Swing State Project

FL-Sen: Kendrick Meek, sensing that time is running out, decided to reject the endorsement of the Sierra Club. Why? Because they wanted to co-endorse Charlie Crist, and Meek needs to do anything he can to differentiate himself from the governor, since they’re largely drawing from the same pool of voters these days. Meek tried to cast this as a principled stance, saying “The Sierra Club has chosen to stand with a governor who stood on stage applauding as Sarah Palin chanted, ‘Drill, Baby, Drill.'”

MO-Sen: The Smart Media Group is saying that the DSCC has cancelled two weeks worth of ad buys in Missouri. Given how often the tea-leaf reading has been wrong with all this ad stuff, I’d like to see further confirmation before making up my mind about what this means. (And guys, I don’t think you’re using cutesy hashtags properly.)

DE-Sen: The Cliff Claven of American politics:

If Barack Obama vetoes that the year before his re-election, he’s setting himself up to be very vulnerable and I’ve seen many Hillary for President ads running.

Christine O’Donnell, what color is the sky in your world?

AL-05: Oh god, this is NOT good:

Congressional candidate and veteran political consultant Steve Raby once ran four north Alabama political action committees that authorities say were used to route $200,000 from a Dothan casino owner to a state senator in a vote-buying scheme. Raby says he relinquished control of the PACs weeks before the money transfers.

And this is just not a headline you ever want to see in your own race:

Raby: I have not been accused of doing anything wrong

AR-04: Here’s a race that’s not on a lot of folks’ radars but probably should be, just because of the nature of the year & state. Republican Beth Anne Rankin is out with a one-day robopoll from Diamond State Consulting Group that shows Rep. Mike Ross leading by just a 44-41 margin, with 5% going to Green Party candidate Josh Drake. A poll from July had Ross up 55-33. But does Rankin have the resources to take down the Lord Satrap of the Blue Dogs? Ross had $1.1 million on hand as of June 30; Rankin, just $70K.

CT-04: Believe it or not, Merriman River Group is a Democratic pollster. But they sure have been putting out all kinds of numbers this week which are at odds with… well, everyone else’s numbers, particularly in CT-Sen and CT-05. In their most recent effort, they have Rep. Jim Himes at 49 and Republican Dan Debicella at 47, so I’ll be really curious to see if internals bear this one out. There are at least two things I don’t like about this poll: First off, they report numbers to decimal places, which is a bad practice because it gives a false sense of accuracy. Secondly, they refer to Himes’s opponent as “Dan DeBicella” throughout. C’mon, guys.

CT-05: Speaking of CT-05, here’s another poll from Chris Murphy (courtesy the Gotham Research Group), showing him up 48-34 over Sam Caligiuri. Murph’s last poll had a similar 50-38 margin. The only thing I don’t like here is the weak swipe at robopollsters (like Merriman) in the press release: “An automated computer survey can’t tell who is actually picking up the phone – a registered voter in the Fifth District, or a voter’s 10 year old cousin visiting from South Carolina.” Chris – we love you, man, but we know you can do better.

ID-01: In response to some rumor-mongering that showed up the other day in Roll Call, Walt Minnick said he “has no intention of changing parties.” I think the Parker Griffith party switch actually was a very good thing for us, as it demonstrated what is likely to happen to any other Dems who follow suit – you’ll get teabagged to death.

KS-01: In the race to succeed Rep. Jerry Moran (who is running for Senate), Republican Tim Huelskamp leads Democrat Alan Jilka by a 63-26 margin, according to SurveyUSA.

KY-06: Dueling internals in Eastern Kentucky. First up is Ben Chandler, whose poll from the Mellman group has him up 52-40 over Andy Barr. That’s actually a decline from his numbers a few weeks ago which had him up 53-33, but Barr’s gain seems pretty understandable – and importantly, Chandler hasn’t slipped. (These numbers are also backed up by a recent Braun poll.) Meanwhile, Barr’s survey has it 48-47 in favor of the Republican, which are the best numbers we’ve seen from his camp all cycle.

TX-17: Chet Edwards also has an internal poll out, from Bennett, Petts and Normington. It’s not particularly good news: Bill Flores leads 46-42. Still, it’s better than the most recent Flores own-poll, which had him up 55-36.

VA-05: Jesus, what is with this guy? Teabagger Jeff Clark has been pulling the Hamlet act more melodramatically than anyone since Mario Cuomo. Now he’s claiming he might drop out of the race because he’s being excluded from a series of debates between Rep. Tom Perriello and Republican Rob Hurt. Some of his backers say they might file a legal challenge, but that seems dubious.

SSP TV:

• NH-Sen: Even though Democrats on the Hill were too fucking stupid to schedule a vote on the Obama tax cuts which would have given them great campaign fodder, props to Paul Hodes for cutting an ad on the issue regardless. Hodes says he supports extending middle class tax cuts, but is very explicit that he wants to let tax breaks for the wealthiest expire – unlike Kelly Ayotte
• NV-Sen: Hah, if this works, I’ll be impressed: Sharron Angle’s ad hits Reid on a few votes (like the stimulus), and also includes this gem: Reid’s vote against Tom Coburn’s retarded “no Viagra for sex offenders” poison-pill amendment to the healthcare reform bill
• NY-Gov: There is no fucking way I am watching this whole thing. The best summary: “Danny Devito’s version of the Checkers speech“
• PA-Sen: Another fucking gong ad, this time from Joe Sestak, hitting the same themes as the DSCC ad from the other day. Do we seriously need to emulate Sixteen Candles?
• MA-10: The DCCC hits Jeffrey Perry – and hits him hard – for his role as supervising officer when two teenage girls were strip-searched by a cop under his command in the 90s
• DCCC: The D-Trip has a nice map where you can click around to see ads they’re running in key races. You can also check out their YouTube channel

I noticed today that Nate Silver crunched the numbers for the Minnesota Governor’s race and determined that Democrat Mark Dayton had a 77% chance of victory.  Pretty generous.  With the exception of the 1994 Arne Carlson reelection landslide, Minnesota has had 20 years worth of gubernatorial elections that have had so many dramatic twists and turns that they could have been made into movies.  One actually was!  Given this record of volatility and other specifics of this contest, I think Nate’s traditional calculus needs to be thrown out.  This race is far from over, and all three candidates still have a viable path to victory.

If recent Minnesota gubernatorial elections are any indication, the great equalizer will be the late October televised debates.  Polls moved in double digits in both directions in a matter of a week based on Minnesota gubernatorial debates.  If you impress there, you’re golden.  If you fail to impress, you’re ruined.  And that’s true almost wherever your poll numbers may currently be.  The Independence Party’s articulate 2006 candidate Peter Hutchinson was not in a position to win, but he nonetheless impressed in the debates and managed to surge at Mike Hatch’s expense, handing victory to Pawlenty.  With that in mind, let’s get back to 2010.

Let’s start with the least complicated candidate, both in terms of intellect and his position in the race.  That would be Republican Tom Emmer.  He’s been rendered a kook by a solid majority of the electorate and, in a three-candidate race, has a ceiling of about 42% with a basement that could conceivably go as low as 30%.  On the plus side for him, however, is that it’s gonna be a Republican year and more low-information voters than usual are likely to pull the lever for whoever has the (R) next to his name.  I suspect this will be especially true outstate where Emmer’s hard-right social values are less likely to offend than they would in the suburbs, but whose economic values would devastate them.  Emmer’s pathway to victory comes from wedging Horner vs. Dayton and picking up the slack.  Right now, Horner is probably taking more votes away from Emmer than Dayton.  If Emmer can reverse that and pit Dayton versus Horner, which is entirely doable in a year like this, he can simultaneously lift Horner’s numbers and plummet Dayton’s, allowing Emmer to squeak by with a 35% or better plurality.

Moving onto Dayton whose position of strength is based on three things.  First, he’s held office in Minnesota going back to the 1980s and is the only candidate with statewide name recognition, especially among senior voters who tend to view him most favorably.  Second, he’s exceeding expectations with the seriousness of his gubernatorial run after his disastrous Senate tenure had initially hurt his favorable ratings.  Having watched early debates, he seems most in command of the issues, and when his numbers are proven to not add up, he quickly fixes them in a way his opponents won’t do.  And lastly, the right and center-right are divided between Horner and Emmer, meaning Dayton doesn’t need a majority or even a strong plurality to win.

With all that said, Dayton’s support is incredibly thin, as was proven when he eked out a one-point primary win in August that he was supposed to win by double-digits.  My fear is that when the spotlight’s on in the ninth inning, voters will find “the other guy” more appealing.  While Emmer’s basement of support is very unlikely to sink below 30%, Dayton’s basement could conceivably drop to Kendrick Meek levels.  If Horner is able to pick off soft Dayton voters, Dayton could easily go the way of 1998 Skip “28%” Humphrey at the hands of Jesse Ventura. Even in the best-case scenario, however, I strongly reject the premise of a 77% likelihood of victory for Dayton.  As Dan Rather would say, his lead is “shakier than cafeteria Jell-O”.  And seeing that poll earlier this week showing Jim Oberstar with a scant three-point lead in MN-08 makes Dayton’s standing seem all the more fickle given that northern Minnesota (Oberstar country) would most realistically be the place where Dayton would run up the score.  If voters up there are that cool towards Oberstar, I expect they could just as easily turn on Dayton.

Now, onto Tom Horner, whose position in this race is very complicated but nowhere near dire enough to proclaim his chances of victory at zero as Nate Silver’s calculation suggests.  Horner has a number of advantages and disadvantages in the hand he holds and only time will tell which direction the 2010 political environment will pull him.  Working to his benefit more than anything else is the endless free advertising his campaign gets from Minnesota media, particularly the left-leaning Minneapolis Star Tribune which blows kisses to Horner on a literal daily basis and never misses a chance to piss on Dayton.  In my decades of reading the Star Tribune, never have I seen them work so hard to get a candidate elected as they are for Tom Horner.  Secondly, his opponents have been successfully caricatured as an extreme liberal and an extreme conservative, given Horner a huge opening to present himself as the guy in the middle when he gets his moment in the spotlight.  Any other year, Horner would not be likely to catch on, but as a center-right candidate in a center-right year facing off against two uninspiring foes who are both seen as ideologues, he might be the right guy at the right time.

Horner has serious downsides though too.  Charismatic Jesse Ventura was able to be the third-party hero during the 1998 economic boom on a painless platform.  Tom Horner has little to none of Jesse’s charisma and, given the budgetary armageddon facing the state, has nothing to offer but pain.  And while Horner is widely praised for his comprehensive budget plan, the pain is all reserved for the same groups of people who’ve been on the receiving end of the pain after eight uninterrupted years of budget crises under Pawlenty.  It’s always the working class and middle class expected to take a haircut, and Horner has carefully crafted his plan to make sure the wealthy that have been spared from sacrifice in the past eight years aren’t required to make a proportional contribution this year either.  Furthermore, Horner’s made a lot of money as a consultant to corporate heavies in the last decade, and if he catches on, it will be pointed out by his opponents that Horner’s tax plan effectively amounts to their payola.

And there’s one more wild card in play here.  Remember the 2008 Presidential map for Minnesota?  Where about 18-20 counties in Minnesota’s northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern corners showed tremendous growth for Obama even as much of state saw little improvement from Kerry’s numbers in 2004?   The explanation behind that phenomenon was that Obama monopolized the Fargo and Grand Forks, ND, Sioux Falls, SD, and La Crosse, WI, media markets while John McCain monopolized all of the Minnesota media markets.  In statewide races in Minnesota, voters in these Dakota and Wisconsin media markets are completely blacked out from Minnesota state politics, meaning these parts of the state tend to be unfamiliar with any of the candidates and are likely to base their votes on name ID and generic party preference.  This dynamic proved to be an advantage even to Skip Humphrey in these areas in 1998, and should really benefit Dayton in 2010 given his opponents, both of whom could just as well be named Bob Smith given their limited profile to these voters.  Horner in particular has little chance at getting more than 10% in these areas of the state and represent one more obstacle he’ll need to overcome, and even though they make up a small percentage of overall voters, they could easily be the difference in a close election.

With all this in mind, who’s gonna win?  It’s almost impossible to predict where a Minnesota gubernatorial election will go until the final few days, but it’s hard to deny Dayton still has a long-term advantage.  I see Horner gaining at Dayton’s expense in the weeks ahead…and perhaps a little bit at Emmer’s expense as well.  It’s not hard to imagine Horner soaring to a load or a position of serious competitiveness, but the fact that it hasn’t happened yet makes me more skeptical than I was two months ago that it every will.  

My best guess is the county map will look similar to the 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial race county maps, but with a few important caveats.  Dayton will win solid majorities in Minneapolis and St. Paul, but with Horner in the mix, he won’t dominate there.  I suspect Horner’s best numbers will come in the second and third-ring suburbs…places like Bloomington, Minnetonka, Blaine, and Eagan that tend to be the bellwethers in modern Minnesota elections.  However, Horner is not currently poised to win by enough there to compensate for his shortcomings elsewhere.  Still, my money is on a 25% showing from Horner in the state’s five most populous counties (Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, Anoka, and Washington) based on his strength in the moderate suburbs.

Emmer will dominate in exurbia scoring solid majorities in counties like Sherburne, Wright, Carver, and Scott.  Horner will probably keep Emmer from winning these areas with more than 60% or even 65% as he would in a one-on-one race with Dayton, but it will clearly be the foundation of Emmer’s strength in the statewide race.  As for outstate, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a couple of the independent-friendly rural counties like Sibley, Renville, and Kanabec go for Horner, but by and large it’ll be a two-candidate race outstate with a county configuration similar to the Hatch-Pawlenty race of 2006.  Emmer will pull in a narrow plurality outstate, but not enough to make up for his deficit in the core five counties of the metro area.

So there’s my take.  Lower Mark Dayton’s advantage from Nate Silver’s 77% to about 47% and raise Tom Horner’s from 0% to 20% and I think you have the state of the Minnesota gubernatorial election.  But again, ask me again on November 1.  In Minnesota, gubernatorial politics are very seldom this simple.

Hey folks,

I wanted to let you all know that Senator Patty Murray will be doing a Live Chat with Blue America over at Crooks and Liars from 5-6pm PST this evening.

For eighteen years, Patty has been a leader on progressive issues. Her opponent, perennial candidate Dino Rossi, has been attacking her constantly on TV with the help of shadowy special interest groups aligned with Karl Rove.

Ballots arrive in Washington's mailboxes in one week – and we need your help to keep Patty in the Senate and send the special interests packing!

Feel free to stop by and ask Patty a question or leave a comment – and if you're able to support our campaign as well, we'd really appreciate it!

Hope to see you there!

Doug Foote
New Media Director
People for Patty Murray

 

• CT-Sen: I hope Joe Lieberman has a nice lobbying firm picked out for a job starting in 2013. PPP threw in some Lieberman-related questions in their Connecticut sample, and he generates genuine bipartisan support in terms of the desire to replace him with someone else (72% of Dems, 63% of indies, and 61% of GOPers say “someone new”). He has 31/57 approval, including 20/69 among Dems. In a three-way with Dem Chris Murphy and GOPer Jodi Rell, Lieberman finishes 3rd, with Murphy winning 37-29-17. Substitute Peter Schiff for Rell and it’s about the same: 39-25-19. If Lieberman goes the full GOP, he still loses a head-to-head with Murphy, 47-33.

• IL-Sen: Barack Obama’s coming to town today, on behalf of Alexi Giannoulias. No stumping though, just two fundraisers. (On a related note, though, Obama will be in Oregon on Oct. 20 to appear with gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber.)

• NH-Sen, NH-Gov: American Research Group (10/3-5, likely voters, 9/9-14 in parens):

Paul Hodes (D): 42 (32)

Kelly Ayotte (R): 47 (46)

Undecided: 7 (20)

John Lynch (D-inc): 51 (42)

John Stephen (R): 41 (40)

Undecided: 6 (14)

(MoE: ±4%)

Wow! Wild fluctuation in an ARG poll! I’m sure that’s never happened before! Well, at any rate, if all undecideds are rapidly breaking toward the Dems, I guess we can call that good news.

• PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Muhlenberg for Allentown Morning Call (9/28-10/4, likely voters, 9/18-23 in parens):

Joe Sestak (D): 38 (39)

Pat Toomey (R): 45 (46)

Dan Onorato (D): 36 (37)

Tom Corbett (R): 47 (46)

(MoE: ±4%)

These races just don’t seem to budge. Muhlenberg’s newest numbers are just where they were a few weeks earlier, and they’re pretty much at the median for all pollsters’ averages in these races.

• VA-Sen: More looking ahead to 2012: George Allen is probably figuring that ‘macaca’ has faded into the mists of time, and he’s starting to publicly let it be know that he’s interested in a rematch with the man who beat him, Jim Webb. No formal preparatory activities, but it seems like he’s engaging in some pre-emptive GOP field-clearing.

• WA-Sen: Here’s something we haven’t seen in a while: a poll with a lead for Dino Rossi. Of course, it’s a Republican poll (from Fabrizio & Associates, on behalf of American Action Forum (that’s AAF, not AFF)), so take it with some salt, but it’s a reminder that this race is far from a done deal and that things may have tightened since that polling bulge for Patty Murray a few weeks ago. Rossi leads Murray 48-42 in a 9/26-27 sample.

• WV-Sen: You’ve probably already heard about this story: the NRSC has pulled an ad that it had started running in West Virginia featuring stereotypically blue-collar guy sitting around a diner grousing. Well, if they seem a little stereotypical, it’s because they were intended to be, if you read the details from the NRSC’s casting call for the ad that was shot in Philadelphia, asking for a “‘hicky’ blue collar look” and listing the various blue-collar clothing items that they should wear, including “John Deer [sic] hats (not brand new, preferably beat up).”” Somehow, I’m not hopeful this flap will become a game-changer in the race, but maybe it’ll help West Virginians see what Beltway Republicans really think of them. The NRSC is in fact distancing itself from the ad, throwing the talent agency under the bus.

Meanwhile, this seems like a richer vein to mine: the ongoing and seemingly growing controversy of John Raese’s residence. He owns a Florida mansion, where his wife and kids spent most of their time. But Dems are trying to raise questions about whether Raese is a West Virginia resident at all, and are asking whether he’s filed West Virginia income taxes (Florida, as you might know, doesn’t impose income taxes).

• NM-Gov: Can a race have too much internal poll leaking? There seems to be more tit-for-tat in this race than any. In response to yesterday’s Diane Denish internal showing a 3-point race, today Susana Martinez brandishes a POS internal from 10/3-5 giving her a 51-42 lead over Denish.

• NY-Gov: Quinnipiac (10/1-5, likely voters, 9/16-20 in parens):

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55 (49)

Carl Paladino (R): 37 (43)

Undecided: 6 (7)

(MoE: ±2.9%)

Either Carl Paladino had a huge primary bounce that quickly faded, people who hadn’t been paying close attention a few weeks ago suddenly found out that Paladino is a sputtering rage volcano who’d be a huge liability in office, or Quinnipiac put up a big stinky outlier a few weeks ago. (Probably a little of all three.)

• WI-Gov: Marist for McClatchy (9/26-28, likely voters, no trendlines):

Tom Barrett (D): 43

Scott Walker (R): 51

Undecided: 6

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Ooops, we missed that there was a gubernatorial half to that Marist poll from a few days ago.

• AL-02: I don’t know which is a bigger story here: that Bobby Bright is the first Democratic incumbent to announce, pre-election, that he won’t vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, or that he’s trailing in a Martha Roby internal after having, for most of the cycle, seemed safer than a lot of other incumbents in less hostile districts… although the announcement seems pretty clearly motivated by the polling trends here. He says he certainly won’t vote for John Boehner, though, saying he wants to vote for a centrist “more like me.” Roby’s poll comes from POS, giving her a 45-43 lead (with the memo saying their July poll gave Bright a 49-41 lead). Bright still overperforms the generic ballot by a wide margin, which is 51-32 for the GOP in this R+16 district.

• CT-01: Merriman River Group (who put up a surprising poll finding Chris Murphy trailing in CT-05 yesterday) are out with another poll that should give some pause: they find John Larson only ahead by 7 against no-namer Ann Brinkley, 52-45, in what’s Connecticut’s bluest (D+13) congressional district. For what it’s worth, this district is eleven points bluer than D+2 CT-05, so the spread (Murphy was down 5) is consistent… but also remember that Merriman was about five points to the right of where everybody else was seeing the statewide races in that big pile of CT polls from the last couple days, so feel free to adjust accordingly.

• IL-17: Yep, we’ve definitely got a real race here this time, after Phil Hare got away unopposed in 2008. He’s up only slightly over Bobby Schilling in a POS internal (which I assume is on behalf of the Schilling camp, as the NRCC has been using Tarrance in this district), leading 38-37 in a 9/26-27 sample.

• IN-02: EPIC-MRA for WSBT (10/1-3, likely voters, no trendlines):

Joe Donnelly (D): 48

Jackie Walorski (R): 39

Mike Vogel (I): 6

Undecided: 7

(MoE: ±4.9%)

These numbers (which include leaners) look pretty good for Donnelly, in the first public poll of the race (although he’s seemed to fare OK in partisan polls of the race, compared with many other vulnerable Dems, leading in both AFF and Susan B. Anthony List polls). Donnelly has 47/32 faves, while Walorski is at 32/35.

• NY-23: Here’s one more Republican internal, that was taken before Doug Hoffman officially pulled the plug on his Conservative Party bid, but suggesting that he wasn’t having much of an effect this year anyway. In the POS poll taken for the NRCC 9/22-23, Matt Doheny leads Dem incumbent Bill Owens 51-37. (Somehow they didn’t leak what percentage Hoffman was getting… obviously it couldn’t be more than 12%… but they do tell us 68% of Hoffman supporters would, in the alternate, support Doheny.)

• PA-07: Monmouth (10/4-6, likely voters, no trendlines):

Bryan Lentz (D): 45

Pat Meehan (R): 49

Undecided: 7

(MoE: ±3.8%)

Believe it or not, this is the first public poll of this race, and it’s definitely better than the conventional wisdom on this race would dictate: although Bryan Lentz is still losing, it’s by a 4-point margin. It’s a seat that leans Dem-enough that even with a strong GOP candidate and a strong GOP tailwind it looks like it’ll still be at least close. (That conventional wisdom seems founded largely on a June Meehan internal giving him a 21-point lead.) One other interesting tidbit: Joe Sestak, the district’s current Rep., is leading Pat Toomey 49-46 within the district in the Senate race. He’d need to be cleaning up by a much wider margin than that, here, to be competitive statewide.

• WA-08: Let’s throw in a Democratic internal poll to break up the monotony. It’s from one of the few Dem challengers who seem to be keeping things within striking distance, Suzan DelBene. She trails GOP incumbent Dave Reichert by only 48-44 in a Fairbank Maslin poll taken 10/4-5 (where they gave Reichert a 9-point lead in August). That coincides, perhaps not coincidentally, with Dave Reichert finally having to come out and say “no, I don’t have brain damage.” Reichert, you may remember, had to have emergency surgery after getting hit in the head by a tree branch in March. Reichert’s fitness had been the subject of increasing whispers and question marks in recent months, some of which may have rubbed off on his poll numbers.

• Early voting: Fun fact of the day: early voting is up 50% over this point in time over the 2006 midterm, with nearly 6 million votes already having been cast. This, of course, is in large part because states have, in the intervening years, made it easier to vote early. (Nearly 30% of votes were cast early in 2008; officials don’t expect this year’s numbers to reach that peak, though.) At any rate, it looks like early voting is increasingly here to stay, and campaigns will have to adjust their strategies accordingly. (I.e. planning for the “September Surprise” instead?)

• Demographics: Now these are some interesting numbers: a chart breaking down the “voting-eligible” (not just “voting age”) population by percentage in each state, eliminating non-citizens as well as prisoners and ineligible felons. And here’s an interesting statistic: despite the fact that we haven’t completed the dang fence, the percentage of non-citizens in the U.S. has actually dropped from 2006 (8.6%) to 2010 (8.3%), partly because the government has processed a backlog in citizenship cases and partly because the lousier economy has made the U.S. a less attractive destination.

• SSP TV:

• AR-Sen: Blanche Lincoln uses Bill Clinton as surrogate to talk about John Boozman’s privatization mania

• PA-Sen: The Club for Growth does some stimulus act cherry-picking to portray Joe Sestak as a sockpuppet for the sockpuppet lobby

• WV-Sen: The DSCC hits John Raese on outsourcing

• ND-AL: The NRCC attacks Earl Pomeroy for taking money from the insurance industry

• SD-AL: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s newest ad focuses on her work on parochial issues, while Kristin Noem’s ad says Sandlin’s gone Washington

• Rasmussen:

• NV-Sen: Harry Reid (D-inc) 46%, Sharron Angle (R) 50%

IL-Sen: My god, Mark Kirk is an asshole. The excellent ArchPundit catches Kirk bragging about funding “the largest voter protection” operation in 15 years in “key vulnerable precincts” where “the other side might be tempted to jigger the numbers somewhat.” And pray tell which precincts are those? Says Kirk: “South and West Side of Chicago, Metro East, Rockford.” Those aren’t just Dem strongholds – they happen to be the places where almost all of the African Americans in Illinois live. What a fucker. “Jigger,” huh.

KY-Sen: Clinton Alert! The Big Dog is coming to Kentucky to campaign for Jack Conway on Monday.

OH-Sen: Quinnipiac (9/29-10/3, likely voters, 9/9-14 in parens):

Lee Fisher (D): 36 (35)

Rob Portman (R): 55 (55)

Undecided: 8 (9)

(MoE: ±3.1%)

OH-Gov: Quinnipiac (9/29-10/3, likely voters, 9/9-14 in parens):

Ted Strickland (D-inc): 41 (37)

John Kasich (R): 50 (54)

Undecided: 7 (7)

(MoE: ±3.1%)

IL-Gov: Biden alert! The VPOTUS is joining Gov. Pat Quinn for a rally in Chicago on October 12th at the Chicago Journeymen Plumbers Local 130 Hall.

NY-Gov: Carl Paladino, international man of mystery? The noted scuzzball is apparently buying time on all the networks for 5 p.m. today to make a “major announcement.” Sounds pretty stunty to me.

SC-Gov (PDF): Hamilton Campaigns (D) for Vincent Sheheen (10/1-4, likely voters, 9/24-28 in parens):

Vincent Sheheen (D): 44 (41)

Nikki Haley (R): 49 (51)

Undecided: 7 (8)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

CO-03: Morans.

IL-14: A Randy Hultgren internal from the Tarrance Group shows him leading Dem Rep. Bill Foster 44-38, with 4 points going to Green Party candidate Daniel Kairis.

MD-01: Clinton Alert 2.0! The Big Dog is holding a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. this Sunday for Rep. Frank Kratovil. Man, after all the work he’s done this cycle, I hope Clinton has a phat vacation planned for after election day.

SC-02: Rob Miller says he won’t vote to retain Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. He also said that he plans to draft Joe DiMaggio in his fantasy baseball league next year and that he’s getting his wife a jetpack for Christmas.

Fundraising:

• FL-Sen: Marco Rubio, $5 million raised (a new record)
• NRCC: Securing a $6.5 million loan

SSP TV:

• MA-Gov: Deval Patrick hits Charlie Baker for raising premiums as a healthcare CEO (while noting that he capped them as governor)
• FL-Gov: Rick Scott tries to paint Alex Sink as a hypocrite on various financial goings-on during her tenure as state CFO
• FL-08: A new spot from Alan Grayson hits Webster on women’s issues
• MA-04: Republican Sean Bielat is out with two ads (apparently cable only): the first attacks Barney Frank on the bailout (and features someone calling Bielat “a reasonable guy” – such praise!); the second is basically the same low production values, faux man-on-the-street shtick, and also has a dude saying, “If you don’t like the new guy, get rid of him in two years!”

Independent Expenditures:

• DCCC: Forty-eight different reports, all below











































































AL-02	HI-01	MI-07	OH-18
AL-02	IA-03	MO-04	OR-05
AZ-01	IA-03	MS-01	PA-03
AZ-05	IL-10	NC-08	PA-11
AZ-05	IL-14	NH-02	SC-05
CA-11	IL-17	NM-02	TX-23
CA-11	IN-02	NV-03	VA-02
CO-03	IN-09	NY-20	VA-05
FL-25	MA-10	NY-24	VA-11
FL-25	MD-01	OH-13	WA-03
GA-02	MI-01	OH-15	WI-07
GA-08	MI-07	OH-16	WV-01

• Concerned Taxpayers: MD-01: $38K on media against Frank Kratovil (D)
• Crossroads GPS: CO-Sen: $780K on media against Michael Bennet (D); FL-Sen: $350K on media for Marco Rubio (R); IL-Sen: $1 mil on media against Alexi Giannoulias (D); KY-Sen: $100K on media against Jack Conway
• EMILY’s List: CO-04: $160K on TV against Cory Gardner (R); WI-07: $20K on mail against Sean Duffy (R)
• NEA: OH-13: $550K on TV against Tom Ganley (R); AZ-05: $650K on TV against David Schweikert (R)
• NRCC: $111K on various media expenditures (they look radio-sized) in AZ-08, MA-10 & MO-04
• NRSC: $1.3 million on various media expenditures (these look more TV-sized) in CO-Sen, KY-Sen, WA-Sen & WV-Sen
• Revere America: NH-02: $356K on media against Annie Kuster (D) (see Blue Hampshire for more)

Continuing with today’s theme of throwing a random assortment of crap at you with little to no commentary…

FL-Sen, FL-Gov: Public Opinion Strategies for the Florida Chamber of Commerce (9/27-30, likely voters):

Alex Sink (D): 42

Rick Scott (R): 46

Kendrick Meek (D): 16

Charlie Crist (I): 33

Marco Rubio (R): 40

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Susquehanna (9/28-10/3, likely voters):

Alex Sink (D): 42

Rick Scott (R): 44

(MoE: ±3.1%)

UFMDC (9/23-30, likely voters):

Alex Sink (D): 46

Rick Scott (R): 52

Kendrick Meek (D): 26

Charlie Crist (I): 27

Marco Rubio (R): 46

(MoE: ±4.4%)

NY-Sen-B, NY-Gov: Public Policy Polling (Sen | Gov) (10/1-3, likely voters):

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 50

Joe DioGuardi (R): 40

Andrew Cuomo (D): 53

Carl Paladino (R): 38

(MoE: ±4%)

Siena (10/3-4, likely voters):

Andrew Cuomo (D): 56

Carl Paladino (R): 32

(MoE: ±3.9%)

PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Marist for McClatchy (9/26-28, likely voters):

Joe Sestak (D): 42

Pat Toomey (R): 51

Dan Onorato (D): 41

Tom Corbett (R): 53

(MoE: ±4.5%)

HI-Gov: Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos (10/2-3, likely voters):

Neil Abercrombie (D): 49

Duke Aiona (R): 47

(MoE: ±2.7%)

TX-Gov: Texas Lyceum (9/22-30, likely voters):

Bill White (D): 43

Rick Perry (R-inc): 48

Kathie Glass (L): 5

Deb Shafto (G): 1

(MoE: ±4.8%)

CT-05: Merriman River Group for the CT Capitol Report (10/3-5, likely voters):

Chris Murphy (D-inc): 44

Sam Caligiuri (R): 50

(MoE: ±4.4%)

Gotham Research Group for Chris Murphy (9/19-21, likely voters):

Chris Murphy (D-inc): 50

Sam Caligiuri (R): 37

(MoE: ±4.1%)

MI-07: Myers Research for Mark Schauer (10/3-4, likely voters, 9/21-22 in parens):

Mark Schauer (D-inc): 44 (45)

Tim Walberg (R): 40 (43)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

NC-08: SurveyUSA for Civitas (10/1-3, likely voters):

Larry Kissell (D-inc): 46

Harold Johnson (R): 45

(MoE: ±4.7%)

NJ-06: Monmouth (10/2-5, likely voters):

Frank Pallone (D-inc): 53

Anna Little (R): 41

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Opinion Research for CNN/Time (10/1-5, likely voters):

MO-Sen:

Robin Carnahan (D): 40

Roy Blunt (R): 53

(MoE: ±3.5%)

NV-Sen, NV-Gov (9/10-14 in parens):

Harry Reid (D-inc): 40 (41)

Sharron Angle (R): 42 (42)

Scott Ashjian (T): 7 (5)

Rory Reid (D): 33 (31)

Brian Sandoval (R): 56 (58)

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Interestingly, Harry Reid’s lead actually increased among registered voters — from 42-34 in September to 43-32 today. Without Ashjian on the ballot, Angle still leads by the same margin among LVs, 47-45.

NY-Sen-B, NY-Gov:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 55

Joe DioGuardi (R): 41

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55

Carl Paladino (R): 41

(MoE: ±4%)

Again, turnout is a factor here. Among RVs, Gillibrand leads DioGuardi by 60-33, and Cuomo stomps the repulsively vile Carl Paladino by 65-31. This poll also tested Chuck Schumer’s re-election, and finds him up by 57-41 over Jay Townsend.

This is the second part of two posts analyzing New York’s recent Republican primary. It will focus upon Republican weakness in New York City, as revealed by the primary. The previous part can be found here.

New York City in the Republican Primary

One of the more interesting things about American politics is the rural-urban divide. The weakness of the modern Republican Party in urban areas is quite astounding. Much of this has to do with the history of the American city, especially the way in which many cities have become reservoirs of poor minorities.

The Republican gubernatorial primary constituted a particularly powerful demonstration of Republican weakness in American cities. To illustrate this, let’s look at a map of turn-out in businessman Carl Paladino’s victory over former representative Rick Lazio:

More below.

This map shows the vote cast by each county as a percentage of the total vote cast in the primary. Erie County, for instance, cast 46,054 votes in the primary. Since 442,608 people voted in total, the county cast 10.41% of the total primary vote.

The turn-out map reveals some fascinating patterns. The biggest counties in the Republican primary were in Buffalo and Long Island. High number of Republicans also voted in Rochester, Syracuse, and Westchester County (north of New York City).

On the other hand, New York City participation in the Republican gubernatorial primary was dismal. Fewer people voted in the five boroughs combined than in Erie County (Buffalo). More than twice as many people voted in all Long Island than in New York City. In the Bronx, 2358 people decided to participate in the Republican primary. This is in a place where an estimated 1,382,793 people live.

Compare these figures to 2008 presidential election:

Here we see New York City punching at something closer to its actual strength. Like a giant magnet, New York City’s population pulls away influence from upstate New York and directs it to itself. Indeed, in the presidential election New York City is four times as important as it was in the 2010 gubernatorial Republican primary – constituting 34.23% of the total vote, compared to 8.58% in the Republican primary.

This really says something about the state of the Republican Party in New York City.



New York City in the General Election

The above two maps do not really hammer in the importance of New York City. Stating that five boroughs hold one-third of a state’s vote is one thing, but actually seeing it is another.

The previous post contained an image of New York in the 2008 presidential election. This map only reflected President Barack Obama’s performance in upstate New York, which he won by the high single digits. Here is a picture of said map:

(Note: Edited NYT Image. This map underestimates Mr. Obama’s strength, since it doesn’t include a number of absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Both, especially the absentees, tended to go more Democratic than the national average in 2008.)

This looks good for Mr. Obama. There is a lot of blue here and not a lot of red. In reality, however, most of the territory mapped above actually does not belong to the Democratic base. In a close election, almost all of these counties would go strongly Republican. These are the places that generally voted for Carl Paladino.

The real area of Democratic power is in New York City. Let’s add New York City to the above map:

Mr. Obama looks really good here; indeed, the blue margins are so large that it is hard to comprehend their magnitude.



Concluding Thoughts

All in all, the divide between New York City’s importance in the Republican primaries and its importance in the general election is quite amazing. It really points to what the Republican coalition of voters is like today. Cities are almost an afterthought; most Republicans assume they will vote Democratic anyways, and so they don’t even bother to compete.

In some states this can be a wise concession. In most states taking the suburbs and the rural areas – occasionally, winning just the rural areas – is enough to win a state election. Cities are not always necessary to win. On the other hand, they certainly are useful to win elections, especially in a state like New York.

Republican candidate Carl Paladino does not look like he will win the general election. Originally trailing Democratic Attorney General Andrew Cuomo 2-to-1, the Republican national wave has closed this to a high single-digit gap. This, however, will be hard to surmount – for much of the remaining gap lies in winning New York City voters, almost none of whom participated in the primary electorate which chose Mr. Paladino.

Public Policy Polling (9/30-10/2, likely voters, 1/4-5 in parentheses, gubernatorial numbers here):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 53 (60)

Linda McMahon (R): 41 (28)

Undecided: 7 (12)

Dan Malloy (D): 50 (37)

Tom Foley (R): 40 (27)

Undecided: 10 (36)

(MoE: ±3.4%)

There’s probably some wrestling term for having seven knockout blows (if you count today’s Rasmussen and yesterday’s “Fox”) landed on you in one flurry, but rather than look it up, I’m just going to quote Nate Silver‘s most recent tweet instead of having a long, thoughtful writeup:

Can. We. Please. Stop. Pretending. That. Connecticut. Is. A. Toss. Up.

Opinion Research for CNN/Time (10/1-5, likely voters, no trendlines):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 54

Linda McMahon (R): 41

Undecided: 2

Dan Malloy (D): 50

Tom Foley (R): 42

Undecided: 2

(MoE: ±3.5%)

CNN/Time offers registered voter numbers too, and Dems are even more dominant there: Blumenthal leads 56-37, and Malloy leads 52-39. LVs approve of Obama 46-49 (compared with RVs approving 52-42).

Merriman River Group for CT Politics Report (10/3, likely voters, no trendlines, gubernatorial numbers here):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 52

Linda McMahon (R): 45

Undecided: 3

Dan Malloy (D): 48

Tom Foley (R): 45

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±2.4%)

This poll from Merriman is the weakest link among the public polls, but even it’s not too weak. As if all that weren’t enough, we have two different internal polls of the Senate race out, from both the Blumenthal campaign and from the DSCC (who just poured $1.5 million more into this race to make sure it’s a done deal… though that might be overkill, given these numbers).

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Richard Blumenthal (10/3-4, likely voters, no trendlines):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 53

Linda McMahon (R): 38

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4%)

Hamilton Campaigns for DSCC (9/30-10/3, likely voters, no trendlines):

Richard Blumenthal (D): 52

Linda McMahon (R): 41

Undecided: 7

(MoE: ±3.5%)