Tag: Republicans

These are the dog days of summer as far as politics go, when the polls are many but the insight they offer is fleeting, because it’s too damn early to know anything, and when campaigns are coming up with their grand strategies that will unleash victory once people start paying attention, which right now, they mostly aren’t.

Nonetheless, I thought it might be instructive to chronicle what I think political junkies should be paying attention to right now, seperating the wheat from the chaff. This is my opinion and by no means comprehensive, so give your own thoughts on this as well.

Right now, the year is battling between 1994 (an all out disaster for the governing Democratic party) and 1982 (where the losses were small and manageable for the ruling Republicans). I don’t see much of a sign it’s going to be 2002 (where the dominant Republicans actually picked up seats), but who knows. Anything can happen in the next three months.

So here’s what I’m paying attention to:

Unemployment: Not the weekly unemployment numbers, which can fluctuate, but the monthly unemployment reports. We have two of these coming out before Labor Day, and while both are important the September 3rd one will set the narrative for the remainder of the fall. I think we will see some growth in jobs and a either a small fall or rise in the unemployment rate, which will not be good news for the Dems, but not the worst news either. If job creation goes negative for either month, however, or their is a more than 3 percent rise in unemployment, it’s very bad news for the Dems. Conversely, a big rise in job creation or drop in unemployment could mitigate some losses for Dems in November. Keep in mind that while unemployment didn’t seem to matter in 1982 or 1994 in predicting election results, there are reasons to expect it might play a more outsize role in the coming election (in 1982, Reagan had began to tame inflation, which made people feel better about the rise in unemployment, and 1994 was more about Clinton’s failed health care plan, his stance on gun control and perceived mistakes then the economy).  

Obama’s approval rating: Obama is right now about where Clinton was at this time in 1994 and Reagan in 1982 (Reagan actually may have been slightly less popular). Clinton dropped further, of course, and the result was a disaster for Democrats. Conversely, Reagan also dropped throughout 1982, and the results were not a catastrophe for the Republicans. What was the difference? I think it was this: while Reagan was not popular in 1982, he was not as polarizing as Clinton was in 1994 (remember this was after the gays in the military mess, the haircut on Air Force One, the consistent advocacy of gun control and other culture war situations). In other words, where Democrats did not successfully make the election about Reagan in 1982, Republicans made it about Clinton in 1994 (just as Dems made it about Bush in 2006 and 2008). So, it’s not just Obama’s approval rating, but the intensity of opposition to him. Right now, it’s pretty intense, but with most of the big ticket items (HCR, the financial bill) out of the way, there is reason to hope it may drop down to Reagan 1982 levels. That could be a big factor.

Money, money, money Right now, we know the Dems will have a financial advantage headed into fall, but how much is the question. Pay attention to a couple of things: 1). What’s happening with the RNC, which could determine how far behind the Republicans will be this year 2). Whether Karl Rove’s new group or any of the other shadowy advocacy organizations will make a difference in the Republican’s cash deficit and 3). Any snippet of information you can get on some of the Republican candidates who were outraised by the their Democratic counterparts (like the ones in Pennsylvania), that indicate they might be catching up.

Races to watch

While we’re going to see lots of polls about the close Senate and Governor races (and even some House races), many of those polls aren’t going to break either way until the fall. Here are the races I’m watching the closest this summer:

Marshall vs. Burr Marshall just came out with an internal poll indicated she was two points ahead. Great, but here’s the thing: she needs some independent proof of this. The DSCC and DNC are not far enough ahead of their Republican counterparts they are going to be able to do for her what they did for Kay Hagen against Dole two years ago. She’s going to need some evidence she can actually win this thing, because she doesn’t have enough money right now to beat Burr without an influx of funds. This summer will tell all.

Vitter vs. Melancon Given it looks like Vitter will likely survive his primary, see Marshall above. Melancon needs more than an internal poll to show he can win this thing against Vitter. He won’t be as financially disadvantaged as Marshall, but Louisiana is not a Democrat-friendly state right now, and if by Labor Day Melancon is still down by seven points or more, prepare to write him off. (even five might be too much)

Grassley vs. Conlin This one isn’t really on anyones radar, but it could show whether the national mood is anti-Republican or anti-incumbent. Grassley is running a lackadasical campaign, and Conlin is a great fundraiser. But if Grassley is up by double digits as of Labor Day, it’s probably over.

I think these three races will be indicative of where were heading. If by the time Labor Day rolls around, we are writing all of them off, it’s not going to be a good year for the Dems. If even one of them is competitive, it may be better than anyone expects.

Things not to pay attention to

The stock market, the weekly first-time unemployment numbers (unless they drop below 400,000), or housing starts. All of these fluctuate way too much to have much impact on the way the election will go

Party preference numbers People pay too much attention to these. Not only do they bounce all around (this week see Gallup vs. Quinnipiac vs CNN) but it’s still too early for them to tell us anything about how the races will shape up in the fall. The national mood now won’t neccesarily be the national mood three months from now (when the party preference numbers WILL matter)

Commntators either on Red State or to Steve Singiser on Kos (not Singiser himself, who’s great) The former are constantly predicing 90 seat House gains and 11 seat Senate gains for the Republicans, the latter seem to think Dems will be at 64 or 65 seats because they will win all of the toss ups in the fall, and even some seats that are currently leaning Republican. For relief, go to Nate Silver and 538.com. He’s not always right, but he’s always realistic (and when he has that occasional slip-up, like with his commentary on WV-Senate, he corrects it pretty quickly).  

   

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

According to the Times, the Republican Party has selected Tampa to host the 2012 Republican National Convention. Located in the vital swing state Florida, Republican intentions with this pick are fairly straightforward.

Not all national conventions take place in swing states. This impression may be due to 2008, when both parties held conventions in fairly competitive (or not, as it turned out) states. In 2004, however, Republicans held their convention in New York City; Democrats in Boston.

On the other hand, holding national conventions in swing states does constitute good strategy. After Democrats held their 2008 convention in Denver, Colorado ended up voting more Democratic than the nation for the first time since 1964. Likewise, the Minneapolis Republican convention helped Senator John McCain stay competitive in Minnesota weeks after Michigan and Wisconsin began moving Democratic. Choosing Tampa is another variation on this strategy.

Tampa, highly populated and fairly diverse, is a good place to hold a political convention.

More below.

While the city itself probably votes fairly Democratic, the larger  surrounding suburbs lean Republican. The convergence of these forces creates a very competitive environment. Hillsborough  County, which Tampa is located in, has gone within single digits for the past five straight presidential elections. Whoever wins the Tampa area stands a good chance of winning the state.

Florida itself constitutes a Republican-leaning swing state. This is somewhat surprising; at first glance, Florida looks like a typical Democratic-voting state. Diverse, urbanized, and heavily populated, Florida has more in common with blue California and New York than red Alabama or Kansas. The state, moreover, is becoming more minority-heavy as white retirees are replaced by Latino immigrants.

Yet a number of factors combine to make Florida a red-leaning swing state rather than a blue stronghold. Deeply conservative northern Florida, which is more like rural Georgia than Miami, gives Republicans an immediate base. Many white voters are elderly, conservative-leaning retirees. And – unlike most immigrants – the Cuban immigrant community votes strongly Republican, undercutting the Democratic stronghold in South Florida.

Florida has even been drifting right in presidential elections. President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore performed respectably in the state, but Senator John Kerry lost by a sobering margin. Mr. McCain was particularly strong in Florida; he would have won the state by 4.4% given a tied electorate.

This is strange. By all rights, a place like Florida ought to be shifting Democratic, especially given its demographic changes (the opposite is true for much of the Rustbelt Midwest). Yet in the short-term the state has moving in the opposite direction.

When Republicans hold their convention in Tampa, they will attempt to keep Florida in this condition for another presidential election. It is a clever move by a clever party.

This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing competitive Senate elections in blue states. The first part, which analyzes Illinois can be found here.

Out of the three heavily Democratic states being analyzed, Republicans probably have the least chance of winning New York. A serious Republican challenger to Senator Kristen Gillibrand has yet to emerge. Moreover, Ms. Gillibrand has proven an adept politician willing to campaign hard.

Nevertheless, in a bad national environment with low name recognition, victory for Democrats is not assured. Under the right circumstances (perhaps a Gillibrand scandal), Republicans may be able to pull off a shocker.

Like Illinois, New York can be divided into three sections: upstate, the suburbs downstate, and New York City. A New York Republican must win upstate and the suburbs by substantial margins – and perform extremely well in New York City.

More below.

Upstate New York

Like Illinois, the first step on the Republican road to victory lies with here. A Republican candidate must win strong margins upstate; a strong performance here is embedded with a double-digit loss.

Unfortunately for Republicans, upstate New York and downstate Illinois are not the same. Unlike Illinois, upstate New York is home to four major cities: Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse. In a normal election – i.e. a double-digit Democratic victory – these cities will vote Democratic, some by substantial margins.

There are several more wrinkles for a Republican candidate. Like much of the rural northeast, upstate New York has been trending Democratic. Despite the conservative national mood, Democrats last year won two special elections upstate. Moreover, Senator Kristen Gillibrand has roots there; she represented an upstate congressional district before becoming Senator.

Nevertheless, the majority of this region still votes loyally Republican; a competitive candidate can rely upon it to help counter New York City. In a close election a Republican ought to win almost every county in upstate New York.



The Suburbs Downstate

This region can be defined as the suburbs surrounding New York City: Long Island and the communities around Yonkers. A Republican’s task here is similar to that upstate: win, and win big.

Historically this was not too difficult; New York City’s suburbs regularly voted Republican, although never by enough to overcome Democratic margins in the city itself. Like many other suburbs, this changed with President Bill Clinton: since his time they have generally voted Democratic.

Today things are changing once more. Since the events of 9/11, downstate’s suburbs (especially Long Island) have been trending Republican. This was one of the few regions Senator John McCain did well in (as opposed to President Barack Obama doing poorly in); his national security credentials appealed to a number of downstate suburban voters.

A strong Republican must capitalize on this trend, changing New York’s suburbs back into Republican territory. This strength, added to margins from upstate, makes for a 5% Republican loss. Republican candidates have achieved this combination many times in the state’s electoral history. Take 1968, when President Richard Nixon lost New York by 5.46%:

The problem is the last 5%, to  which a Republican must look to New York City for.



New York City

To make up the last 5%, a Republican candidate must do well in New York City, that great metropolis of the United States. The Big Apple composes an astounding 43% of the state’s population, the largest proportion in the country. It also votes extremely Democratic; in 2008 four out of five voters turned the lever for President Barack Obama.

The Republican facing Ms. Gillibrand will have to substantially improve upon this number. This is not as hard as it first sounds. New York City, after all, has had a non-Democratic mayor for more than a decade. Low minority turn-out looks likely to bedevil Democrats during this off-year election. Moreover, Republicans retain a base in Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. Even in 2008 these places voted Republican:

(Note: Image courtesy of a very old post from jeffmd.)

Finally, some regional complexities come into play. Although almost all of New York City voted for Mr. Obama, some parts are more less loyally Democratic than others (as was the case in Massachusetts). White liberals and impoverished minorities in Manhattan and the Bronx almost never vote Republican; suburbanites in Brooklyn and Queens, on the other hand, are more perceptible to Republican appeals. Winning Republicans generally tie or win the Queens borough and hold Democrats below 60% in the Kings borough.



Conclusions

If New York is close next November, it will probably look something like this:

This map can indicate anything from a 5% Democratic victory to a 5% Republican victory, depending on turn-out. Perhaps the best barometer will be the Queens borough in New York City. Look to it next November – it might literally determine the fate of the Democratic Senate majority.

This is the final part of three posts analyzing the congressional districts President Barack Obama underperformed in. It will focus on the movement in Appalachia and the South Central United States. The previous parts can be found starting here.



The 2010 Midterms

Let’s take one last look at those districts in which Mr. Obama did worse than Senator John Kerry:

One sees again, as clear as ever, the diagonal pattern of Republican movement in South Central America and the Appalachians.

These districts differ from the northeastern and Florida-based regions examined in the previous post. Unlike those congressional districts, the districts in South Central and Appalachia vote strongly Republican.

More below.

Many of them were never much loyal to the Democrats in the first place; those that did vote Democratic generally stopped doing so after President Bill Clinton left the ticket.

Nevertheless, a number of these South Central and Appalachian districts are still represented by Democratic congressmen. This is readily apparent if one looks at a list of congressional districts in which Mr. Obama underperformed Mr. Kerry:

There are a surprisingly high number of Democrats on this list.  As one might expect, the Democratic-voting districts all elect Democrats (except, ironically, for the most Democratic one). Yet more than half of the Republican-voting districts on the list also are represented by Democrats.

That is actually an amazing statistic. These are places in Appalachia and South Central which are already voting Republican, which are fast becoming even more Republican, and which are electing Democratic congressmen.

For Democrats, congressional districts like these constitute ticking time bombs. They will be the first to fall in a Republican wave. There is literally no way the party can continue holding the majority of seats in Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

And 2010 looks like a Republican wave year. Democratic-controlled districts in Appalachia and South Central are in deep trouble already:

In congressional districts that vote Republican and are becoming Republican, only half the Democratic incumbents are running again. The open seats will likely elect Republican representatives this fall, even in the best forseeable Democratic environment.

There is good news, however, judging from the PA-12 election results. On May 18th Pennsylvania held a special election for a new representative of the 12th congressional district, after incumbent John Murtha’s death:

Like many Democratic representatives in South Central and Appalachia, Mr. Murtha had constituted a relic of an earlier time – when southwest Pennsylvania voted Democratic. His continued re-elections were due to his personal popularity and the power of incumbency, even as his district moved more and more Republican.

It was a minor miracle that Democratic candidate Mark Critz won. Until then, no Democratic candidate had ever done better than Mr. Obama since his election. Mr. Critz did just that, given that the president lost PA-12 (the only seat in the nation to support Kerry and the McCain). In a district with double-digit disapproval ratings of Mr. Obama, this constituted an arduous task.

It is the same task that awaits more than a dozen Democrats in Appalachia and South Central America come November 2010.

Cross-posted at Politics and Other Random Topics

(Notes: My senate rankings can be found here and I recently updated my own rankings for the Senate on my website, so that's what I'm talking about with the changes to the senate rankings)

It's funny, in some ways this has been a bad few weeks for Democrats politically (Dino Rossi's entrance in Washington State against Patty Murray and the thing with Blumenthal in Connecticut) but at the same time, the Senate picture actually looks better for the Democrats.

My most recent changes are to move Connecticut back to Likely Democratic from Leans Democratic and to move Nevada from Leans Republican to Toss-up.

The Connecticut thing should be pretty obvious, the New York Times screwed up pretty bad on their several stories regarding Blumenthal (plus Linda McMahon's idiotic bragging about giving the Times the story basically killed any chance of it seriously damaging Blumenthal).

Nevada's an interesting one, because Harry Reid hasn't magically become more popular than he was, but his polling against all three challengers has definitely improved. While I had been classifying the race as Leans Republican for my purposes, I'd always believed that Harry Reid was the incumbent who was most likely to come back from the grave and win simply because his opposition is so weak and his war-chest is really nothing to sneeze at ($9 million Cash on Hand, compared to his opposition who have a combined Cash on Hand amount of about $400,000, with that coming largely from Lowden with $200,000).

Now then, with the official caveat that the election is still several months away and there are any number of things that could happen in the meantime, let me give you my first preliminary prediction for the Senate races:

Democrats take the following seats from the Republicans: Ohio, Missouri, and Florida (I think Charlie Crist wins and that he caucuses with the Democrats, thus I consider it a Democratic gain).

Republicans take the following seats from the Democrats: North Dakota, Delaware, and Arkansas.

Honestly, I think for all the hoopla about Democrats getting routed in the fall, there's a very good chance that the Democrats break even for Senate races (to get this out of the way, I believe that Democrats will hold Indiana, Colorado, and Illinois despite polling to the contrary).

The best-case scenario for the Democrats right now is probably keeping their seat losses limited to North Dakota and Delaware (some Democrats are holding out hope that New Castle County Executive Chris Coons can pull off an upset, but I doubt it) and somehow hold Arkansas (frankly, Arkansas is bordering on being a lost cause as well), and then taking Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, North Carolina (this one's definitely a sleeper for the Democrats), and maybe catch Chuck Grassley off-guard in Iowa (to be fair, this is a bit of a stretch, as Grassley, despite showing some slight weakness, is still a pretty damn popular incumbent who isn't likely to lose). This scenario gives Democrats somewhere between 61 and 63 seats with the Republicans at between 39 and 37 seats.

Conversely, the best-case scenario for the Republicans is to hold onto to their competitive open seats (Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Missouri), protect North Carolina (which is probably going to be pretty easy if the Republicans hold all of their open seats), take all of the Democratic open seats (save for Connecticut), knock off Reid, Lincoln (or the open seat, depending on what happens in the run-off), and Bennet, and then beat Barbara Boxer in California (frankly, despite their candidate recruitment coup, I don't think the Republicans really have a prayer of defeating Patty Murray). This scenario gives the Republicans 50 seats (which basically means that Democrats will maintain control of the Senate unless Lieberman decides to screw the Democrats and switch, which I wouldn't put past him).

My current prediction might seem a bit optimistic for some, but it's still worth mentioning that even now, it's still reasonably possible that the Democrats can break even or even gain a seat or two in these senate elections.

(To reiterate, this is a preliminary prediction of the status of a series of elections that won't take place for another five months, so these predictions are very much subject to change).

This is the second part of three posts analyzing the congressional districts President Barack Obama underperformed in. It will focus on his relative weakness in the northeast. The third part can be found here.

The Northeast

In my previous post I created a map of congressional districts in which Mr. Obama performed worse than Senator John Kerry:

In this map the most obvious pattern is a roughly diagonal corridor of Republican-shifting congressional districts, stretching from Oklahoma and Louisiana through the Appalachians. This area has long been seen as a place in which the electorate is moving away from the Democratic Party.

The post then looked at the Northeast, another region in which Mr. Kerry did better than Mr. Obama.

More below.

Unlike Applachia and the Mississippi Delta, the conventional wisdom characterizes the Northeast as a stable Democratic stronghold. Yet, as the map below indicates, six northeastern congressional districts shifted Republican in 2008:

Much of the movement in Massachusetts, of course, occurs due to the loss of Mr. Kerry’s home-state advantage. Yet the districts in Massachusetts (MA-4, MA-6, MA-7, MA-9, and MA-10) also share a number of commonalities. All are quite suburban, quite wealthy, and quite white. Unlike the Appalachian districts above, these places vote substantially Democratic. Neither Mr. McCain nor former President George W. Bush came within single-digits in any of these districts (I suspect 1988 was the last time a Republican presidential candidate did so). Yet this is also Scott Brown territory; the Republican candidate won four of these  districts.

Notice, too, the highlighted New York district (NY-9). Like those in Massachusetts, this district is inhabited mainly by middle-class, Democratic-voting whites. The effect of 9/11, which convinced many New Yorkers to vote Republican, was particularly strong in places like these (in fact, it was probably greater here than anywhere else in the nation). Orthodox  Jews, an increasingly Republican demographic heavily represented in this district, have shifted strongly Republican since then.

Indeed, Long Island as a whole was relatively lukewarm towards Obama. Apart from the fighting ninth, Republicans did respectably in NY-3 and NY-5, holding Obama’s improvement to less than 1% in both districts. Like NY-9, these places are wealthy and suburban.

One wonders whether this change is merely a temporary blip or the start of something more worrisome for Democrats.  The case of Florida is probably not reassuring:

This is Florida’s Gold Coast – a Democratic stronghold – and three districts here (FL-19, FL-20, FL-22) voted more Republican than in 2004. Mr. McCain’s age probably helped him along here; the large population of retirees may have empathized with one of their own.

Ironically, a large number of these retirees probably came from NY-9 or eastern Massachusetts. Like both areas, these districts vote Democratic but have been slowly moving Republican. FL-22 is the exception, having been not very Democratic to begin with. In FL-19 and FL-20, on the other hand, Democratic candidate Al Gore did substantially better than both Obama and Kerry. This was a function of the substantial Jewish population in these districts; Jews strongly supported Joe Lieberman, his Jewish nominee for Vice President.

Fortunately for Democrats, almost none of the Florida or northeast districts represent a 2010 pick-up opportunity for Republicans. Except for FL-22, all have voted Democratic by double-digits for at least three consecutive presidential elections. A few weeks ago a special election in FL-19 resulted in a 27% Democratic margin victory. It is the long-term that is worth concern for Democrats.

In the short term, Democrats must worry about Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta. There Democrats are in deep, deep trouble for 2010. There are a surprising amount of Democratic representatives in these Appalachian seats where Mr. McCain did better than Mr. Bush. Their predicament will be the subject of the next post.

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

On Tuesday night Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district held a special election, pitting Democratic candidate Mark Critz against Republican Tim Burns.

Mr. Critz won solidly: a nine percent margin of victory off 53.4% of the vote. Several polls had predicted a very close, photo-finish election; this result contradicted that assumption.

This victory constitutes good – very good – news for Democrats.

More below.

His district, PA-12, was one of the few countrywide that voted more Republican from 2004 to 2008, as the rest of the nation shifted substantially left. Districts such as these are prime targets for Republicans in 2010.

Indeed, PA-12 constituted the only seat in the entire nation that supported Senator John Kerry and then switched its vote to Senator John McCain. For reasons such as this, I wrote a week ago that:

It will be a minor miracle if Democratic candidate Mark Critz wins.  [Almost] no Democratic candidate has ever done better than Mr. Obama since his  election. Mr. Critz will have to do that, given that the president lost  PA-12 (the only seat in the nation to support Kerry and the McCain). In a  district with double-digit disapproval ratings of Mr. Obama, this  constitutes an arduous task.

As it turned out, Mr. Critz did far better than Mr. Obama. Indeed, his victory constitutes the first time a Democratic candidate has improved on the president’s performance since December of 2008, when Democrat Paul Carmouche barely lost LA-4 to Congressman John Fleming.

Mr. Critz won by appealing to local issues, emphasizing his independence from the president, and sounding like a fiscally liberal, socially conservative Democrat – the type of Democrat places like PA-12 have traditionally voted for.

This is a strategy that Democrats have long used, to great success, in winning congressional districts that they should not be winning. It is how both Mississippi and Arkansas elect three Democratic versus one Republican congressional representative, and how Texas elected more Democratic than Republican congressman right until 2004. It is partly how the party won such great congressional victories in 2006 and 2008.

There has been much fear amongst Democrats that, in light of Mr. Obama’s presidency, this strategy will no longer work. State Senator Creigh Deeds tried running a rural-style candidacy for Virginia’s governorship; he failed quite miserably.

Mark Critz, on the other hand, succeeded where many – including this individual – thought for sure he would fail. His performance certainly does not mean that Democrats are in for an easy time come November, but it does give the party something to work with in the tough days ahead.

Now that the dust has settled and I’ve had time to reflect, I wanted to post a quick analysis of what happened in Arkansas last night, from a progressive Arkie’s perspective.  Keep in mind, this is only meant to be an analysis of last night, and of nothing that’s to come.  I don’t think it’s a perfect analysis, but it is my take.

First, let’s start with the biggie, the AR-Sen race.

Dem primary-Obviously, it was a big night for Halter supporters like myself.  Bill cleaned up in places I never imagined-dominating southwest Arkansas and picking up counties in Lincoln’s home turf-Cross, St. Francis, Greene, Poinsett, etc.  What was odd was the fact that Lincoln won a few places where Halter was thought to be running strong in, namely Pulaski County, where Halter is from.  There’s an interesting explanation for this, and I wouldn’t have thought of it myself if one of my associates on Blue Arkansas hadn’t pointed it out.  Halter is running an anti-establishment campaign.  You don’t get more establishment in Arkansas Democratic politics than Pulaski County.  There has been a charge put out there that Halter drew in “GOP good ol’ boys”.  It’s true that Halter did do better in rural, more conservative areas (which should put the electability suggestion Lincoln is trying to peddle to rest).  However, I don’t think these count as Republican voters per se.  They are socially conservative, but they don’t necessarily think government doesn’t work.  They just think it’s not working for them.  Halter’s populist message, I think, is resonating.

GOPer primary-With all the excitement on the Dem side, John Boozman was able to quietly walk to victory.  Gilbert Baker’s campaign flamed out as he got more desperate for attention, becoming incredibly ridiculous.  (Go to youtube and type in “sexy Arkansas cheerleader politician”.)  The real drama, if there was any, was waiting to see if Jim Holt pulled into a runoff.  If that had happened, Boozman could have been the next Trey Grayson.  Sadly, it wasn’t to be.

AR-01:

Dems-former state senator Tim Wooldridge and Berry CoS Chad Causey have advanced to the runoff.  We at Blue Arkansas were backing State Representative David Cook, a more progressive, populist style candidate, but he ended up placing third, the cash advantage being the problem.  Wooldridge made it to this runoff by virtue of his name recognition from his Lt. Gov race against Halter.  Causey by his connections to Berry.

GOP-Rick Crawford easily beat my old high school classmate Princella Smith.  How many Republicans in Arkansas do you think really were enthusiastic about voting for a black woman?

AR-02:

Dems-State senator Joyce Elliott (a progressive hero in the state) surged to an incredibly high total in the initial primary that no one had expected.  State house speaker Robbie Wills won everywhere outside Pulaski County, but not by impressive margins.  High African American and progressive turnout was responsible for the Elliott surge.

GOP-Tim Griffin easily raised/spent far more money than his opponent, who did have some significan endorsements from folks like Mike Huckabee, the cash advantage carrying him over.

AR-03:

GOP primary-Weird dynamics in this one.  Steve Womack (Rogers mayor) has been labeled as a RINO in the primary.  Keep in mind, this is a man who’s so nutty on immigration George Bush said he was an extremist.  Cecile Bledsoe managed to inch past Gunner Delay to challenge Womack in the runoff.

Statewide offices:

Two statewide office races were particularly noteworthy, the Secretary of State race and the Land Commissioner’s race.  In both races, young, more progressive minded candidate running on ideas (Pulaski county clerk Pat O’Brien and businessman L.J. Bryant respectively) both surged to face establishment candidates in the Dem runoff (current Land Comm. Mark Wilcox in the SoS race and state rep. Monty Davenport in the Land Commissioner’s race).  This is a big deal, as these offices are usually where Arkansas sends old politicians to retire, as in the case of our former Land Commissioner, current Sec. of State, and future Auditor Charlie Daniels.  The fact that more issues oriented progressive policy wonks did so well last night is a huge deal for the state.

State legislature-Nothing dramatic on the state legislative front, except for maybe two things.  The large black turnout in Pulaski county lead to the defeat of state representative Richard Carroll, the former Green turned Democrat, at the hands of state senator Tracy Steele.  The saddest blow was this-Jay Barth, a great progressive running to be the first openly gay man elected to the state senate, was defeated after his opponent Linda Poindexter Chesterfield, ran an ad raising his sexual orientation and accusing him of racism for questioning her missed votes as a state rep.  (Chesterfield is black and said that doing so amounted to playing to the stereotype of blacks as lazy.)  For me, that was the lowest moment of the night.  However, there was one good moment as Fayetteville sent a true progressive to the legislature, Greg Leding.

This is the first part of three posts analyzing the congressional districts President Barack Obama underperformed in.

Congressional Districts

By most accounts, Senator Barack Obama dominated the 2008 presidential  election. He won an electoral landslide, winning Republican-leaning states such as Indiana and North Carolina which his campaign targeted. Compared to 2004, the nation shifted almost ten points more Democratic.

Mr. Obama improved from Senator John Kerry’s performance almost everywhere. More than 90% of congressional districts voted more Democratic than in 2004. Yet this means that at least several dozen congressional districts were more friendly to Mr. Kerry than the Illinois Senator. I have mapped these districts below:

More below.

(Click here for a much better view of the map).

There is a clear pattern here: Republican-shifting congressional districts are found along a diagonal line stretching from Louisiana and Oklahoma to southeastern Pennsylvania, roughly along the Appalachian mountains. This is not exactly startling news; ever since the primaries, Mr. Obama’s weakness in these regions has been well-noted. The five states that shifted Republican from 2004 – Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia – are all located here.

The exceptions to this pattern, however, constitute items of considerable interest. Some of these have fairly simple explanations. Arizona’s 1st district voted more Republican, for instance, mainly because Arizona was Senator John McCain’s home state.

Other districts, however, go against commonly-held political wisdom. Take LA-2: a black-majority, inner-city district located in New Orleans (represented, ironically, by Republican congressman Joseph Cao). While LA-2 strongly supported Mr. Obama, black depopulation in the aftermath of Katrina made this support less than that in 2004.

Another example can be found in the northeast:

Republicans do better in five Massachusetts districts and one New York district.

This movement stands in contrast to the narrative of Democratic dominance in the northeast. Most in the beltway have ignored this trend, or dismissed it as simply the loss of Mr. Kerry’s home-state advantage. Whether this is true or not, there is quite a lot of interesting stuff to be said on these districts. The next post will be devoted solely to exploring this pattern.

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

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

In the aftermath of the 2008 presidential election, the New York Times famously posted a map depicting county-by-county changes from the 2004 election. A different version of this map is below:

What is remarkable about this map is the evenness of the Democratic movement – a 9.72% shift to them from 2004. With the exception of a diagonal patch of Appalachia, President Barack Obama improved throughout the country. It did not matter if a county was located in Utah or California, whether it belonged to a dense city or a thinly populated farm, or whether it was poor or rich – almost every county still voted more Democratic than it did in 2004.

If one moves to a statewide basis, the shift is still fairly uniform.

Compared to the county-by-county map, this map lends itself more easily to analysis.

More maps below.

Once again, Mr. Obama does well everywhere except for Appalachia. His improvement, however, is noticeably less in the traditionally Democratic Northeast. The South is strangely divided between the friendly Atlantic coast and the hostile inland states (with the exception of Texas). There is also a fairly apparent split between east and west: in the latter, Obama’s improvements are almost uniformly strong. The movement east is far more variable.

In addition, the color of several states can be explained through local factors. Clinton-loving Arkansas appears dark red, while Senator John McCain’s home state Arizona stands out amidst its dark blue neighbors. Obama’s home states Hawaii and Illinois also appear dark blue, but Governor Sarah Palin’s Alaska stays more Republican. Massachusetts, home state of Senator John Kerry, does not shift Democratic by much; Indiana, where Obama’s campaign led a massive turn-out effort, shifts massively.

In playing around with these maps I also took a look at the 1988 presidential election. In that election, Democratic candidate Mike Dukakis lost by 7.73% to Vice President George W. Bush. Because Mr. Obama won by 7.26%, the nation voted 14.99% more Democratic than in 1988. Here is Obama’s performance compared to that of Mr. Dukakis:

What this map reveals is far less uniformity. Compared to the previous ones, this is much more a depiction of structural political changes.

Perhaps most obviously, much of South Central America swings against Obama, illustrating the decades-long Republican shift of this region. Dukakis still was able to win a number of white Democratic counties in places like Louisiana and Oklahoma. Today those places have largely abandoned the party.

There are other patterns. A number of Plains states, such as Kansas and the Dakotas, have very little or no movement to Obama. He actually does worse in Iowa. This reflects a relatively strong Dukakis performance in rural America, which was in the midst of an agricultural crisis in 1988.

Most interestingly, one can see the 2008 electoral map in the map; the dark blue states almost all voted Democratic in 2008. Democratic-voting states today tended to shift most to Obama; Republican-voting states today tended to move less. Only two states that voted for Obama haven’t shifted strongly Democratic since 1988: Iowa and Minnesota. Out of all the states John McCain won, on the other hand, only Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina shifted strongly Democratic – and Democrats came quite close in Georgia. A similar trend has been observed in previous posts.

I am not certain if this pattern suggests electoral polarization: Democrats improve greatly in a number of 1988 Republican-leaning states (such as New Jersey or North Carolina), and Republicans do the opposite in places like West Virginia or Iowa. Instead, it appears to make sense for a candidate to win a state he or she does best in. Thus, this pattern seems to illustrate the electoral coalition Democrats have carved since 1988.

The farther one looks back, it seems, the more a map reveals.