Tag: election

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the second part of an analysis on the swing state Ohio.



Unlike Florida and Pennsylvania, Ohio cannot be easily divided into geographically distinct regions (although they do exist). Instead, I will be examining it through the lens of both partys’ strongholds in the state.

History

During the late eighteenth century Ohio was a consistently Republican state, the equivalent today of North Dakota or Arizona. Democrats often came close behind – four or five points – but never quite won the state until 1912. Their stronghold lay in a ring of rural counties populated by German immigrants (a pattern that has completely disappeared today). But this was never enough to overcome Republican strength everywhere else.

It was Franklin Roosevelt who changed this pattern forever. He laid the foundations of Ohio’s structural politics, which exist to this very day. Roosevelt brought in previously hostile working-class counties along the northeast section of the state. He also shifted most of Ohio’s northern cities to the Democratic side – which had previously leaned Republican.

To see the effect, here is Roosevelt’s 2.85% victory in 1932:



Here is his 4.4% victory eight years later:



The maps are practically inverses of each other – courtesy of the New Deal.

Democratic Ohio

Today Roosevelt’s coalition remains, for the moment, intact; Democrats still dominate the union vote and northern cities. Because both populations reside along Ohio’s northern and eastern borders, Ohio’s Democratic results often form a blue “7.” The greater the Democratic margin of victory, the “fatter” and more defined the shape becomes.

For example, below the flip is Bill Clinton’s 1996 performance, in which he took the state by 6.4%.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Is Ohio a liberal place? Or is it a conservative place?

I suspect far more people would say the latter rather than the former.

In many respects, Ohio is politically similar to Florida. Both are well-known swing states that hold a bountiful electoral prize. Both lean Republican. Both have large cites that function as pools of Democratic votes. Both also have considerable rural, Republican regions.

But in other ways they could not be more different. Sunny Florida is diverse, growing, and service-oriented. While Florida often votes Republican, it is not exactly conservative. Cold, northern Ohio is a rust-belt giant. It is not very diverse. It is definitely not growing. Florida is new. Ohio is old and conservative.

For the moment Ohio is a bit more conservative than the country at large. For the past eight out of nine presidential elections, it has been a bit redder than the nation. Not much redder, but enough to be noticeable.

I do not think that the future looks bright for the Democratic Party in Ohio. The two are moving in opposite directions. Demographically, Ohio is staying static while the country at large changes. And there are not many truly liberal spots in Ohio – places like Boulder, CO or Seattle. There never were.

Ohio has a lot of unionized, working-class folk who are still voting against Herbert Hoover; they are a core part of its Democratic base. I am not sure how long they will continue to support a party that is becoming, quite frankly, fairly upper-class in ethos. People in West Virginia certainly don’t anymore.

Not that Ohio is doomed to become a Republican stronghold. Places like Columbus are rapidly turning blue, perhaps fast enough to offset losses in working-class counties. And it isn’t inevitable that those counties will start voting Republican. If West Virginia is a prime example of working-class voters who deserted the Democratic Party, Michigan is a prime example of working-class voters that still support it. Barack Obama won a landslide in that state.

Nevertheless, my gut still tells me that Ohio and the Democratic Party are shifting farther and farther away from each other. These things can reveal themselves very quickly in politics. In 1988, California was a red state that had voted Republican for six elections in a row. Then one day it was won by Bill Clinton – and it has never gone back since then. In 1996 West Virginia had gone blue for five out of the past six elections. Then George Bush won the state – and now we consider it a rock-hard Republican state.

That may be the fate of Ohio.

PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI.  PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn’t explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who’s PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn’t win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?

Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I’ve tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, now I will look at the swing states of Nevada and Iowa.

First I would like to post the data, then I will offer some analysis. My basic pattern is to work my way “out” from the “Purple States” to the more Blue and Red ones. Two weeks ago (I took one week off for Netroots Nation) I skipped my normal pattern of working out from purple states.  I became curious on how my model would work in states like Arkansas that are deeply blue at the local level, but deeply red at the presidential level. I will offer a refresher on them later. But first let’s examine the swings states of Iowa and Nevada.

IOWA

NEVADA

Both of these states have fairly “straightforward” Democratic or Republican leaning districts, only Iowa Rep. Boswell is a Blue Dog. Rep. Titus in Nevada’s 3rd district was designed as a swing district where there would be a equal number of Democrats and Republicans. PBI maintains this is still the case, while PVI suggest a slight Democratic lean. Also Republican Rep. Lantham of Iowa who is frequently mention as a target of Democrats because of his district’s PVI of only +1 Republican, is actually much safer based on PBI -8 (the equivalent of a PVI of 8), which is much closer to his winning margins.

Just a quick note as a reminder on Blue Dogs like Boswell, I developed a “correction factor” that allows for a better “explanation” for congresspersons who win districts that are a “mismatch” for their party’s majority ideology.  I would prefer to run a “batch” of these at a time. So I will simply republish the results for the four Blue Dogs I have encountered since I started this research.

FOUR BLUE DOGS

I developed a formula based on standard deviations. Basically I can figure out how much the average rep deviates from their district.  If I then compare where a reps voting pattern falls (in what percentile) and compare it to their district’s PVI, I can develop a “standard deviation factor”. Inside the standard deviation will get a bonus, outside a negative. The idea is that if a Blue Dog has a very conservative record, they may be surviving not because of a districts Democratic leanings but because they deviate from Democratic policies.  I showed all three variation of my formula but for future examples I will stick to ADJUSTMENT FACTOR #2.

For example, if Rep X is the 42 most conservative rep, that would place her in the 90th percentile. But if her district’s PVI was “only” the in the 60th, their is a good chance her margins would be effected. Using a few random samples I found most reps lie within 12% of their district’s PVI.

Using these dummy numbers I then came up with this.  

   SQRT[(30-12)^2 /2] = about 13%

    Her factor would then be 100 – 13 = 0.87.

So her victory margin would be weighted by 0.87 because she is more than 12% beyond her acceptable percentile range it making the victories in her district approximate 13% less “representative”.

    My theory yields the following formula:

        If rep’s voting record is > PVI then

            100 – SQRT[({Record percentile – PVI} – Standard PVI Sigma)^2 /2] = factor

        else if rep’s voting record < PVI

             100 + SQRT[({Record percentile – PVI} – Standard PVI Sigma)^2 /2] = factor

I then repeated this formula to calculate a partisanship correction factor. Ranking a members ideology is a subjective decision. Potentially what’s one person “liberal” position, is another person “conservative” ones, remember the wingers developed a model that ranked the Sen. Obama as more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold. But partisanship, how often a member votes with their party is an absolute number. A Democrat who represents a “republican district” would be expected to “break with their party” on votes that don’t reflect their districts values.

I couldn’t find a website that ranks all the districts based on their PVI (I only could find list of them by state not rank, help please anyone), therefor I substituted a PVI ranking with where each member ranked in the Democratic caucus. In the 110th Congress the average Democrat had an ideological ranking of 170 (by the way this is a result of several members being tied, this is the medium not the midpoint). The average of members towards the center was 191, former Daily Kos celeb Ciro Rodriguez fell at exactly 191. The average of members towards the liberal side was 121, which falls between Rep. Larson of Conn. and Rep. Eshoo of CA. As or partisanship in the 110th Congress the average Democrat voted with their party 92.3% of the time.

As a clarification in Adjustment #1, I used a deviation factor based on how far each member was from the center of the Democratic caucus. Adjustment #2 was based on how far each member was from outside the standard deviation of the caucus. In Adjustment #3 I removed the partisanship factor to see what effect it would have.

Because there are “only” 50 states (as opposed to evaluating 435 house members), I will at a later date have all the states ranked by PVI so I can adjust the Senator’s rankings. I developed Senate factors for the four states the four blue dogs came from. In the interest of full disclosure, my source for ideological rankings is Voteview, and for partisanship it was the Washington Post. This is still a work in progress, I’m making adjustments, and continuing to crunch numbers for more states. I also will use the adjustment factor on a liberal member of congress to see what effect that will have.

Since Janet Napolitano went to Obama’s cabinet and McCain announced (repeatedly) that he was running for reelection, Arizona has seemed off the table for us.  This, being followed by Sebelius’s choice to join the cabinet instead of running for Brownback’s seat, certainly but a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.  However, I’m inclined to a never give up attitude, and I think McCain is still very vulnerable, even if it would be an uphill fight.  There’s no room for naivity though.  If we’re going to win, we need a very strong candidate……..  

The Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon

(Credit where credit is due: I’m not the only one who’s thought of this, SE-779 floated this idea as well, so hopefully we’re on to something.)

For those of you that don’t know about Mayor Gordon, he’s bound to be one of the best mayors in the country and a rising star in the Democratic Party, and it shows.  He was elected mayor in 2003 with 72 percent of the vote and again in 2007 with 77 percent.  And Gordon’s not just a big name politician.  The guy’s the real deal.  He’s worked hard and used creative thinking to revitalize down town Phoenix, supported light rail, and launced the Works Progress Advancementproject, the heart of which is a compelling public works project.  The icing on the cake?  Mayor Gordon is on record standing up to Joe Arpaio and for civil rights.  And for all his hard work, Mayor Gordon earns tremendous praise from his constituents and drives the wingnuts insane.

Mayor Gordon is not only a good Democrat, he’s clearly a Better Democrat of the mold that’s shown great promise in the West over the last couple of cycles.  But here’s the rub-by all accounts, he’s interested in running for Governor.  The Arizona governor’s seat was lost to the Republicans when Napolitano went to the cabinet and the Secretary of State took over.  There’s no guarantee we’ll get the seat back, and we already have a top tier candidate for the seat in Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who’s also from the city of Phoenix.  The last thing we need is a rough primary between our two top candidates if we’re going to take back the governorship, especially when we could be working on taking down a high profile Republican senator.

McCain’s loss to Barack Obama and his conduct during the course of the campaign hurt him, so much so that it looked like Obama would be competitive in McCain’s homestate at one point.  Early on it looked like McCain would mend fences and work to keep a top challenger out of the running, but now it’s clear that with Napolitano gone he has no intention of doing anything but being a vindictive old man and an obstical in the path of progressive change.  What’s more, if Gordon were to run, he might not find himself facing McCain.  The far right has always had the knives out for the senator.  Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth gets a lot of buzz for a primary challenge.  In 2004, the Club For Growth (which will surely support any McCain challenger in the primary) tried to get Jeff Flake to challenge him.  And there’s always a few extra wingnuts drifting around Arizona like Randy Graff.  Gordon would have a strong advantage over any of these far-right nuts, but even if that dream scenario doesn’t play out he’ll still have a good shot at beating McCain.

Think about it, Arizona, like most of the west, is moving our way.  Obama will compete there in 2012 and would have competed there had McCain not been on the ballot last year.  McCain lost a lot of support among the growing Latino population in the state with his waffling on immigration, a group that Mayor Gordon has been a strong advocate for.  On top of that, McCain is working hard to further erode support among working and middle-class constituents by opposing a popular president’s economic reforms in a time where people are feeling the crunch.  What’s more, McCain has always gotten soft ball opposition in his reelection campaigns, and we’ve seen that he has a tendancy to flash his temper and trend towards self-destruct when he’s up against a real opponent.  So believe me, this one is doable.  It will be tough, akin to the Begich/Stevens contest last year, but still very, very, winnable.

So, if you think Mayor Gordon should run (and he will probably have to be drafted), why not drop him a line: http://www.mayorgordon.com/con… or throw his name out to the DSCC.

We can do this.  We can beat McCain on his home turf and send him packing for good while electing a Better Democrat and a great ally for President Obama to the U.S. Senate.  But first, we’ve got to make some noise and get him to run.

(Cross Posted at Senate Guru and DailyKos)

Florida’s District 7 should be added to the Swing State Project. The surrounding districts of Feeney and Keller were targeted, but not John Mica’s. District 7 has a small Republican advantage, but that may not even be true now, since Democrats have been outregistering Republicans by about a 5-1 margin.

Faye Armitage is a formidable opponent for Mica. Please check out her website www.fayeforcongress.com

The prize at the end of the primary season in Florida’s pristine District 10 is a meeting with 38 year Republican incumbent C.W. “Bill” Young. The democrat that has established himself as the front runner in this race to lead the charge against Bill Young is Dunedin Mayor Bob Hackworth.

Since 2002, Bob Hackworth’s leadership in environmental issues, diversity, and civil rights has provided a prime example as to what citizens should expect from him in Congress. His record of good government and visionary efforts in Dunedin also closed the deal on his recent endorsement by the St. Petersburg Times. His grasp on national issues has far out shined his two opponents (Max Linn and Samm Simpson). When confronted with the controversial FISA Act, Bob stood firm to his beliefs, saying

“Once again this administration has shown its disregard for the Constitution. By providing the telecom companies with immunity, the senate will be condoning the extra-constitutional actions of this government and be sending a message to the country and the world that big business comes before the freedoms and liberties of the American people. As usual, Rep. Bill Young sided with the administration in voting to restrict the freedoms that this country was founded on.”

Now his district is faced with an even greater dilemma as many feel that it is necessary to include off shore drilling in an energy bill in the future. Despite the Mayor’s strong support of Barack Obama, he refuses to compromise with republicans who wish to take part in the decimation of America’s coastlines.

“The elected officials who represent the people here in Pinellas County have utterly failed on this issue. We need leaders who will be honest about the energy crisis and invest in searching for alternative energy sources, instead of pandering because of $4 a gallon gasoline.”

Expect to hear much more from Bob Hackworth as he raps up his primary victory next week and pushes on towards victory in November.

My latest election contest is ready (cutting it close to the wire). I do this primarily by email, but thought I’d post here and open it up to others. Feel free to invite anyone who might be interested to enter, as long as they do so by about Noon PST Tuesday, Feb. 5.

INTRODUCTION

Finally, the Super Tuesday contest.  I’ll allow entries until about Noon PST Tuesday.  I’m not sure things will be any more clear in 26 hours than they are now.

There’s so much happening Tuesday that one could ask a bunch of different questions.  Please answer at least the main contest question and the tie breakers.

Some people have expressed interest in other questions, so those will follow.  They’ll be treated as separate contests and are optional.

MAIN CONTEST QUESTIONS

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTESTS

Primaries: AL, AS, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NY, OK, TN, UT

Caucus/conventions: AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, NM, ND (also, DA begin voting) [Do not use in main question.]

AS = American Samoa

DA = Democrats Abroad

Main question — List the primary states won by each candidate, according to plurality popular vote (to make it easier to answer, “none” and “the rest” are acceptable answers):

Hillary Clinton:

Barack Obama:

Scoring – 1 point per pledged delegate at stake in each state you get right.

First Tie-breaker — List the number of pledged delegates each candidate will win on Feb. 5 (1,449 pledged delegates are at stake), including:

Hillary Clinton:

Barack Obama:

Second Tie- breaker — Who wins CA and by what percentage margin statewide?

REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTESTS

Primaries: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NY, OK, TN, UT

Caucus/conventions: AK, CO, DA, MN, MT, ND, WV [Do not use in main question.]

Main question — List the primary states won by each candidate, according to plurality popular vote:

Mike Huckabee:

Mitt Romney:

John McCain:

Ron Paul:

Scoring – 1 point per pledged delegate at stake in each state you get right.

First Tie-breaker — List the number of pledged delegates each candidate will win on Feb. 5 (836 pledged delegates are at stake):

Mike Huckabee:

Mitt Romney:

John McCain:

Ron Paul:

Second Tie-breaker — Who wins CA and by what percentage margin statewide, over which second place candidate (e.g., “Smith over Jones by 4%”)?

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (OPTIONAL)

1) Which candidates, if any, drop out immediately (within 48 hours) after Feb. 5?

Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Gravel):

Republican candidates (Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul):

2) Aggregate percentage of the vote in the Feb. 5 primary states?

Hillary Clinton:

Barack Obama:

Others:

Mike Huckabee:

Mitt Romney:

John McCain:

Ron Paul:

Others:

Some longer term questions:

4) On what date will the party’s nominee mathematically clinch the nomination (counting unpledged delegate endorsements)?

FYI REFERENCE INFO

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONTESTS

Primaries: AL, AS, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NY, OK, TN, UT

Caucus/conventions: AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, NM, ND (also, DA begin voting)

REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTESTS

Primaries: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NY, OK, TN, UT

Caucus/conventions: AK, CO, DA, MN, MT, ND, WV

Primary (not caucus) election states, with the number of Dem/GOP delegates at stake, by poll closing time (PST) and number of Dem delegates at stake:

4pm – GA (87/72)

5pm – IL (153/57), NJ (107/52), MA (93/40), MO (72/58), TN (68/52), AL (52/45), CT (48/27), OK (38/38), DE (15/18)

5:30pm – AR (35/34)

6pm – NY (232/87), AZ (56/50)

7pm – UT (23/36)

8pm – CA (370/170)

If the delegates don’t match what you see in the media, that’s because they often just list the total number delegates per state.  I am excluding each state’s unpledged delegates however, as they are not chosen in these primaries and are free to support any candidate they choose at the national conventions.

LINKS

Reference:

The Green Papers: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/…

2008 Democratic Convention Watch: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

CNN Dems: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20…

CNN GOP: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20…

Polling sites:

Pollster: http://pollster.com/

Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (right wing, but for these elections, their averages might be more useful than pollsters trends)

(Cross posted on the SheShouldRun.com blog)

Two months ago, we started a campaign to recruit 1,000 pro-choice women to run for office.  Since then, over 800 women have been nominated.  Hillary Clinton has endorsed our effort.  Organizations like NEA, Teach for America and Oxygen Network have pitched in.  It’s been an amazing ride, and now I’m here to tell you how it’s going, to get your advice and to find 200 more women who should be running for office.

Where did this all come from?  Why is it so important that we hit 1000?

Two percent.

That’s the proportion of Congress in U.S. history that’s been made up of women.

Women’s representation in public office has improved over our nation’s two centuries of existence, but it’s still nowhere near where it should be. Today with women making up more than 50% of the population, just 25% of all elected offices in the United States are held by women.

The implications are clear: We need to encourage more talented women to run for public office.

That’s why Women’s Campaign Forum launched the She Should Run campaign this summer. We are committed to closing the gender gap in U.S. politics, so that all Americans can benefit from the unique skills and perspectives that pro-choice women have to offer. With She Should Run, we are collecting the nominations of 1,000 talented, ambitious women across the country who would made excellent public officeholders. 

When we started the She Should Run campaign – we just weren’t sure what to expect – no one had ever tried this kind of effort before.  Today, over 800 pro-choice women have been nominated by their friends, family, co-workers, or themselves to run for office.  Women from all walks of life have been nominated – lawyers, teachers, businesswomen, mothers and community activists.  We have been overwhelmed not just by the number of women who have responded so positively about the campaign, but by the heartfelt and thoughtful nominations we’ve received time and time again. 

Consider Stacy Schneider. A New York City lawyer originally from New Orleans, Stacy is an active member of the New York Democratic Party and a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton. She even started a Facebook group called “I’m a Girl and I Vote” to encourage young women to start voting at an early age.

Through the She Should Run campaign, eight different people nominated Stacy to run for office. Discovering that she is held in such high regard by her friends, family, and colleagues, Stacy is taking her nomination very seriously.

This is exactly what She Should Run is all about — multiplied by a thousand. As Women’s Campaign Forum Board Member Sara Love said,

“This project has helped us identify hundreds of women from all walks of life who are leaders in their communities, many of whom are considering a run for office for the very first time. These women are enthusiastic and driven, but many just don’t know where to start. That’s why WCF is taking this momentum and inspiration to the next level.”

Women’s Campaign Forum is doing more than just collecting nominations. Once our She Should Run nominees decide to become candidates, we will provide them with the critical encouragement, support, and resources they need for success. By supporting women up and down the ballot, we’re helping to build the pipeline for the future leaders of our country.

Join the She Should Run effort by nominating a woman you know who has the skills, the experience, and the drive to become one of those leaders. Maybe she’s your mom. Maybe she’s your boss, or your mom, or your wife. Or maybe she’s you.

As Senator Hillary Clinton said,

“If you turn on the evening news and wish that the news were different. If you watch the public officials representing you and wish they were doing a better job. Or if you wish that somebody in public office were standing up for your values, your concerns, your future. Maybe it is time that you dared to compete too.”

Submit your nomination, and send a woman in your life on her way toward becoming the public leader she was always meant to be.

I've been puzzled lately as I watch netroots activists support old school, DLC type Democrats. 

 

I thought the point of the netroots movement was to elect progressives.  To “crash the gate” with new candidates.  To bring fresh ideas into the Democratic Party.   

I can't count the races I've seen already where there is some state senator or state rep who is now going to run for Congress with the urging and blessing of the DCCC and DNC and state Party's.  And it seems our netroots activists are flocking to them.  Even though these candidates are much closer to DLC Dems than they are to being Progressive Dems. 

Look how disappointed we have all been over FISA, Iraq, etc.  We want to know why the Dems never stand up.  Well it is because we keep putting the same people — or people just like them — back into office. 

 

I'm not advocating we start a bunch of challenges against Dem incumbents ala Lamont/Lieberman. 

But in those seats where there are incumbent Republicans, why aren't there more netroots, grassroots, progressive candidates?  Why aren't we out recruiting them?  Supporting them?

And when there are those candidates, why are netroots, progressive activists supporting the old school Democrats?

If we really want change, then we have to change who is in office.  

I liked the votevet initiative last time.  Those guys weren't old school Democrats who had worked their way up the party structure and were just running for Congress because it is the next step on their resume.

It was an effective initiative.  It matched candidates with their districts.  

The electorate is ready for change. If we keep running the same old school Democrats who sound exactly like Republicans (except for maybe stem cells and abortion) then what is the point? 

There is a new Wes Clark video that is very unusual at YouTube. Instead of talking about a candidate, in this case Wes Clark, it speaks directly to Wes Clark. I hope this really does go viral. I feel it has a message that Wes Clark needs to hear.

The full channel name is YouTube/Polcampaign. There is only one video there at least for the moment. I will be putting this on my blogs. I hope other blog owners and members do the same.

This is not a 100% declaration of support for a Clark candidacy on my part. While most know I was heavily involved in the Draft and Campaign, I’m trying to keep an Open Mind for a couple of our declared candidates as they make their case. But I want to listen to Wes Clark too. I firmly believe he will elevate the campaign once in the game. And I think this video may help in that effort.

If Wes Clark again gets a firm demonstration of his built-in support perhaps it will impact his decision making. While most of us expect him to run, based on his own comments, I believe this is a time to demonstrate his support. Circulating this video is one easy way to make the support obvious..and elevate the campaign discussion at the same time!