Tag: Republicans

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)

The Hill released an article today in which all 41 Senate Republicans were asked to evaluate the most bipartisan Democrats.

Here is the link: http://thehill.com/leading-the…

It was a really nice article and it showed that despite the big battles, most people are trying to reach out to the other side somehow, even in some small way.

Every Republican, even the most conservative ones, gave kind, thoughtful answers… except for one: Jim Bunning.

His answer was simply this:

No.

So I ask you all this question: Does Jim Bunning even care anymore about trying to get reelected?  

{Originially posted at my blog Senate Guru.}

Roll Call has a new article online focusing on Republican attempts to win in 2010 the Senate seat held by Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln for the last ten years.  The content of the article is a clear statement on how Senate Republicans’ only weapon besides obstruction-by-filibuster is toothless bullying.

The article begins by telegraphing how Republicans will attack Senator Lincoln over the course of the 2010 cycle:

This cycle, the NRSC has stepped into the Arkansas race early, attempting to soften Lincoln’s poll numbers with attacks on her support for the stimulus legislation and for sending “mixed signals” when it comes to the Employee Free Choice Act, according to an NRSC press release. And when Lincoln announced late last month that Vice President Joseph Biden would join her at her 2010 campaign kickoff this weekend, the NRSC was quick to blast the two-term Senator for being out of touch with voters back home.

“Senator Lincoln’s support for runaway Washington spending and her refusal to take a position on ‘card check’ despite representing a right to work state, are among a few of the important issues we are bringing to the attention of her constituents,” NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said on Monday.

Let’s take a look at the foolishness contained in this passage:

(Much more below the fold.)

1) The NRSC attacks Senator Lincoln as being “out of touch” with Arkansas voters because Vice President Joe Biden is attending her campaign kick-off.  So, um, how popular is the Obama-Biden administration right now?  I believe the levels are historically high (as are the folks at the NRSC, apparently).  Here is a link to the rather comical release.  Among the ‘reasons’ that the NRSC gives for why ‘palling around’ with Vice President Biden proves Senator Lincoln is “out of touch” with Arkansans is that McCain-Palin won Arkansas’ electoral votes in 2008.  I wonder if the NRSC staff will apply that same standard when they opine about the re-election bids of Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, as well as the campaigns of those who win the Republican nominations for Senate in Florida, New Hampshire, and Ohio.  Note to Senator Lincoln: Republicans will call you “out of touch” no matter what you do.  If you dive to the right in order to deflect their attacks, it won’t work because they’ll keep attacking no matter what.

2) The NRSC attacks Senator Lincoln’s support for what they call “runaway Washington spending.”  The NRSC’s ridiculous attack press release linked above does not reference a single vote of Senator Lincoln’s, only criticizing Vice President Biden’s record as a U.S. Senator.  However, the NRSC has already dispensed a stock attack against Senator Lincoln for her support of the economic stimulus bill earlier this year.  Note to Senator Lincoln: Republicans will claim you support “runaway Washington spending” no matter how you vote.  Even if you oppose every bill that includes a dime of spending, Republicans will attack you.  If you dive to the right in order to deflect their attacks, it won’t work because they’ll keep attacking no matter what.

3) The NRSC attacks Senator Lincoln on what they call “card check,” refering to the Employee Free Choice Act.  If Senator Lincoln strengthens American workers by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, Republicans will attack her, sure.  Although, if Senator Lincoln caves to Republican bullying and votes against it, all that will do is drive a wedge between her and organized labor, a key source of support for Democrats.  However, caving to Republicans on this issue won’t bring an end to Republican attacks.  Note to Senator Lincoln: To put it simply, Republicans will attack you no matter how you vote.  The more you cave to their attacks, the more credence you give their attacks.  Work to gain the approval of Arkansas’ families and workers, not the NRSC.

After offering the silly stock Republican attacks against Senator Lincoln, the article goes into who the Republicans might recruit to oppose Senator Lincoln:

When it comes to taking on the Lincoln machine, the Republicans mentioned most often right now include state Sen. Gilbert Baker, who represents a Little Rock-based district, and Little Rock Attorney Tim Griffin, a former special assistant in the Bush White House who briefly served as U.S. attorney in Arkansas. …

Outside of Griffin and Baker, Republicans are also looking to Rogers Mayor Steve Womack and Little Rock banker French Hill – who served as a special assistant under Bush for economic policy – as possible 2010 Senate candidates.

Let’s take a look at what this list of potential recruits says about Republican prospects against Senator Lincoln:

1) Nowhere in the article is Republican Rep. John Boozman mentioned.  Rep. Boozman is the only Republican member of Arkansas’ Congressional delegation.  Given that every – I repeat: every – Constitutional officer in Arkansas is a Democrat, Rep. Boozman is basically the top elected official in Arkansas.  That the NRSC didn’t even see fit to make sure his name was included means he is out.

2) Similarly, the absence of any mention of former Gov. Mike Huckabee reiterates Gov. Huckabee’s insistence that a 2010 Senate run isn’t in his future.

Two of the four mentioned possible recruits are guaranteed to turn AR-Sen, in no small part, into a referendum on George W. Bush more than on President Obama or Senator Lincoln.

3) Tim Griffin is a Karl Rove protege who Cheney-Bush-Rove tried to install as a U.S. Attorney amid their notorious Attorney Purge.  Griffin is also a former RNC staffer credited with engaging in the racist voter-suppression tactic of “vote caging.”  Speaking of Griffin being a Rove protege, even Twitter betrays Griffin’s Rove-philia:

4) The other Bushie mentioned as a possible candidate is French Hill, whose name sounds a little – what’s the word? – French!  As the article notes, French Hill was a “special assistant under Bush for economic policy.”  Hmmm, someone refresh my memory.  How does the public regard George W. Bush’s economic record?  Really, I beg the AR-GOP to put French Hill forward as their Senate candidate.

5) The first non-Bushie possible recruit mentioned is state sen. Gilbert Baker.  Though not a member of George W. Bush’s administration, he has not managed to avoid scandal.  First, Baker went to bat “as a character witness for a campaign worker and Republican officeholder who’d repeatedly brutalized a woman and was subsequently convicted of kidnapping. Some supporter of women.”  Here’s the situation:

Recently, Baker sent out a press release claiming the issue of women’s rights is one he takes “seriously”. However, in 2005 Gilbert Baker asked the 1st Division Faulkner County Circuit Court for “leniency and mercy” for a campaign worker of Baker’s who repeatedly beat his female victim, held a knife to her throat, smothered her until she threw up, and  using a cigarette lighter burned her multiple times.

Baker testified repeatedly as a character witness to help the defendant, also an elected Republican constable. The defendant was accused of rape, and convicted of kidnapping and assault against a Faulkner County woman. According to Circuit Court documents, Baker testified twice for the man, after knowing the horrible facts of the case and even admitted the defendant had “done wrong.”

Baker acknowledged that this heinously degenerate person had “done wrong” and he still offered his testimony as a character witness multiple times (because this degenerate was a campaign worker?).  Pretty grotesque.  Another scandal, far less grotesque but nonetheless inappropriate, was also aired for public consumption.  Baker’s son allegedly received preferential treatment at the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) and Baker used public property belonging to UCA for a campaign fundraiser while Baker delivered over half a million dollars to in public money to UCA.  The credibility of the allegations (particularly as a possible quid pro quo) were furthered when it was revealed that UCA President Lu Hardin used money from his discretionary fund to buy gifts for Baker.  Will the AR-GOP and the NRSC turn to this person, who appears to abuse his political power and defends his campaign workers when they abuse women?

6) The last possible recruit is Rogers Mayor Steve Womack.  Rogers is a city of about 50,000 residents, putting in the bottom half of Arkansas’ top ten most populous cities, and Womack was first elected Rogers’ Mayor in November ’98.  By not being a Bushie or a character witness for someone who brutalized a woman, Womack should automatically become the most desirable of the four recruits to the NRSC.  I don’t know much about Womack aside from an episode of anti-immigrant fervor.  Womack wanted to task local law enforcement officers with enforcing federal immigration policy.  When the Mexican consulate in Arkansas wanted to discuss the issue with Womack, Womack gave the consulate the cold shoulder:

It was a bad week for …

ROGERS MAYOR STEVE WOMACK. He treated rudely a request by the Mexican consul in Little Rock to talk about Womack’s plan to use police officers to crack down on immigrants, pleading more important business at a golf tournament. Womack intends to send cops full bore after people without proper working papers, not, you may be sure, the people who hired them.

Womack could simply veil his anti-immigrant policy under the guise of populism.  Womack is, perhaps, the most unknown of the named possible recruits – and that might be his greatest strength as a Republican candidate in 2010.

After running through the underwhelming list of possible Republican Senate recruits, the Roll Call article ends with Republicans warning Senator Lincoln that, if she doesn’t vote the way they want her to, she’ll be in big, big trouble:

“Right now, we’re all watching her card check vote,” said Karen Ray, whose last day as Arkansas Republican Party executive director was Monday. “If she votes yes on it, the repercussions here will just be enormous.” …

Griffin said he too would be watching Lincoln’s votes carefully.

“There will be a number of other pieces of legislation where she will have to decide between being an Arkansas conservative or being a Washington liberal,” he said.

I have two responses to this closing section of the article:

1) “The repercussions here will just be enormous.”  Senator Lincoln, watch out!  If you don’t vote the way the National Republican Senatorial Committee wants, they will attack you.  However, if you vote the exact way they want you to every single time, they will… they will… they’ll still attack you!  These “enormous repercussions” that Republicans rattle on about are absolutely meaningless.  I truly hope that Senator Lincoln recognizes this and has the spine to stand up to idiotic Republican attacks.

2) For the AR-GOP, the only two types of people that exist are “Arkansas conservatives” and “Washington liberals.”  That’s why the AR-GOP is so successful.  Need I remind you that Arkansas’ Congressional delegation includes only one Republican and every single statewide Constitutional officer is a Democrat.  Further, the 35-member Arkansas state Senate consists of 27 Democrats and only 8 Republicans; and, the 100-member Arkansas state House of Representatives consists of 71 Democrats and only 28 Republicans (and 1 Green).  Aside from the Presidential election, these are partisan electoral leanings you’d more likely see in Rhode Island than in the South.  Yet Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin wants to turn the race into a political caricature about “Arkansas conservatives” vs. “Washington liberals.”  And Republicans expect Senator Lincoln to quake at their threats.  Once again, that’s why the AR-GOP is so successful.

I’ll close with a reiteration of sentiments given above.  Note to Senator Lincoln: Republicans will attack you as “out of touch” or as a supporter of “runaway Washington spending” no matter how you vote.  Even if you vote the way Republicans want you to every single time, Republicans will attack you.  The more you cave to their attacks, the more credence you give their attacks.  If you dive to the right in order to deflect their attacks, it won’t work because they’ll keep attacking no matter what.  The best way to keep your job for another six years is to do your job.  Look out for the best interests of Arkansas’ families and workers, and don’t give a second thought to the toothless, empty bullying of Republicans.

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.  

Fortynine Senate Republicans entered the 2008 elections and 41 or 42 will be left.  The result seems to have triggered a mini-boomlet of retirements from the class of 2010: Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Chuck Grassley, and George Voinovich.  Kay Bailey Hutchison may also be adding herself to this list.

The combination has had a profound effect on the political composition of the remaining Republicans.  Sure, the three most noderate Republican Senators are still there in the persons of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter but the ground behing them has moved a lot.  Ten of the next twelve Republicans (based on Progressive Punch scores from the 2007/2008 session) are either gone or have announced their retirements.  By contrast, only four of the bottom thirtyfour will be gone and one, Larry Craig, was replaced by a similarly conservative Republican.

The list of the departed or departing includes Gordon Smith (43.85), Norm Coleman (possibly, 33.42), George Voinovich (31.37), Ted Stevens (26.63), Chuck Hagel (23.84), John Warner (23.31), Pete Domenici ((22.62), Chuck Grassley ((16.27), John Sununu (15.95), and Mel Martinez (15.32).  Overall, the ten from 2008 had an average Progressive Punch score of 21.18 while those staying for the next session average a paltry 12.63.  Retirements and defeats will continue to drive that number even lower.

By comparison, 13 new Republicans were elected to the House in 2006.  The 13 had a combined Progressive Punch average of 4.58.  Three of the 13 were defeated for re-election either in a primary (David Davis) or the general election (Bill Sali, Tim Walberg).  Twenty new Republicans were elected to the House and two were elected to the Senate in 2008.  The new blood is pretty likely more conservative than the members who are replaced.

The once dominant Republican House class of 1994 has been reduced to 15 members.  Two of them, Todd Tiahrt and Tom Latham, are likely candidates for the Senate vacancies just announced.  John Shadegg and possibly Frank LoBiondo are targets for 2010 House races.  The times, they are a-changin’.  

This year, NC voters were confronted witha Republican ticket headed up by a 72 year old white man running for President and a 72 year old white woman running for the US Senate.  I guess they call that diversity but it was pretty indicative of the seven incumbents (plus McCain)

Republicans running for Federal office in North Carolina (I’m excluding Sarah Pallin as she was essentially a tag a long).

The Congressional loser for the Republicans was 63 year old Robin Hayes.  Hayes was bested by 57 year old Democrat Larry Kissell.  That’s part of the story as 47 year old Barack Obama and 55 year old Kay Hagan whipped the aging Dole and McCain, each 72.

The Congressional winners for NC Republicans included 77 year old Howard Coble, 67 year old Sue Myrick, and two 65 year olds in Walter Jones and Virginia Foxx.  Foxx looks a good deal older than her age having the traditional old grandma look.  Only Patrick McHenry, 33, is younger than the traditional retirement age and even he got an age “Schock.”  McHenry is no longer the youngest House member being badly overtaken by 26 year old wunderkid/brat Aaron Schock of Illinois.

By contrast, two North Carolina Democrats are also clearly agingin 68 year old David Price and 67 year old Bob Etheridge.  GK Butterfield is getting there at 61.  and so is Mel Watt at 63.  Larry Kissell (57), Brad Miller, Mike McIntyre (52) and Kay Hagan (55) are in what would seem prime age for a legislator.  Heath Shuler at 36 is still young and hardly has the ambitious brat reputation of McHenry.

Makes one think of the two curmudgeons from Alaska (Don Young (73?) and Ted Stevens (84).

Cross-posted at Election Inspection 

(Note: due to formating issues, I didn't post the charts here, to see how Obama did compared to Kerry, visit the Election Inspection link) 

I've actually been quite interested in doing a comparison of how Obama did compared to the last Democratic nominee (Kerry). Here's the difference between Obama and Kerry's margins in each state (for reference, I subtracted Kerry's margin from Obama's margin to get the final number, for example, if Obama's margin in California was 24 and Kerry's margin was 9, the equation would be 24-9=15).

Obviously, since Obama won the popular vote by 7, while Kerry lost it by 3, Obama is going to outperform Kerry almost everywhere, and speaking of, the only states where Obama did not outperform Kerry were in Alaska (-1), Arkansas (-11), Louisiana (-4), Tennessee, (-1), Oklahoma (0), and West Virginia. This, however, only tells us what we already know, Obama outperformed Kerry almost everywhere. A more important question to ask would be, where did Obama do better than Kerry relative to how the entire country did (to put it another way, we know that Kerry won California by 9 points, but he lost the national popular vote by 3 points, so Kerry actually ran 12 points higher in California than in the country, and Obama, who won California by 24 points but won the popular vote nationwide by 7 points, performed 17 points better than the country at large. Subtracting Kerry's performance in California compared to the country at large from Obama's same performance means California voted 5 points more Democratic relative to to the rest of the country than it did 4 years ago).

So how did Obama do in these other states compared to the national vote relative to Kerry?

(Follow link at the top for a look at the relative performance of Obama to Kerry in each state)

This gives us a much better picture of which states, in any given year, are moving more Democratic, and which ones are stalling out. Of course, it would be smart to keep in mind that some of these numbers have to be taken in context of home state effects of presidential and vice presidential candidates (Arizona, Alaska, Illinois, Hawaii, and Delaware are the home-states of McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden respectively; while Texas, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and North Carolina are the home-states of Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards, if some people over/underperform in certain states and regions, it has to be taken in this context). The glaring exception to the home-state advantage here is North Carolina, where Obama performed three points better relatively to his popular vote standing than Kerry did (and could easily be attributed to the growth of the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area). The states where Obama had the highest outperformance of Kerry's standing were in Hawaii (+26), Indiana (+12), North Dakota (+9), and a three-way tie between Utah, Montana, and Nebraska (+7 each). Obama's top under-performances, by comparison, were in Arkansas (-21), Louisiana (-14), Alaska (-11), Tennessee (-11), with a tie between West Virginia and Oklahoma (-10 each). There are, of course, a bunch of others, but generally speaking, we can say that by comparison, Obama generally underperformed Kerry in the south and the northeast (the exceptions being Vermont, Virginia, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, and North Carolina), while he generally outperformed Kerry in the midwest and the west, particularly where there was a large Hispanic population (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and California). Obama seemed to stick pretty close to Kerry's relative performance in Washington State, Oregon, and Iowa (in fact, it seems that compared to the country, Iowa seems to have a consistant Democratic lean, as it changed exactly zero relative to the country)

This has extremely important ramifications for both presidential and down-ticket races in the future, for example, three states which Obama won which Kerry did not (Ohio, Florida, and Iowa) might seem to be massive improvements for the Democrats compared to how Kerry did, but in actuality, Obama underperformed Kerry relative to the rest of the country in Florida and Ohio, while Iowa stayed the same relative to the rest of the country (that is to say, in both 2004 and 2008, Iowa was roughly three points more Democratic than the country at large) (of course, for Ohio, Kerry actually did relatively better than most Democrats normally do in Ohio, but it usually tends to vote slightly more Republican than the rest of the country, whereas Ohio voted slightly LESS Republican than the national vote in 2008). Now, relatively speaking, Obama tended to GREATLY outperform Kerry in the midwest (Obama's relative performance in Wisconsin was 2 points better, in South Dakota was 3 points better, in Nebraska it was 7 points better, and a full 9 points better(!)). Of course, Obama did, relatively speaking, underperform Kerry in Minnesota, but that might be more a function of McCain spending a dispropotionate amount of time and resources in Minnesota (one of the only places where McCain was significantly outspending Obama on both field organization and advertising). The places where Obama really outperformed Kerry though were in the southwest and the mountain west (Obama outperformed Kerry by 3 points in Colorado, 4 points in Idaho, 5 points in Nevada, 5 points in California, , 6 points in New Mexico, 7 points in Montana, and 7 points in Utah. Like I said above, Obama did tend to underperform in the south, but the three places where Obama outperformed Kerry are states which have strong implications for state-wide Democrats are in Georgia (+2), North Carolina (+3), and Virginia (+4). The other two big deals are California (which has become almost as Democratic as New York) and Indiana (which went from being 18 points more Republican than the country to being only 6 points more Republican).

Democrats are probably going to have a harder time getting elected in Southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, but strong Democrats are going to have a much easier time running in states like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Furthermore, with California's gubenatorial race in 2010, if the Democrats don't rip each other apart like they did in 2006, they should have an extremely good chance at winning the governor's mansion, and controlling redistricting for the census.

Securing the votes in Congress to pass real immigration solutions into law isn’t going to be easy. The next President – no matter who wins – will need to lead his own party first to get it done.

Senator Obama would surely have an uphill climb, even with a Party Platform that favors comprehensive reform. But, given an enforcement-only Party Platform and the policy positions of most Republicans in Congress, Senator McCain may need to scale a brick wall to bring his party on board!

Nevertheless, both candidates continue to talk about reform (at least in Spanish).

Well, we’ve already heard enough rhetoric- we want a roadmap. We’re asking the Senators how they will unite their own parties to pass real immigration solutions into law.

We’re saying, Show America the Immigration Reform Roadmap during the next presidential debate on October 7th!

Resources

The Republican Platform

The Democratic Platform