mahoney or Rooney?  And those two didn’t even face primaries.  

If we want to replace blue dogs with red Repubs, we can primary them and put up liberals.  If we want to replace blue dogs with better Democrats, we need to educate the people.  

Are there people to primary?  Yes.  Of this list, I’d say Cardoza, Klein, Costa and Perlmuter are candidates.  Barrow, in GA-12, might be also, but not by a liberal, just by someone more in the middle of the Democratic party.  

During the 2008 gubernatorial season democrats waited until May to field a candidate.  This cycle, Vermont democrats stepped up with Doug Racine announcing that he would take on Jim Douglas come 2010.  Racine was a former Lite governor who lost to Douglas in 2002, 47-44.  

“Racine, 56, who expects to return as chairman of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee, said he is focused on the 2009 legislative session. He said he informed several Douglas administration officials Monday of his plans to run for governor and that he doesn’t expect it to affect his work with them.”

There have also been rumblings of stronger candidates mounting a challenge against Douglas.  

“Several high-profile Democrats are considering a run, amid pressure from party activists to get an early start. State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding said he’s still considering a run and expects to decide within a few months.”

Spaulding has been Treasurer since 2002, is the president of the national association of state treasurers, and was a state senator from1995-2001.  This would make him one of the strongest candidates to challenge Douglas since Racine’s first challenge back in 2002.  He will decide within three months.  

The race is also complicated by Douglas’ recent proposals to deal with the recession.  The biggest issue will be scrapping act 68, the way that Vermonters pay for education, without offering any sort of alternative way to fund education.  

“If local school boards want to spend more per pupil than they are doing in the current year, any additional funds would have to be paid for entirely by local residential property taxpayers. Income sensitivity provisions – under which homeowners pay school taxes based on income, not property values – would not apply.”

Reopening this can of worms could potentially weaken Governor Douglas’ popularity.  Normally Douglas survives by not doing or proposing anything too controversial, then benefits from the independence of the electorate and the left far left split.  A violent education battle could be the issue that makes Douglas vulnerable.

If Douglas is indeed weakened by the education battle or seems weak, then Spaulding will most likely join the fray, as could sec of state Deb Markowitz.  If however Douglas runs for re-election, and doesn’t appear vulnerable, Racine will have the nomination all to himself, and will most likely face a three way race with Anthony Pollina.  Pollina was the progressive turned independent who beat Gaye Symington in the 2008 election.  

If Douglas retires, the election will quickly become bedlam.  The Vermont political scene is constipated, with every statewide official, as well as many aspiring state senators and mayors stuck.  Should Douglas retire, plethora of positions open up.  The governors seat will free up first, then the lite govs seat, if lite gov Brian Dubie runs for governor, or retires.  From there, Markowitz and Spaulding will run hopefully for those two positions, or will primary each other for the governor’s seat.  This will open the treasurer’s position and secretary of state.  If Douglas retires, Racine will most likely lose the primary battle, and democrats will be favored for all of the aforementioned positions.  There are some wildcards however.

1. Leahy retirement/Death:  in his seventies, Leahy could decide to retire in 2010 giving Douglas and Dubie the option to run for senate.  They passed on the open seat in 2006, but both knew they couldn’t beat Bernie Sanders.  For the democrats the only dems who could win would be Markowitz, Spaulding and current House rep Peter Welch.  Welch is popular, but Douglas and Dubie have been on the statewide scene the longest.  This would be his only chance to become a senator as Bernie will almost certainly run for re-election in 2012.  By the time an open seat comes up in 2016 or 2018 Welch will be 67-70. 67-70 Year olds do not run for freshman terms in the senate unless they know they can’t win.  By 2016/2018 Welch will have seniority and will probably be looking towards either a good committee assignment, house leadership role, or cabinet position depending on who wins in 2016.   With Markowitz and Spaulding, who knows?

2.  Howard Dean returns to Vermont politics:  there haven’t been any rumblings of this, but with the whole “Obama is dissing Dean Meme” it’s possible that dean will return to Vermont either to run for senator if there’s a retirement or governor again.  I put the chances in the low single digits, but were it to happen, it would change everything.  

3.  Further economic downturns.  Who knows how this could affect the race, but it probably will.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats)

About 2 weeks ago, we talked about the rising Democratic tide in The Southwest. Now, I want to discuss what’s happening in The Northwest. Believe it or not, we have plenty of opportunities up north as well.

Want to come along with me as we look at where we can win in 2010 and beyond?

Let’s start in Wyoming. While John McCain beat Barack Obama by 32%, it was an improvement over Bush’s 40% margin of victory in 2004. And believe it or not, Wyoming voters twice elected Democrat Dave Freudenthal as Governor while Democrat Gary Trauner twice lost the At-Large House seat by surprisingly narrow margins. We have an opportunity in 2010 to win both races, as Freudenthal is termed out and newly elected GOP Rep. Cynthia Lummis doesn’t seem much more popular than outgoing GOP Rep. Barbara Cubin. I see both races as “Leans Republican” now, but that can change if we find good candidates.

Unlike Wyoming, Montana is rapidly trending Democratic. Bush won the state by 20% in 2004, but McCain could only muster a 3% win and Obama may be the first Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1992 to win here in 2012. And better yet, Montana now has 2 Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, and a split legislature. But for some reason, incumbent GOP Rep. Dennis Rehberg is still in office. If we find a strong Democrat to challenge Rehberg in 2010, I think we can make this “Likely Republican” seat more competitive.

Now Idaho may not be trending Democratic as quickly as Montana, but the state is moving our way. Bush’s 39% win in 2004 was reduced to a 25% McCain win this year. And better yet, Democrat Walt Minnick scored a stunning upset win over incumbent GOP Rep. Bill Sali in ID-01. But even though Minnick won this year, we must remember that this House seat will be the top GOP seat in 2010. This race looks like a “Toss-up” now, and we’ll need to work hard to hold ID-01 while continuing to make electoral gains in Idaho.

While all the other Northwest states previously mentioned still tilt toward the GOP, Washington state is quite the different game. Barack Obama won here by 17%, a great improvement over Kerry’s narrower 7% win in 2004. Meanwhile, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire won reelection this year while Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature, both Democratic Senators, and all 6 Democratic House Reps. look quite safe. However, we have a chance to pick up another House seat in the eastern suburban Seattle WA-08 district. Incumbent GOP Rep. Dave Reichert only narrowly won reelection in 2006 & 2008 in a district that both Kerry & Obama won. If we perhaps find a candidate with legislative experience to challenge Reichert in 2010, we can finally win this “Toss-up” race.

As you can see, The Northwest is undergoing many of the same changes being seen Southwest. Wyoming and Idaho may still look strongly Republican, but Montana has rapidly become a swing state as Oregon and Washington have gone from simply leaning Democratic to strongly Democratic. As the population grows, diversifies, and changes from rural to suburban & urban, Democrats are rising to victory.

As long as demographics change and voters continue to care less about “the culture wars” and more about issues like energy, environmental preservation, and economic development, Democrats will win. That’s why our party must continue to invest in winning The West. So are you ready to win?

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.