Swing State Project

AK-Sen: A new PAC called “Alaskans Standing Together” has spent $600K on ads for Lisa Murkowski, a pretty huge sum for the state. AST filed with the FEC as a so-called “Super PAC,” as the Washington Independent puts it, which allows them to “raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, so long as they do so entirely independent of candidates or political parties.” Sounds a lot like a 527, except that AST will (supposedly) have to file its donor lists with the FEC. One of their ads is here – almost sounds like a Dem spot, except for the fact that Scott McAdams’ ads have been far better than this.

CT-Sen: Talking Points Memo went digging into an old story about a former WWF referee who, after making claims that Vince McMahon sexually assaulted her, was sued by both Vince and Linda McMahon in the early `90s. (They also sued Geraldo Rivera, on whose show the ref made her allegations.) The McMahons eventually dropped their suit after a year… but now that TPM is writing about it, their lawyer has threatened TPM with legal action.

WV-Sen: Trying to understand why Politico is presenting this as a new story, when we knew two weeks ago that zillionaire asshole John Raese loudly and proudly announced that he doesn’t support the minimum wage.

NV-Gov: Is this story going to blow up in the same way the Meg Whitman housekeeper story did? A woman says she cleaned Brian Sandoval’s home back in the late `90s while she was an illegal immigrant, and that Sandoval never asked her for documentation. Sandoval and his wife are claiming they don’t know the woman.

SC-Gov: Winthrop University (10/5-10, likely voters, no trendlines):

Vincent Sheheen (D): 37

Nikki Haley (R): 46

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±3.6%)

TN-08: Looks like Roy Herron is trying to make the most of the news that the DCCC’s abandoning him: He’s claiming it’s because he won’t support Nancy Pelosi. Gotta give the dude credit for trying – there’s lemonade in there somewhere!

UT-02: A poll by the Utah Policy Center apparently shows Rep. Jim Matheson leading Republican Morgan Philpot 46-30, with 20% undecided. The full details are behind a paywall, so we don’t know the field dates or voter screen.

DCCC: Ah, the panzers are definitely reconsolidating now, for real. The Fix’s Aaron Blake has a detailed writeup of the D-Trip’s ongoing triage efforts. As we mentioned yesterday, it looks like Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03), Steve Dreihaus (OH-01), and Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) are being left on the cutting room floor. In addition, Blake confirms his earlier tweet that Trent van Haaften (IN-08), Roy Herron (TN-08 – see above), and Stephene Moore (KS-03) are also apparently on their own as they defend open seats. Two “good” cancellations were also made in LA-02 and DE-AL, where Dem pickup chances are looking good. (Remember that even in 1994, Dems won four open seats.) But really, click through and read the whole piece, as Blake has details of cuts made all around the country – though he notes that many are small and may just represent resource shifts.

SSP TV:

• NY-Gov: Andy Cuomo touts the Medicaid Fraud unit at the AG’s office, then attacks Carl Paladino as a shady insider
• AL-02: Bobby Bright explains that he’s basically more-or-less a Republican
• NH-02: Annie Kuster hits Charlie Bass on a common theme, “raising his own pay” while a member of Congress
• PA-Sen: Two Joe Sestak ads on the same theme: the first points out what would have happened to retirement savings over the last couple of years had Social Security been privatized (per Pat Toomey’s wishes); the second features seniors saying basically the same thing

Independent Expenditures:

• PA-10: The DCCC spends $47K attacking Tom Marino – I’m wondering if some of this is for web ads, since there’s an $8 charge from GoDaddy (and the sums are smallish, though possibly radio-level)
• Realtors: Spend $1.3 mil helping Dems Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), John Adler (NJ-03), and Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)

Another fire hose blast of polls…

DE-Sen, DE-AL: Monmouth University (10/8-11, likely voters):

Chris Coons (D): 57

Christine O’Donnell (R): 38

John Carney (D): 53

Glen Urquhart (R): 44

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Magellan (10/10, likely voters):

Chris Coons (D): 54

Christine O’Donnell (R): 36

Undecided: 7

(MoE: ±3.3%)

FL-Sen: Public Policy Polling (10/9-10, likely voters, 8/21-22 in parens):

Kendrick Meek (D): 21 (17)

Marco Rubio (R): 44 (40)

Charlie Crist (I): 33 (32)

Undecided: 3 (8)

Charlie Crist (I): 46

Marco Rubio (R): 46

Kendrick Meek (D): 41

Marco Rubio (R): 48

(MoE: ±4.6%)

IL-Sen, IL-Gov: Southern Illinois University (9/30-10/10, registered voters):

Alexi Giannoulias (D): 37

Mark Kirk (R): 37

Pat Quinn (D): 30

Bill Brady (R): 38

(MoE: ±3.5%)

LA-Sen: Magellan (10/10, likely voters):

Charlie Melancon (D): 35

David Vitter (R-inc): 51

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±2.9%)

WI-Sen, WI-Gov: Ipsos (10/9-11, likely voters):

Russ Feingold (D-inc): 44

Ron Johnson (R): 51

Tom Barrett (D): 42

Scott Walker (R): 52

(MoE: ±4%)

WA-Sen: Elway (10/7-11, likely voters, 9/9-12 in parens):

Patty Murray (D-inc): 55 (50)

Dino Rossi (R): 40 (41)

Undecided: 5 (9)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

AZ-Gov: Behavior Research Center (10/1-10, registered voters, 6/30-7 in parens):

Terry Goddard (D): 35 (25)

Jan Brewer (R-inc): 38 (45)

(MoE: ±4.2%)

FL-Gov: Quinnipiac (10/6-10, likely voters, 9/23-28 in parens):

Alex Sink (D): 44 (43)

Rick Scott (R): 45 (49)

Undecided: 9 (7)

(MoE: ±3%)

IA-Gov: Global Strategies Group (10/7-10, likely voters):

Chet Culver (D-inc): 39

Terry Branstad (R): 47

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4%)

MI-Gov: Baydoun Consulting/Foster McCollum White and Associates (10/7, likely voters):

Virg Bernero (D): 37

Rick Snyder (R): 50

(MoE: ±2.1%)

OK-Gov: SoonerPoll.com (10/3-7, likely voters, July in parens):

Jari Askins (D): 38 (40)

Mary Fallin (R): 54 (46)

(MoE: ±5.2%)

CA-11: SurveyUSA (10/8-11, likely voters, no trend lines):

Jerry McNerney (D-inc): 42

David Harmer (R): 48

David Christiansen (AIP): 4

Undecided: 5

(MoE: ±4%)

IL-11: Anzalone Liszt for Debbie Halvorson (10/5-7, likely voters):

Debbie Halvorson (D-inc): 41

Adam Kinzinger (R): 45

(MoE: ±4.4%)

TX-27: OnMessage Inc for Blake Farenthold (dates unknown, registered voters):

Solomon Ortiz (D-inc): 36

Blake Farenthold (R): 44

Ed Mishou (L): 2

(MoE: ±4.9%)

VA-05: SurveyUSA (10/8-11, likely voters):

Random Digit Dialing:

Tom Perriello (D-inc): 41

Rob Hurt (R): 52

Registration Based Sampling:

Tom Perriello (D-inc): 39 (35)

Rob Hurt (R): 56 (58)

(MoE: ±4%)

I’m not optimistic that Jack Conway will win in this environment, but he’s still in the game and so long as Rand Paul is his opponent, it’s a safe bet that he’ll remain in the game.  But Kentucky has become a brutally difficult state for a Democrat to win, and in the last three competitive Senate elections, they always came up short.  I haven’t encountered a detailed handicap of the current race so I thought I’d offer my own outsider observations and a request for some answers to region-specific inquiries.

The best baseline map I’ve encountered for a competitive statewide election in Kentucky was the 2004 Senate race between Dan Mongiardo and Jim Bunning.  The map looked like it would be a winning one for Mongiardo, who scored victories in 47 counties, piecing together impressively large margins in Jefferson County (Louisville) and Fayette County (Lexington), overperforming in east Kentucky coal country which was Mongiardo’s stomping grounds, and even winning a dozen or so conservative Democratic counties in Kentucky’s far west side, which has been trending hard against the Democrats since the Clinton years.

But Mongiardo’s map was missing one key element.  Jim Bunning scored solid numbers in KY-04, the district where he used to serve in the House, and where his margins in suburban Cincinnati and the northeastern coal counties near Ashland were insufficient to help Mongiardo pull off the necessary upset.  It seems less likely that either Conway or Paul will have any significant hometown turf wars the way both Mongiardo and Bunning did, so those advantages and disadvantaged should be neutralized this year.  

But the big question for me is….what does a winning Kentucky Senate map for Jack Conway look like?

My suspicion is the core of his support will come from Louisville and Lexington.  Mongiardo won these cities’ home counties by between 17 and 20 points in 2004, and if Conway is to make this race competitive, it seems like he would have to perform at least as well there as Mongiardo did….and probably quite a bit better as I suspect Paul will do better than Bunning in rural Kentucky.

Speaking of rural Kentucky, I’m gonna be glued to my computer on Nov. 2 watching the early returns roll in from east Kentucky.  This contest should be a perfect bellwether to determine if the region’s deeply Democratic past is gone forever, or simply stunted by their personal animus towards Obama.  I’m nervous that at least in the Obama era, the region could be major trouble.  There were two counties in the entire nation that voted for John Kerry by more than 60% in 2004 and then went for McCain in 2008.  Floyd and Knott Counties in eastern Kentucky were the counties.  Now I’m pretty confident that Conway will win in most of the counties in eastern Kentucky, but will they be soft victories or landslides?

It’s a very open question.  Will hostility to cap and trade guide coal country’s vote in favor of Rand Paul?  Will Paul’s calls to deregulate anything and everything to coal safety work to Conway’s benefit?  Or will these opposing factors ultimately be a wash?  Considering that east Kentucky’s returns are generally among the first to roll in, we should know early in the evening if Conway’s numbers in east Kentucky are gonna be sufficient enough for him to pull out a statewide victory.

Western Kentucky is gonna be a tough nut to crack.  Much like southern Illinois, the region was strong for Democrats in the Clinton era but has moved ferociously to the right ever since, so far that scandal-plagued Ernie Fletcher managed to win McCracken County (Paducah) in 2007.  This is from a county that was within a half-percentage point for going for Walter Mondale in 1984.  While Paducah itself is probably out of reach, there are probably some rural counties in the area that are winnable for Conway to help him even out the score a bit in that part of the state.  If Conway isn’t doing some business in western Kentucky, it’s hard to imagine he’ll win statewide.

Beyond that, there’s a semi-competitive area in north-central Kentucky in between Louisville and Lexington where Conway’s gonna have to score some wins to offset the 3-1 defeats he’ll almost certainly get in the southern tiers of Kentucky counties.

Now…question time.  What’s the media market situation on the outskirts of Kentucky and does either Paul or Conway have a presence there?  I’m guessing that northeastern Kentucky is in the Cincinnati and Huntington, WV, media markets.  Am I correct in assuming that in 2004, Mongiardo’s underperformance in that region had anything to do with a reduced or nonexistent presence in their media markets?  And what other media markets filter into Kentucky’s edges?  Cape Girardeau, MO?  Memphis, TN?  Nashville?  Evansville, IN?  Knoxville?  And are either Paul or Conway on the air there?  If neither are, I could easily see a benefit for the candidate who ultimately does choose to make an ad buy in the outlying media market.  If voters in Ashland, KY and the Democratic coal counties surrounding it see only Jack Conway ads on TV, they’re far more likely to vote for him than his stealth opponent.

And lastly, I’m sure all of us here are glad that Jack Conway beat Dan Mongiardo in the primary, but from a tactical perspective, would be better off with Dr. Dan given that he’d most likely be able to mine (no pun intended) massively higher margins out of his home base in and around Hazard, an area that based on recent trendlines is likely to go against the Democrat dramatically without Mongiardo on the ballot?  Or will Conway’s advantages in other regions of the state outweigh Dr. Dan’s in southeastern Kentucky?

I always get most excited over competitive races in Republican-leaning states where a Democrat needs to piece together a difficult coalition to eke out a victory.  This certainly qualifies, and I’m eager to hear from anybody who has some perspective on what we might expect to see here.

With the news that Washington state may receive a 10th Congressional District, I set out to develop a map that is favorable to Democrats and should lead to a 7-3 delegation split in bad years, and up to an 8-1 split in good years.

Washington has a bipartisan redistricting commission, so massive gerrymanders are off the table. When Washington received a 9th CD, the commission attempted to make the 9th competitive – I expect the same to happen with a 10th CD.

Anyway, this map creates a super-strong Republican seat east of the Cascades, and generally puts each major city in the Western portion of the state in its own district and connects that city with more rural portions of Western and Central Washington. (BTW, partisan data would be helpful here).

WA 1 (Inslee [open]-D) [Blue]

WA 1 still extends across Puget Sound to Kitsap County, but loses Bambridge Island and some Seattle precincts and extends to the eastern most portions of Snohomish County. The Kitsap portion of the District, as well as the western Snohomish portion should keep this District a safe Democratic one.

WA 2 (Larson D) [Green]

WA 2 retains much of its current form – Northwestern Washington. Like it does now, the district extends into Everett. If Larson holds on this year, the District should remain a Democratic hold.

WA 3 (open D) [purple]

WA 3 runs along the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean. Inland it includes solidly Lewis County. In many years, this would be a Democratic seat, but control depends on who wins Clark County (and the City of Vancouver).

The coastal counties are more Democratic, and Skamania and Klicikat Counties did vote for Obama in 2008. In 2010 and 2012 this might be a tough hold, but as Vancouver becomes more solidly Democratic, so should the entire CD.

WA 4 (Hastings – R) [Red]

This district encompasses most of Eastern Washington – or at least Yakama and most of the low population counties east of the Cascades. Currently, both WA 4 and WA 5 are about 40-45% Democratic – this district would probably push that number to about 35%.

WA 5 (McMorris-Rogers – R) [Yellow]

While it may not be possible to create a safe Democratic district in Eastern Washington, connecting the Tri-Cities to Spokane may do the trick (to at least elect a Democrat – or make it a swing district). Whitman County voted for Obama and Spokane has two Democratic Senators in Olympia.

WA 6 (Dicks-D) [Teal]

WA 6 connects Olypmia to Kitsap County and extends to the Pacific Ocean. All of these counties are fairly reliable Democratic counties. Fairly in the sense that King, Snohomish, and sometimes Pierce Counties lead the way on Democratic issues in the state.

WA 7 (McDermott – D) [Grey]

Seattle.

WA 8 (Reichert – R) [Lavender]

WA 8 is strongly contested in 2010 by Suzan DelBene. Likely, the 2010 election will depend on how well she does in Pierce County.

To solidify the district, I chose to add several Democratic areas to the district – Renton and Kirkland. To add population to the district, I added the central Washington counties of Chelan and Kittitas. This is an area where I would like more partisan details, but both counties have voted for Democratic presidential candidates in the past.

WA 9 (Smith – D) [Bright Blue]

WA 9 was originally designed as a swing district twenty years ago – but has only been held by a Republican for only 2 years (1995-1997). For this map, it should stay a Democratic seat.

The district goes from the Seattle border to Puyallup and from Puget Sound to east King County.

WA 10 (open) [Magenta]

This new district is a Pierce County district. It includes Tacoma and Gig Harbor – and then races out to eastern Pierce county. This district should be competitive – or leaning Democratic in the worst years.

**Sorry for the quick write-up (I published the Diary before I was ready). Each district is + or – 744 from the ideal population size.

This is the fourth part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state  Colorado. It will focus on the complex territory that constitutes the Democratic base in Colorado. The last part can be found here.

Democratic Colorado

In American politics, the Democratic base is almost always more complex than the Republican base, a fact which is largely due to complex historical factors. Democrats wield a large and heterogeneous coalition – one which often splinters based on one difference or another. The Republican base is more cohesive.

The same is true for Colorado. Republican Colorado generally consists of rural white Colorado and parts of suburban white Colorado. Democratic Colorado is more difficult to characterize.

A look into President Barack Obama’s strongest counties provides some insight:

More below.

The Republican counties pictured here are fairly similar: they are thinly populated, homogeneously white rural counties. The Democratic counties, on the other hand, are quite different. There are four facets to Colorado’s Democratic base, and each facet is represented in the picture above.

Denver and Boulder

As the post focusing on the Republican base explained, the red-colored counties above constituted 1.2% of the total vote in 2008. A Republican who wins Colorado will win these places, but they are not necessary to win the state.

The same is not true for a Democrat who wins Colorado. The blue-colored counties – or, more specifically, Denver and Boulder – are absolutely essential for a Democratic candidate to win Colorado.

The map below illustrates this fact:

As is evident by the map, Denver County and Boulder County are the two foundations of the Democratic base in Colorado. Mr. Obama gained a margin of 221,570 votes from the two counties. Without the cities of Boulder and Denver, Mr. Obama would have lost Colorado – by around 6,500 votes.

Cities are the mainstay of the Democratic Party in modern-day America, and so it is unsurprising that the Democratic base in Colorado rests upon two cities. Yet not all Democratic cities are alike. Boulder and Denver represent two dramatically different types of cities, both of which vote Democratic.

Boulder is a stronghold of Democratic liberalism; in 2000 it gave Green Party candidate Ralph Nader 11.8% of its vote. Like most liberal places in America (San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, the state of Massachusetts) the median resident of Boulder is richer than the median resident of the United States. Boulder is also more homogeneous than the United States; whites compose something like four out of five people in Boulder County. In this, Boulder is also not much different from most liberal places either.

Denver, in contrast, has more in common with machine-cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit. Like these cities, Denver is poorer than the United States. Another commonality is the high number of minorities: Hispanics are more than one-third the total population, non-Hispanic whites less than half. Places like San Francisco and Seattle are more Democratic than liberal; places like Denver are the opposite. On the other hand, in 2000 Mr. Nader also got 5.86% of Denver’s vote – indicating the presence of a substantial liberal bloc.

Electorally, however, these differences do not matter. Both Denver and Boulder vote consistently and powerfully Democratic, and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future.

Rural Democratic Colorado

Colorado and Denver, however, constituted only two of the five blue-colored counties in the first map. The other three are rural, thinly populated, and highly Democratic areas. This may sound strange at first, given the extent of Democratic weakness in rural America. Yet the Democratic parts of rural Colorado have either one of two characteristics.

The first characteristic is indicated by the picture below:

This map uses 2000 Census data to provide a picture of Colorado’s Hispanic population. In 2000 Latinos constituted 17.1% of Colorado; today their numbers have risen to 19.9% of the state population.

Latinos tend to be concentrated in two places: Denver and the areas to its northeast, and a broad band stretching from south-central to south-east Colorado. The latter areas tend to be rural, thinly populated, and the poorest places in Colorado. Due to the high numbers of Latinos, most of these counties usually vote Democratic.

But not all of them. Latinos are not as reliably Democratic as blacks, and they also turn-out in lower numbers. Thus counties with high Latino population correlate with but do not ensure Democratic victory. In 2008, Senator John McCain won seven of the eighteen counties with greater than 20% Latino population. In 2000 Governor George W. Bush actually won Conejos County, where about 58.9% of the population is Latino. Out of the rural counties above, Democrats are only guaranteed victory in the south-central band.

Ski resorts function as another characteristic of rural Democratic Colorado:

For whatever reason, rural counties dominated by ski resorts vote strongly Democratic. These counties are largely located along Colorado’s Front Range. In two of them Mr. Obama won over 70% of the vote: Pitkin County and San Miguel County. Both are home to famous ski resorts: Aspen Mountain in the former and Telluride Ski Resort in the latter.

Ski resort counties are strange places for Democrats to do well in. They are the opposite of the poor Latino counties which also vote Democratic. The people who live in them are generally quite rich, quite famous, and quite white. Rich, 90% non-Hispanic white San Miguel County does not sound at first glance like a Democratic stronghold. Yet when described this way, San Miguel County looks a lot like another Democratic place: Massachusetts.

Conclusion

The counties that form the Democratic base form the shape of a “C.” A strong Democratic candidate will expand and fatten the “C.” A strong Republican candidate will cut into the “C” and often split it in two.

President Barack Obama’s 9.0% victory in Colorado provides one illustration of this Democratic “C”:

In this “C,” all four elements of the Democratic base in Colorado are present. Denver and Boulder form the top part of the “C, which is augmented by suburban Denver counties which Mr. Obama also won. The rural ski resort counties on the Front Range form the left side of the “C,” and the rural Latino counties compose the bottom part.

President George W. Bush’s 8.4% victory in 2000, on the other hand, provides an instance of a Republican breaking the Democratic “C”:

Mr. Bush makes inroads everywhere: both rural ski resort counties, rural Latino counties, and the Denver-Boulder metropolis are much more Republican. The Democratic “C” is just present, but barely so.

Unlike other states, therefore, it is relatively easy to tell whether the state is voting for a Democrat or Republican just by looking at a county map. A Democratic victory will look like Mr. Obama’s map. A Republican victory will look like Mr. Bush’s map. This is unlike a state such as New York or Illinois, where Democrats or Republicans can win a 5% victory under the same county map.

(Note: Some maps are edited NYT images.)

–Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

• WI-Sen, WI-Gov: Russ Feingold and Tom Barrett are both out with internal polls today, both from the same pollster (Fairbanks Maslin), both showing tied races. The Senate poll (Oct. 7, and 10-11) shows Russ Feingold and Ron Johnson tied at 48-48. The gubernatorial poll was an entirely separate sample, Oct. 5-7, showing Tom Barrett and Scott Walker are at 47-47.

• GA-Gov: InsiderAdvantage (10/10, likely voters, 9/27 in parens):

Roy Barnes (D): 41 (37)

Nathan Deal (R): 49 (45)

John Monds (L): 3 (5)

Undecided: 7 (13)

(MoE: ±4%)

If you’re wondering about downballot races, IA also has GOPer Casey Cagle leading Carol Porter in the LG race, 50-36, and GOPer Sam Olen leading Ken Hodges in the AG race, 50-40. Also, if you’re wondering how Nathan Deal seemed to regain his footing after a few rocky weeks where the race was seemingly tied, a lot of that seems to have to do with the RGA pouring money into this race ($3.2 million worth), as they’ve tacitly made this race one of their top priorities.

• AZ-05: Although this is an internal poll that has the GOPer leading the incumbent Dem, it’s a little on the lackluster side. David Schweikert responds to the DCCC internal giving Harry Mitchell an 7-point lead with his own poll showing him up by only 2, 45-43. (The poll was taken 10/5-6 by National Research.) An incumbent at 43% is no good, of course, but averaging the two polls out (for whatever that’s worth) gives Mitchell a small edge.

• NY-20, TN-08: What do these two races (one with a Blue Dog incumbent who seems in control of his race, the other an open seat with an aspiring Blue Dog not likely to win) have in common? In both races, the Dem said he wouldn’t support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. Scott Murphy’s decision (granted, he’s more of a waffle than a flat-out “no”) is much more surprising than Roy Herron‘s; we’ll have to see if this becomes more of a trend in the closing weeks.

• OH-13: Tom Ganley has pulled his broadcast television advertising for the remaining weeks of the campaign, although he will be focusing on less-expensive cable and radio buys instead of going dark completely. He says that’s how he’s going to “cut through the clutter,” but somehow methinks the self-funder (savvy businessman that he is) realized that he shouldn’t throw his own money down the hole in a race that just got considerably more difficult once sex assault accusations started to fly. (H/t LookingOver.)

• PA-13: Here’s an unremarkable internal from a race where we shouldn’t even have to be looking at one: Allyson Schwartz, in the D+7 NE Philly district, leads Dee Adcock 57-32 in a 10/5-6 poll from Cooper & Secrest. Apparently this was released to combat rumors of a Republican internal showing it a single-digit race.

• SD-AL: This was the day’s big fundraising story until Sharron Angle showed up: the reason Kristi “Leadfoot” Noem was driving so fast was because she had to get to so many different donors’ houses. She raised $1.1 million for the quarter, compared to $550K for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. That actually gives Noem the CoH edge, $770K to $500K.

• TN-03: Here’s one more place I wouldn’t think I’d be seeing an internal, considering that this GOP-held open seat in a dark-red district should be a slam-dunk this year, but I guess Chuck Fleischmann feels like he needs to look busy. The GOP nominee is leading Dem nominee John Wolfe by a 50-20 margin, in a poll (no dates) by Wilson Research.

• DCCC: More news on the triage front, on what’s apparently the last day to cancel ad reservations without taking a big financial hit. Having thrown Steve Driehaus overboard yesterday, the DCCC followed up today with Kathy Dahlkemper in PA-03 and Suzanne Kosmas in FL-24, who won’t get any more ad cover according to the NYT. Aaron Blake also tweets that open seats KS-03, IN-08, and TN-08 got the axe.

• AGs: You probably know Louis Jacobson of Governing magazine for his handicapping of state legislative chambers, but he also works the state AG beat (that’s often short for “Aspiring Governor,” so it’s a key bench-building step), and is out with handicapping for all the Attorney General races up this year. As you might expect, Dems should brace for some losses, especially in open seats.

• Gerrymandering: If there’s any place where people would be psyched to sit down and watch a movie about gerrymandering, it’s here at SSP. The movie’s creator is up with a diary here that lists all the theaters where it’s opening over the next month (including where he’ll be hosting Q&As). Some of them are one-night engagements, starting as early as tonight, so check out the listings ASAP!

• SSP TV:

• CO-Sen: The DSCC hits Ken Buck for his craptastic tenure working for the local US Attorney’s office

• KY-Sen: The DSCC goes back to the $2,000 Medicare deductible issue yet again to hit Rand Paul

• WA-Sen: I’m not sure why Washington Dems always wait until the last minute to remind voters that Dino Rossi is pro-life (that’s what happened in both gube races) — maybe they figure it’s their trump card — but they’re doing it again; meanwhile, the American Action Network hits Patty Murray by whipping up a second version of that weird Fred Davis ad with the tennis shoes walking on people

• WI-Sen: One of Russ Feingold’s myriad problems is that Ron Johnson actually comes up with some effective ads: this one’s a bio spot

• GA-Gov: Nathan Deal’s new ad hits Roy Barnes for having once said that “Mexican workers were good for Georgia”

• SC-Gov: The suddenly resurgent Vince Sheheen’s out with another spot, this one equating Nikki Haley to protégé Mark Sanford

• TX-Gov: Lone Star First (a DGA-backed group) hits Rick Perry on the HPV vaccine and links to Big Pharma

• OH-13: EMILY’s List steers clear of the sex assault allegations of Tom Ganley, going with a humorous spot on outsourcing and his 400 civil lawsuits at his car dealerships

• Rasmussen:

• IL-Sen: Alexi Giannoulias (D) 44%, Mark Kirk (R) 43%, LeAlan Jones (G) 4%

• OH-Sen: Lee Fisher (D) 34%, Rob Portman (R) 57%

• TN-Gov: Mike McWherter (D) 31%, Bill Haslam (R) 59%

• WI-Sen: Russ Feingold (D-inc) 45%, Ron Johnson (R) 52%

• Rasmussen (as Fox/Pulse):

• CT-Gov: Dan Malloy (D) 45%, Tom Foley (R) 41%

• CT-Sen: Richard Blumenthal (D) 49%, Linda McMahon (R) 43%

• DE-Sen: Chris Coons (D) 54%, Christine O’Donnell (R) 38%

• NV-Sen: Harry Reid (D-inc) 47%, Sharron Angle (R) 49%

• OH-Gov: Ted Strickland (D-inc) 42%, John Kasich (R) 47%

• OH-Sen: Lee Fisher (D) 35%, Rob Portman (R) 52%

• WA-Sen: Patty Murray (D-inc) 46%, Dino Rossi (R) 47%

• Angus-Reid: Another reason to be suspicious of Angus-Reid in addition to their Dem-friendly internet samples: they seem to have neglected to poll the actually interesting Senate race in New York…

• NY-Gov: Andrew Cuomo (D) 63%, Carl Paladino (R) 32%

• NY-Sen: Charles Schumer (D) 67%, Jay Townsend (R) 27%

(Also at Nevada Progressive)

It seems whenever I see the DC pundits on TV, I get frustrated. I keep hearing about some massive “Red Tide” coming. I keep hearing about how much “momentum” Republicans have. And I keep hearing about all this money Sharron Angle is raising from other parts of the country.

So is it time to call it quits and give into “The Red Tide”? Not really. I know something that you may not…

Public Policy Polling just released its latest Nevada Senate poll. In their official numbers, Harry Reid gets 47% while Sharron Angle gets 45%. OK, so Reid is barely ahead… What’s the big deal? It’s basically a tie race… Or is it?

In an earlier post on their blog, they admitted that they may be missing something quite big.

Usually the conventional wisdom is that a tie race means the incumbent will lose but in the case of Nevada there are a couple big reasons why the tie might go to Harry Reid.

The first is that the polling in Nevada was the worst of any swing state in 2008 (well actually it turned out Nevada wasn’t a swing state but everyone thought it was because the polling showed a close race.) And the polling was all off in the same direction- underestimating Barack Obama’s margin of victory. Obama won the state by 12 points: our final poll had him up by only 4, Mason Dixon had him up by only 4, Rasmussen had him up by only 4, and CNN had him up by only 7. Some pollsters did do a better job- Suffolk showed a 10 point lead, Zogby an 11 point one, and AP a 12 point one.

So the precedent is there for pollsters- especially the ones who have been doing most of the polling for this year’s race- to underestimate Democratic performance in the state. […]

The second is that those below the radar in 2008 voters may now be included in pollsters’ samples- I can only speak for what we do but we’re calling folks who voted in the 2004 general, 2006 general, or 2008 general so we should have a lot of the people we missed last time in our samples this time. Still it strikes me as much more likely that the polls are systematically underestimating Harry Reid than the other way around.

The other reason the tie might go to Reid is that the polling in Nevada is assuming a much larger gap between Democratic and Republican turnout compared to 2008 than we’re seeing most places. In our poll tomorrow the sample reports having voted for Barack Obama by only 2 points, compared to his actual 12 point victory in the state. Even with that big dropoff in turnout from Democrats the race is still very close- but if even half of that enthusiasm gap was chopped between now and November Reid would be in a very strong position. And we have seen indication already this cycle that Democratic interest perks up as election day gets closer.

I certainly think Angle can win by a small amount but if you asked me who has the better chance of winning this by 5 or 6 points I definitely think it’s Reid.

Again, this is Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling, a very respectable polling outfit, admitting that his own poll may be missing quite a few Democratic voters here in Nevada. And I can attest, he may very well be right.

Don’t believe me? Believe all the support I’m finding around “my ‘hood” in Henderson!

And take a look at these supposedly “unenthusiastic” Nevada Democrats getting out the vote!

It’s all at my Twitpic!

This is the secret to our success, the secret that you don’t hear about from the national media hyping Angle’s out-of-state fundraising and generic ballot numbers all over the place.

And there’s something else you don’t see. You don’t see the (lack of) quality of the Republicans’ top candidates.

I mean, come on, Angle runs AWAY from the local press! She won’t answer any voters’ questions on anything, especially if one’s not a hand-picked tea-nut.

That’s why even prominent Nevada REPUBLICANS are supporting Harry Reid.

And again, I can tell you that this is no myth. I talk to them often, long time Republicans and Indpendents who often vote for Republicans have come to me and told me they’re voting for Harry Reid and Dina Titus because they know these people are working hard to do what’s best for Nevada.

Heck, even Joe Heck himself was caught flip-flopping yesterday on whether he will be voting for Reid or Angle!

Republican Congressional candidate Joe Heck appears to be having second thoughts about his support for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle.

When asked by a Nevada resident whether he plans to vote for Angle or Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Heck was quoted by Slate as saying: “I’m waiting to see all of the evidence before I make my choice.”

That’s very different from what Heck said before. He previously endorsed Angle.

In a speech at the Nevada Republican Convention, Heck urged Republicans to rally around Angle to “bring a new direction to Washington, D.C.” He called her work in the state Assembly “exemplary.”

Heck also noted in a campaign email that “Team Heck is taking a leadership role in uniting the party.”

Just like Sharron Angle, Joe Heck has been all over the place on all the issues while hiding from Nevada voters with real questions about what he intends to do on job creation, health care reform, housing, and so much more. Yesterday, we had a Congressional debate at the local synagogue here in Henderson. Watch for yourself how Heck flipped and flopped on so many issues.

Or if you can’t sit through this much video, look at my handy, dandy condensed Twitter debate notes. 😉

Basically, Joe Heck likes to tell teabaggers he’s one of them and he’s just as extreme right radical as Sharron Angle while he tells us he doesn’t know if he’ll even vote for Angle himself! Which one is it, Joe?

Heck told us last night he supports “infrastructure projects” to put people back to work, but he also said he opposed the very Recovery Act that included all those billions of dollars in infrastructure projects that are putting Nevada back to work. Which one is it, Joe?

Heck told us last night he supports some aspects of health care reform, but he’s said many times before he wants to repeal the entire bill. Which one is it, Joe?

And Heck told us last night how important jobs are to him, but he’s also said he doesn’t think it’s his job to create jobs. Which one is it, Joe?

Heck keeps saying all sorts of things out of different sides of his mouth. And while the tea-nuts may not care, a whole lot of voters do. They’re looking for someone who provides real solutions, not another pretty face with nothing to offer but hot air.

And look who is providing real solutions.

Dina explained quite well last night how she’s worked to bring jobs back to Southern Nevada, as well prepare us for the new clean, green economy of the future by investing in green collar jobs and good education. And it’s not just at these debates. I see Dina Titus just about everywhere. She’s meeting with constituents every time she’s back here in the district. Even when Congress is in session, she’s back here every weekend to meet with Nevadans.

And her office is always open to constituents who have questions about their health care. And constituents who need help negotiating with the banks to avoid foreclosure on their homes. And constituents who have all sorts of other issues.

Dina is the kind of representative that many Nevadans aren’t used to, and that’s a good thing. She listens to us the local voters. And she provides real answers, not hot air or prepared, scripted remarks directly from national party offices. The Beltway pundits may not care so much about that, but we the Nevada voters do.

So this is what the Beltway pundits are missing. They’re missing me. They’re missing my Republican neighbors who are fed up with typical politicians like Joe Heck and Sharron Angle, who say one thing but do something else entirely different. They’re missing all my Democratic friends who they don’t expect to vote, but are actually not just voting, but also volunteering to get out the vote! They’re missing a whole lot, so don’t be surprised if a whole lot of what they say about the elections here are proven wrong next month.

Take it from this local. 😉

Public Policy Polling (10/7-9, likely voters, 7/16-18 in parentheses):

Harry Reid (D-inc): 47 (48)

Sharron Angle (R): 45 (46)

Other: 5 (-)

None of these: 2 (-)

Undecided: 1 (6)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

The story today in the Nevada Senate race is Sharron Angle’s fundraising total: $14 million for the quarter, a huge amount by anyone’s standards (although Scott Brown raised more than that in one month, but that was a special election with nothing else on the table nationwide). I have to wonder if that’s any sort of game-changer at this point, though: what is she going to do with that much money that she couldn’t do with one-half as much? Every possible square inch of ad space must already be reserved for the next few weeks. I mean, she could buy everyone in Nevada their own TV, but it’d still show whatever ads are already reserved.

Today’s PPP poll kind of flew under the radar as a result, partly because it didn’t show anything new (the same 2-point Harry Reid lead they saw last time, and the same +2 to – 2 band that pollsters always seem to see this race in). What’s maybe the most remarkable number here? Things are incredibly locked in: there’s only 1% undecided. Angle can’t win simply by picking up every undecided; she’d need to grab some of the “other” or “NOTA” voters too, or flip some Reid votes. Angle perceptions are pretty set, though: she’s considered “extremist” rather than “mainstream” by a 53-39 margin, with only 7% unsure, and her unfavorables are over the 50% mark (41/53). Not that Reid fares much better at 44/52, the kind of numbers that incumbents don’t usually survive (and that’s confirmed by a hypothetical match against the slightly less-objectionable Danny Tarkanian, which Reid loses 49-43).

Bear in mind that, compared with PPP’s West Virginia poll where the enthusiasm gap mysteriously (and perhaps too-optimistically) vanished, it’s in freakin’ full effect here. They find a +2 Obama electorate (48-46) instead of the 12 points he actually won by in ’08… and in spite of that, Reid is still clinging to a lead. (In fact, PPP imputes a 52-42 Reid lead under ’08 conditions.) As you probably already know, this will be all about turnout, and whether the hotel union-powered turnout machine in Las Vegas is as skillful at turning out votes as it’s been in recent years.