Tag: Democrats

Bill White, the former Mayor of Houston, is sitting on $5.4 million for the general election.  Roughly twice as much as either Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  

Kay Bailey Hutchinson

1.1M raised

8M spent

2.3M Cash on Hand

Rick Perry

850K raised

8.8M spent

2.5M CoH

Debra Medina

450K raised

228k spent

291K CoH

Bill White

2.2M raised

2.7M spent

5.4M CoH

Farouk Shami

1.1M raised

5M spent

1M CoH

Thanks to the BurntOrangeReport for the numbers

http://www.burntorangereport.c…

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

A few maps of Ohio’s presidential elections are posted below, for your enjoyment. Each map comes with some brief analysis.



(Note: Because the Times stopped updating before all absentee/provisional ballots were counted, this map does not fully reflect the actual results. I have corrected the discrepancy.)

Senator Barack Obama wins Ohio by 4.6%, a solid but unimpressive victory. Mr. Obama performs poorly in traditional Democratic areas – the northeast and even Cleveland – but offsets this with unique strength in Columbus and Cincinnati. Senator McCain runs strongly in the Republican base.

More below.

President George W. Bush wins Ohio by a close but decisive margin. Senator John Kerry does extremely well – winning Columbus and Cleveland by what his campaign wants – but Mr. Bush’s exurban strength famously overwhelms this strength. Nevertheless, Ohio votes more Democratic than the nation, the first time since 1972.

______________________________________________________



Vice President Al Gore gives up Ohio before election-day; Governor George W. Bush wins the state by 3.5%. Perhaps, campaign strategists later muse, they should not have abandoned the state.

______________________________________________________



Incumbent Bill Clinton cruises to a comfortable victory – the best Democratic performance since LBJ (and before that, FDR). The former Arkansas governor runs strong in the industrial northeast and the Appalachian southwest, while severely undercutting Senator Bob Dole’s margins in Republican territory. It’s a classic Democratic victory.

______________________________________________________



It’s an exact replica of the 1996 map – except this time the Democratic strongholds are a bit less blue, the Republican strongholds a bit more red, and Ross Perot is running strong. Governor Clinton wins by a mere 1.8%.

It’s been a bit since the Massachusetts election, in which unknown Republican Scott Brown emerged to upset the favored Democrat Martha Coakley in one of union’s deepest-blue states. Since then, Democrats have been recalibrating their strategy.

In a previous post, I outlined the results of how a tied election might look like. Let’s take a look at the prediction:

Now let’s see the actual results:

More below.

A clear pattern emerges: counties that the model forecast Ms. Coakley to win turned out more Democratic than expected, while counties that the model forecast Mr. Brown to win turned out more Republican than expected. The model, in predicting results, relied – incorrectly – on a uniform Republican shift from previous elections which Democrats won. The actual deviations indicate that Massachusetts shifted in a polarized manner: Democratic strongholds shifted Republican to a lesser extent than the state at large, independent areas shifted far more.

Here is a table of the results:

A number of outlets – especially us folks at swingstateproject – have gone even further, taking a look at the results by town. Here is the NYT:

The red areas constitute suburban Massachusetts, home to many of the white working-class Catholics that supported for Senator Hillary Clinton. These areas usually almost always vote Democratic, but they do so based off economic appeals rather than any innate liberalism (much like how West Virginia used to vote).

Republicans generally win Massachusetts by taking away suburban Massachusetts. Mr. Brown’s coalition replicated previous Republican victories:

Interestingly, President Barack Obama did relatively poorly in these suburbs – his performance was the worst since President Bill Clinton’s first run in ’92. He still won them, of course (Massachusetts, lest people forget, is a Democratic stronghold), but by less than previous Democratic candidates. In fact, Mr. Obama underperformed throughout the Northeast, which is something few people know.

The areas Ms. Coakley won generally constitute the “liberal Massachusetts” Republicans love to insult. They are college towns and generally well-off, liberal places.

On the other hand, a number of  towns do not fit these stereotypes. Minorities in Boston, for instance, are responsible for it being a Democratic stronghold (unfortunately for Ms. Coakley, they did not turn out). Much of the rural west, which supported Ms. Coakley by a wide margin, is very white and not that wealthy.

If there is any good news from this election for Massachusetts Democrats, it is that they now have this information. The data provided by Mr. Brown’s surprise victory should prove useful for redistricting, future campaigns, and even predicting the future of Massachusetts politics. Hopefully they will not be caught off guard a second time.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

This is the second part of two posts analyzing the Texas panhandle, a rock-hard Republican stronghold. It will focus upon two quite unique counties. The first part can be found here.

Strange Counties

Two counties are labeled in the above map: Cottle County and King County. This is the case because the two are the sites of several unique and quite inexplicable voting patterns. One example: although the counties are located beside each other, their two patterns can be characterized as polar opposites.

More below.

Demographically, however, Cottle and King could not be more similar. Both are extremely thinly populated (King County contains less than 500 hundred residents) and fairly poor. These places literally define the saying “in the middle of nowhere.” In 2008, both Cottle and King were similarly favorable to Republicans: Cottle gave Senator John McCain 72.20% of the vote, while King – well, I’ll get to King in a moment.

Things weren’t always this way, however. For a long, long time Cottle County constituted a bastion of Democratic strength in the middle of nowhere. This was all the more remarkable given its deep-red neighbors compared to the sheer stubborn determination of one Cottle County to vote Democratic. In election after election, as Democrat after Democrat was broken in Texas (and sometimes the nation as well), this little county reliably ended up in the blue county. Most remarkably, the county voted (by a margin numbering less than one percent) for Senator George McGovern, a Democratic candidate so weak that not a single county voted Democratic in 20 states that year. Mr. McGovern was adept at losting Democratic strongholds, many in far more liberal territory than the Texas panhandle – and yet Cottle County still went blue in 1972. In fact, when Cottle County voted for Governor George W. Bush in 2000, this constituted its first time ever voting Republican.

If Cottle County epitomized Democratic strength, King County represents the pillar of modern-day Republicanism. In 2008, it constituted the single most Republican county in the nation; 92.64% cast the ballot for Senator John McCain, 4.91% for President Barack Obama. CNN even ran story about King County’s love affair with Republicans, which mainly seems based upon evangelical faith and traditional small-town conservatism.

In and of itself this is not so strange; the puzzling part comes when one looks to the 2008 Democratic primary. A total of 27 people named one Barack Obama as their choice – yet on November 4th only 8 did so. This means that at least 19 people were motivated enough to endorse Mr. Obama in March and then changed their minds or sat out the election. More cynically, one might read this as a calculated endorsement designed to wreak havoc upon the opposing party – but then why vote for Mr. Obama, when supporting Senator Hillary Clinton would prolong Democratic suffering?

The Panhandle and the Future of Texas Politics

Today, the voters in the Texas panhandle are quite hostile to liberalism in general. They may have supported Democrats in the past, but they will most likely not do so in the forseeable future (and if the Demcoratic Party changes enough to naturally appeal to small-town conservatives in the Texas panhandle, it probably ought to change its name to “Republican.”)

The Texas panhandle may be interesting for analysis, but the future of both parties does not lie there. In total, only two percent of the state’s population resides in the panhandle. Rather, the heart of Texas lies about the great metropolitan areas surrounding its cities – Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. There Democrats are rising, but Republicans still are dominant – the opposite situation from half-a-century ago.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

The rumor is buzzing around Arkansas that Lt. Gov Halter will challenge Blanche Lincoln in the primary.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/…

Again, there is no confirmation on this as of yet.  But the Draft Halter facebook group (including yours truly) did a phone bomb this week on Halter’s office and got a rather enthusiastic response from the staff.  All of us that called from the Draft group got the impression that if Halter saw that the support was there he’d run, and if this is true our efforts may have pushed him over the edge.  Here’s to hoping!

If you’re on facebook, you can join the Draft group here:

http://www.facebook.com/group….

UPDATE:Halter spokesman Bud Jackson: “Nothing has changed.  The lieutenant governor continues to focus on his re-election while also considering the available options to best serve Arkansans.”

Sounds like a big non-denial to me.

This is the first part of two posts examining the Texas panhandle, a rock-hard Republican stronghold. The second part can be found here.



In the Texas panhandle and the empty plains surrounding it, Democrats go to die. There is no place in the country more Republican than this rural region, where conservatism is ingrained bone-deep and from birth. Not even the most Mormon stretches of Utah, or whitest areas of the Deep South, exceed the Republicanism of this part of Texas.

Yet, in the vast emptiness of the Texas prairie there are a number of interesting patterns – some of which are quite strange to behold.

More below.

Yellow-dog Democrats

Believe it or not, much of the most Republican place in the nation used to be Democratic territory, voting for the blue candidate even when the rest of America did not. Now, of course, the same could be said for the entire American South, which routinely gave badly losing Democratic presidential candidates over 70% (and often 90%) of the vote. Texas was no exception to this rule; President Truman lost a grand total of eight counties during the 1948 election, for instance.

The difference with the Texas panhandle, however, was that parts of it continued to vote Democratic even as the Solid South collapsed. In 1956, for instance, President Dwight Eisenhower won re-election by a solid 15.40% and cracked the South. One such crack included Texas, which Mr. Eisenhower won by 11.28%. Mr. Eisenhower carried the state backed mainly by its Republican-leaning cities (an oxymoron nowadays), while much of rural Texas voted for Democrat Adlai Stevenson. This included almost the entire panhandle:



This Democratic-leaning trend continued for some time, even after the 1964 realignment of the South. The panhandle cast a strong ballot for Senator Hubert Humphrey and President Jimmy Carter (both times), while a number of counties voted to Governor Dukakis and even hapless Senator Walter Mondale. As late as 1996, when President Bill Clinton lost Texas by 4.93%, there still remained a flicker of yellow-dog Democratic strength:



It was one President George W. Bush who finally crushed this Democratic tradition; since his time, the panhandle has begun voting uniformly Republican. But for all its current love of Republicans, it must be noted that this phenomenon is relatively recent – although long in coming.

Two potential candidates are out.

Little Rock mayor, Mike Stodola (who I honestly never expected to run anyway) has declared for reelection.

More surprisingly, veteran and former AG candidate, Paul Suskie, who was apparently laying the groundwork for the campaign, has opted out, citing family obligations and his current work.

http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p…

It’s a real shame about Suskie.  I’ve met the guy and, while we don’t agree on much, he’d have been a strong candidate and I genuinely like him on a personal level.

Right now the race is looking like a three person affair in the primary-

State House Speaker Robbie Wills is running.  So is Snyder’s chief of staff, David Boling.  And then there’s state senate majority leader Joyce Elliott, the only woman and African American in the feild, so far at least.

Republican Congressional $ Numbers

CD 1 – No Repub Filed

CD 2 – No Reports Filed Yet



CD 3 – No Reports Filed yet

CD 4 –

1 – Gardner for Congress

Raised 197,553.40 – Spent 86,386.37 – COH – 383,338.56

2 – Dean Madere – No Report Filed yet

3 – Diggs Brown – No Report Filed yet

4 – Tom Lucero – No Report Filed yet

CD 5 – Lamborn for Congress

Raised 49,079.60 – Spent 28,863.85 – COH – 110,531.82

CD 6 – Coffman for Congress

Raised 105,770.00 – Spent 40,731.31 – COH – 360,917.27

CD 7 –

1. Ryan Frazier for Colorado

Raised 218,824.00 – Spent 60,345.98 – COH – 280,355.38

2. Lang Sias – No report filed yet

Democratic Congressional $ Numbers

I am tossing them up

CD 1 – Diana Degette for Congress

Raised 98,421.38 – Spent 94,687.97 – COH 84,553.27

CD 2 – Friends of Jared Polis

Raised 72,771.88 – Spent 29,516.12 – COH 120,250.31

CD 3 – John Salazar for Congress

Raised 187,160.00 – Spent 61,000.41 – COH 847,099.45

CD 4 – Not Filed yet

CD 5 – No Dem running yet

CD 6 – Flerlage for Congress

Raised 19,329.00 – Spent 13,490.62 – COH 23,556.44

CD 7 – Perlmutter for Congress

Raised 215,201.30 – Spent 82,473.39 – COH 1,045,319.11

This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Virginia. The second part can be found here.

During the ’08 campaign, the political beltway famously defined Virginia as a Republican stronghold gone Democratic. For ten straight presidential elections, the state had reliably turned up in the Republican column. President Barack Obama, however, promised to change that – and he did.

More below.

Virginia indeed is becoming bluer – but not as much as one might think. The state moved Republican sooner than the rest of the South, but never became as deep red as places like Alabama. The actual trend from ’04 to ’08 is less prominent than one might think:

I think this in fact slightly understates Republican strength. Mr. Obama, after all, fit extremely well with Virginia’s Democratic base – blacks and rich NoVa residents. He might have overperformed. In many ways, Virginia still constitutes a purple state, perhaps even a red-leaning one. Democrats must run competent candidates and/or do this in favorable national environments; if both conditions are missing, they may get pummeled ala Creigh Deeds.

This may change in the future. As its wealthy, diverse, and Democratic-leaning NoVa suburbs continue growing; Virginia may soon become more Democratic than even Pennsylvania. This trend was much noted in 2008.

What is less noted is the degree to which the media has overstated this change. These demographic shifts are the work of decades, not one election; they occur very gradually. Moreover, even as bluing NoVa expands, Virginia’s western regions continue to redden – especially the once Democratic-leaning panhandle. This blunts the NoVa effect. Virginia may be turning Democratic, but Democrats should not underestimate continued Republican strength.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Dear Attorney General Richard Blumenthal,

You had better learn and take to heart the lessons provided yesterday by your neighboring colleague.  In particular: (1) a gigantic lead now is VERY MUCH NOT the same as a blowout victory (or even any victory), and (2) neglect is NEVER the right way to run a campaign.

Your supporter,

Glenn Magus Harvey

More beneath the fold.

Dear Democratic Party,

I damn well hope that this costly lesson about the negatives of complacency has been well learned.

If we can win Idaho, they can win Massachusetts.

Your supporter,

Glenn Magus Harvey

~~~~

Dear progressive movement,

Stop whining about how watered-down the health care bill is, stop threatening to vote for all sorts of crazy people (on any side) against sane Democrats who can get elected (and possibly risk losing nasty districts), and start accepting political realities (remember the “living in reality” slogan?).

Stop whining about how the Obama administration isn’t progressive enough, and start asking yourself what realistic steps you can do to inch the country toward a better future.

You want results?  Be prepared to work very hard for them.  Whining and sulking do not produce results.  Do something better with your time–such as learning about on-the-ground political realities, figuring out how to use and to affect them to help your goals, coming up with productive ideas, and putting such ideas into action.

Your friend and ally,

Glenn Magus Harvey

~~~~

Dear Nevada State Democratic Party and other relevant persons and parties,

Figure out a way to deal with Reid.  Both of them.  Preferably, figure out a way to get rid of both of them.

Your fellow Democrat,

Glenn Magus Harvey

~~~~

Dear Senator Joe Lieberman,

You suck.

If Chris Dodd can afford to offend the insurance companies, then so can you.  So shut up.

Your detractor and former supporter,

Glenn Magus Harvey