Swing State Project

Senate:

• AZ-Sen: I’d encourage you to read this long Newsweek piece on Gabby Giffords, which I think paints a much more realistic picture of the prospects for her recovery (and possible future election campaigns). One explicitly horserace detail: 2010 Senate challenger Rodney Glassman is considering a run, and says that “if he did run, he would do so as a placeholder for Giffords, vowing to turn over his contribution list and infrastructure to her the moment she entered the race.”

• FL-Sen: Looks like Adam Hasner has taken a page directly from fellow Republican Mike Haridopolos: He failed to file a personal finance disclosure form within the required sixty days after leaving office last November. After a Democratic activist filed a complaint, he hurriedly moved to comply. The GOP field sure is shaping up to be a bunch of bumblers.

• IN-Sen: Dick Lugar announced that he raised $974K in Q1, or about eight times what GOP primary challenger Richard Mourdock says he pulled in, and now has $3 million on hand. I wonder if Mourdock will be able to make up the gap. If not – and if he doesn’t get some outside help from something like the Club for Growth – is it possible his much-hyped bid to topple Lugar could turn out to be a dud?

• NM-Sen: Heather Wilson says she took in $300K in the final three-and-a-half weeks of the quarter since announcing her campaign, and has a little less than that on hand. Of course, these are the low-hanging kumquats. Let’s see if she can sustain this.

• NY-Sen: The Fix points out that if you search for “Rick Lazio,” the description that Google gives back to you is “Republican candidate for the US Senate from New York.” I’m gonna bet that’s an artifact of his 2000 race against Hillary Clinton, though, not a sign that he’s gearing up to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Try Googling “Swing State Project.” The result? “Weblog focusing on the political news from and about the key swing states in the 2004 Presidential election.” Not so much anymore.

• TX-Sen: Though “everyone” expects Republicans Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to run for Senate this year, and polls showed him crushing all comers, it’s going to be a hugely expensive multi-way battle, and I’ve never quite gotten the sense that Dewhurst truly wants to become a senator. So I’m really not too surprised to see him tell a radio host the other day: “I need to make a decision in June whether I’m going to run for the U.S. Senate in 2012 or stay right where I am and run for governor in 2014….” What makes this even more interesting is that Rick Perry could still seek another term in 2014, which suggests that Dewhurst is trying to tell Perry it’s time to move on (he’s been in office since 2000), or that he’s willing to take on Gov. Goodhair in a primary. Either way, fun!

Meanwhile, in the realm of Republicans who are actually running for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s open Senate seat, Ted Cruz says he raised over a million bucks since launching his campaign in January. A good number, I suppose, but this primary is going to cost everyone a lot more than that.

Gubernatorial:

• FL-Gov: Dem Bob Buckhorn, the newly-elected Mayor of Tampa, said he won’t run for governor in 2014. However, Dem chair Rod Smith refused to rule out such a run for himself, which columnist Peter Schorsch rather wisely points out is probably not such a smart call: “After all, why should Alex Sink, Dave Aronberg, etc., go out of their to make Smith look good as FDP Chair if all he is going to do is turn around and run against them in a 2014 primary?”

• WV-Gov: Republican businessman Bill Maloney is up with his first TV ad of the race, while SoS Betty Ireland (who had generally been assumed to have a lock on the GOP nomination) won’t go on the air until next week. Could an upset be in the offing?

House:

• CT-05: Former state Rep. Elizabeth Esty, who had only recently formed an exploratory committee, officially announced yesterday that she’d seek the Dem nomination to replace Rep. Chris Murphy, who is of course running for Senate.

• IA-02: Could we see some sack-on-sack violence in Iowa’s (probable) new 2nd CD? Diarist BJazz at Bleeding Heartland makes a pretty compelling case for why former IA First Lady Christie Vilsack might choose to challenge Rep. Dave Loebsack in the Democratic primary for the state’s new southeastern district. Loebsack is a good vote, and I think it would be a shame to have this kind of battle, but as BJazz says, this is politics.

• NH-01, NH-02: Hey, sports fans – do you hate Charlie Bass? Good news! You’re not alone. PPP just tested favorability ratings across the board in New Hampshire, and residents of the 2nd CD already dislike their old/new Republican rep by an ugly 31-49 margin. Even more good news: freshman GOPer Frank Guinta in the 1st CD is underwater, too, at just 34-41. Check out the link for scores for other Granite State politicians (including both senators, who fare well). There’s also a state lege generic ballot question, which shows that Republicans might have to give back the gains they made last year: they trail Dems 49-41.

Other Races:

• NJ St. Sen.: Olympic track champion Carl Lewis, once known as the world’s fastest human, announced yesterday that he’s running for New Jersey state Senate as a Democrat in the 8th district. This is some very Republican territory, but Dems are hopeful Lewis’s presence on the ticket will energize their voters. (Also note that Monday was the filing deadline for this year’s state legislative races.)

• Wisconsin Recall: It looks like Democrats have scored another good recruit in their recall efforts: Oshkosh Deputy Mayor Jessica King, who lost to Randy Hopper by just 263 votes in a 2008 recount, is expected to announce tomorrow that she’ll seek a rematch in a recall election. On the Republican side, meanwhile, a potential candidate declined: former Packers defensive lineman Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila (aka “KGB”) said he won’t run against Dem Dave Hansen. (Signatures have not been filed against Hansen yet.)

Meanwhile, the state’s Government Accountability Board (which supervises elections) is demurring on setting any election dates, and plans to ask a court “to give us some flexibility in the review period, so we can consolidate elections.”

Special Elections: Johnny Longtorso:

Three seats are up on Tuesday. First, in Connecticut’s HD-148, left open by the Democrat being elected to the State Senate in the last round of Connecticut specials, we have Democratic attorney Dan Fox facing off against Republican Ralph Antonacci, whose previous claim to fame was losing the Republican primary for the seat in 2010. Also in the mix are a Green and two indies. Carlo Leone held this seat by a 2-1 margin in 2010, so I don’t anticipate it being in danger.

Next we have Minnesota’s SD-66, left open by the Democrat being appointed to the state Public Utilities Commission. Democratic college professor Mary Jo McGuire is vying against Republican Greg Copeland, formerly the city manager of Maplewood, in an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in St. Paul (we’re talking 3-1 margins for the incumbent in the past two elections).

Finally, we’ve got a Republican seat up, South Carolina’s SD-16, another seat left open by a Congressional winner (Mick Mulvaney). The Democrats have accountant Keith Brann running, while the Republicans chose Mulvaney’s predecessor in the district, Greg Gregory, who served in the Senate for 16 years. There’s also a Libertarian running. I looked up Mulvaney’s performance in 2008, when he was first elected, and he only won by 7 points, which was kind of interesting, but of course, that was a completely different set of circumstances.

{Ed. Note: Apparently, Brann moved to SC from New Jersey three years ago, and initially sought this seat as a Republican, but found that the Palmetto GOP was too extreme for him.}

And that’s pretty much it until next month. There’s another special in Louisiana at the end of the month with two Republicans running.

Remainders:

• Census: Interesting: The Census Bureau mis-allocated over 25,000 people living on Navy bases or aboard ships in six different states and has had to issue corrections as a result. What other errors are lurking out there?

• WATN?: In case you had a burning desire to know what became of Bart Stupak, he’s joined the law firm Venable. Obviously Venable is a big firm, but Dave Weigel entertainingly points out that one of their clients is Planned Parenthood of Maryland.

In other Where Is That Asshole Now? news, disgraced ex-NY state Sen. Hiram Monserrate is now working at a pizza joint. (Of course, he really should be in the joint instead.)

Sorry for the interruption, but it looks like a spam account snuck through in the last 12 hours or so. If you notice a spammer, please email one of the mods. Our email addresses are in the “About the Site” section of the right-hand sidebar. We can’t always read every comment on SSP, so we might miss spammers, and in any event, email is just usually going to be the quickest way to get our attention. Thanks.

Initial Disclaimer: I have never written about politics before in my life, so I’m not entirely sure how to go about it. But I was specifically requested to say something about this particular piece of sausage and, well, I can never resist an appeal to my vanity, so I went and did it.

Last summer, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed Rule 206(4)-5, and amended a few other Rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. If you read the adopting release, and you believe everything you read, this bit of legislation is intended to preserve “the public trust” from abuse at the hands of elected officials who are taking campaign contributions and kicking it back to Wall Street by directing business to financial firms.

Why this stuff matters

Many investment firms, particularly in what’s known as the “alternative asset” space, an abstract term for, generally, hedge funds and private equity funds, earn two sets of fees, only one of which is tied to performance returns. The other is based on the amount of assets the fund has to invest, contributed by investors and added to by performance growth.  Managers and employees earn their compensation from the fees paid – asset fees tend to go to expenses which includes base salaries and bonus compensation for non-partner employees – managers who have ownership in their firms earn the performance based fees directly. For most funds, the higher fee is tied to performance – which is why Madoff inflated his returns, rather than his asset size – but asset growth can still make a substantial impact on a firm’s bottom line, and excess in asset-based revenues over expenses can mean profit for managers.

Cases of kickbacks, or “pay to play”, have come up with what seems increasing frequency in news reports – a good recent (and local) example is Alan Hevesi, the NYS comptroller who recently pled guilty to directing state pension funds to certain investment firms in return for gifts.  

So there’s no denying that this is an actual issue, and I suppose the Commission – at the explicit behest of Congress, mind you, who gets the PR credit here – gets a hats-off for addressing an issue that exists, rather than one invented to inflame public fears which they can then take credit for calming.

Why this is the wrong solution

However, I think you’d be hard-pressed to say they got it right on this one.

What the law actually says is this:

1– An investment advisor (regardless of whether it’s an entity registered with the SEC, a state, or nothing at all) may not receive compensation from a “government entity” where the advisor or its “covered associates” have made a contribution to a state or local government “official” of that public entity within the past two years (above a de minimis amount – $150 for an official someone can’t vote for, and $350 for an official one can vote for).  

A key takeaway here is that the rule applies only to state and local officials – which includes state and local officeholders (of any variety, potentially) who are running for Federal office or Federal officeholders running for state positions.  It doesn’t touch current Federal folk who are running for re-election or new Federal office.

The devil is in the details here, and the definitions of those terms in quotes matter.  A “public entity” covers what you would think of, in terms of recent news as well as common sense: public pension funds, 529 plans (education savings), and other state and locally funded pools of cash.  This would seem easy enough to comply with, if we stopped there, and perhaps a facially fair rule.  However, the definition doesn’t stop there: it also includes any pool of money, whether publicly affiliated or not, for which a state or local government official has the ability to make investment decisions or to appoint someone to make investment decisions. So, if the principal of your local public school serves on the Board of Directors for a charitable entity that makes investments – that situation is covered, too.

For investment firms, keeping tabs on which of your clients is a public entity has now gotten a lot harder.  Firms are required to “Know Your Customer” to comply with applicable anti-money-laundering laws – but the kinds of documentation requested usually do not require a full history of the Board of Directors for the past two years, say.  Or the chairman of an investment committee who left six months ago and held no other position in the entity that would make him noteworthy.  This contributes to putting advisors in a bind with respect to compliance.

“Congress shall make no law. . .”

To the best of my knowledge, Congresscritters and SEC employees are still groups with disparate elements; there’s no direct benefit to the Commission’s employees here and they don’t have a direct motive for taking such a step.  However, this rule was passed amid a flurry of Congressional interest in pay-to-play, and the Rule intersects with provisions of Dodd-Frank.  At the very least, Congress was fully aware of the potential windfalls here (discussed below in conspiracy-laden detail) by the time the notice and comment period rolled around.

In the adopting release, the SEC pats itself on the back for dancing carefully around the First Amendment – we’re not restricting speech, they say, we are restricting compensation – and they’re not wrong about that with the first prong of the law.  However, the effect of prohibiting the receipt of compensation is to restrict speech – legal guidance around compliance with these rules essentially says, look, it’s impossible with these definitions to keep track of which prospective clients can be tainted by contributions, unless you want to provide each of your investors a list of everyone your staff has made donations to and have them certify that none of those people have been in a position to direct your investment activities and you won’t hire any of them, either. That would not be a questionnaire designed to attract clients.  So firms are essentially saying, you have to notify us about all of your state and local donations in advance, and we reserve the right to tell you you can’t make them. “[W]e acknowledge”, the Commission apologizes, “that the two-year time out provision may affect the propensity of investment advisers to make political contributions” – but they still get to make this rule, because it balances out OK in the end (see below).

I’m no constitutional law scholar, and this Rule may technically be constitutionally acceptable – they are, in fact, not making a law restricting speech; they are only making a law whose impact is to restrict speech, and there are theoretical ways to comply with that law which do not restrict speech.  I would think, particularly in the wake of Citizens United, we are all in agreeance on political contributions and speech. The adopting release acknowledges that protected rights are involved here, and provides the balancing act rationale: “Limitations on contributions are permissible if justified by a sufficiently important government interest that is closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of protected

rights”

Those devious feds

This compliance issue, to me, is an example of impressive cleverness and deviousness on the part of your federal officials.  I go on to outline the rest of the rule below, if you’re interested (and hey, who isn’t interested in the regulation of investment firms! Let me hear you, crickets!) – but this first prong is the part I am most impressed with.

As outlined above, investment firms which solicit any non-individual investors have no practical compliance choice that will allow them to continue to conduct their business except to require pre-approval and the ability to deny state and local political contributions. (To be fair, some firms simply restrict employee state and local donations to a particular state and then decide not to seek clients from that state, and that should be low-risk. But this is not something most firms are willing to do – the competition for investors is fierce, and most firms will take good money wherever they can get it.)

The beauty of these definitions is that, like the definition of “government entity”, the definition of state or local official is pretty broad. It covers anyone serving in or running for a state or local office who would have the ability to direct investment activities or could hire or appoint someone with the ability to direct investment activities.

As written, and explicitly acknowledged in the release, this includes state or local officials (or someone serving in state or local government on the Board of Directors, as above) who is running for federal office.  So Congress has effectively reduced funding for the campaigns of state and local officials from some of the wealthiest individuals – investment folks, who have the money to spend on politics and who might well be interested in doing so.  

Candy from a baby: Fattening the Feds

This has two potential boons for Congress (outside of chest-beating regarding pay-to-play itself): one is that great candidates who start out in state or local offices and build political careers from there will have higher financial hurdles to overcome. I am not a student of electoral history, but I’m willing to bet at least some Congressfolk come up through the ranks this way. The second is that Congress whoops, the Commission has effectively deprived challengers who come from nonfederal offices of an important source of funding.  Wall Street can fund Gillibrand, that is, but not Ford(Apologies for the correction – here’s an actual example or two.).

I’m no conspiracy theorist.  And despite being a Democrat, I often think it’s better to leave certain things unregulated, because the law is poorly written and makes a lot of things worse – even when you need to regulate something, it’s an arms race between the drafters and the lawyers hired to get around them.  So I don’t think that the SEC’s primary reason for passing this law was to make it harder for “Washington outsiders” to make it into office.  

Regardless of whether the bill was intended to benefit Federal incumbents, I think you’d be hard pressed to say it won’t have that effect. You all know a lot more than I do about contributions and political donations – maybe I underestimate how much of that funding is coming from investment professionals. But I’d be surprised if they weren’t a significant source of revenue, whether for the side of right or wrong.  And I’ll be very curious to see if the wise analysts of the SSP notice any differences in the funding of state-level challengers to federal office.  

If you’re interested, the other main points of the rule are:

2– The advisor and its covered associates cannot solicit or coordinate contributions either to an official of a public entity which is a prospective client or to a state or local political party (italics mine) in a location where the advisor is looking for prospective clients.  So, thankfully(sarcasm), you can still give to the D-Trip , but you’d better stay away from state and local parties anywhere you might want to conduct business.

This one is a strict prohibition. I think that we pass Constitutional muster here (for those who think we do) by the narrowness of the scope: The Commission finds this only a “marginal limitation” in the adopting release. But it still reads, initially, as a somewhat ballsy move, particularly if you give any weight to my feelings above that Congress has a lot to be thankful for in respect of this piece of drafting.

Finally, the third major prong is:

3– The advisor and its covered associates may not pay third parties to solicit public entities as clients unless those third parties are also subject to pay to play rules.

In the article I linked to above, this requirement caused placement agents to fall all over themselves trying to get registered before they went out of business – and this is the most visible intersection with Dodd-Frank.  

With the Census Bureau having released 2010 data for all 435 congressional districts, I started slicing ‘n’ dicing the data last week, looking at population change in the fastest growing and shrinking districts. Today, as promised, we’re moving on to how the racial composition of the congressional districts has changed.

You might remember that I did this same project a year and a half ago based on 2008 estimated data, and that was a good template for today’s work, as the lists haven’t changed that much. Where the lists have changed, it seems to be more likely because of strange sample issues in 2008 (like the rapid appearance and subsequent disappearance of a big Asian population in NY-06) than rapid changes in the trend over the last two years. As with last time, the most remarkable chart is the one showing biggest declines, percentage-wise in districts’ non-Hispanic white populations. (Because this is the key chart, I’m extending this list to 25 places.) As you’ll no doubt notice, many of these districts also had some of the biggest moves in the Democratic direction over the years from 2000 to 2008.

District	Rep.	2000 white	2000 total	2000 %	2010 white	2010 total	2010 %	% change	2000 election	2008 election
GA-07	Woodall (R)	476,346	630,511	75.5	486,673	903,191	53.9	– 21.7	31/69	39/60
GA-13	Scott (D)	295,107	629,403	46.9	202,053	784,445	25.8	– 21.1	57/43	71/28
TX-24	Marchant (R)	415,842	651,137	63.9	368,645	792,319	46.5	– 17.3	32/68	44/55
TX-22	Olson (R)	394,651	651,657	60.6	405,645	910,877	44.5	– 16.0	33/67	41/58
FL-19	Deutch (D)	494,890	638,503	77.5	456,060	736,419	61.9	– 15.5	73/27	65/34
CA-25	McKeon (R)	363,792	638,768	57.0	352,189	844,320	41.7	– 15.2	42/56	49/48
FL-20	Wasserman Schultz (D)	426,891	639,795	66.7	358,470	691,727	51.8	– 14.9	69/31	63/36
TX-07	Culberson (R)	439,217	651,682	67.4	411,276	780,611	52.7	– 14.7	31/69	41/58
NV-03	Heck (R)	459,756	665,345	69.1	568,343	1,043,855	54.4	– 14.7	49/48	55/43
TX-10	McCaul (R)	431,992	651,523	66.3	513,811	981,367	52.4	– 13.9	34/67	44/55
IL-03	Lipinski (D)	445,179	653,292	68.1	361,581	663,381	54.5	– 13.6	58/40	64/35
CA-11	McNerney (D)	408,785	639,625	63.9	400,825	796,753	50.3	– 13.6	45/53	54/44
VA-10	Wolf (R)	495,611	643,714	77.0	554,054	869,437	63.7	– 13.3	41/56	53/46
TX-02	Poe (R)	418,476,	651,605	64.2	399,454	782,375	51.1	– 13.2	37/63	40/60
FL-08	Webster (R)	447,266	639,026	70.0	459,529	805,608	57.0	– 13.0	46/54	53/47
CA-41	Lewis (R)	405,790	639,935	63.4	404,103	797,133	50.7	– 12.7	41/56	44/54
FL-12	Ross (R)	461,239	640,096	72.1	500,066	842,199	59.4	– 12.7	45/55	49/50
CA-10	Garamendi (D)	417,008,	638,238	65.3	377,698	714,750	52.8	– 12.5	55/41	65/33
CA-22	McCarthy (R)	426,192	638,514	66.7	432,482	797,084	54.3	– 12.5	33/64	38/60
MD-05	Hoyer (D)	400,668	662,203	60.5	368,667	767,369	48.0	– 12.4	57/41	65/33
NV-01	Berkley (D)	342,987	666,442	51.5	322,853	820,134	39.4	– 12.1	56/41	64/34
CA-13	Stark (D)	244,693	638,708	38.3	174,998	665,318	26.3	– 12.0	67/30	74/24
VA-11	Connelly (D)	430,091	643,582	66.8	434,526	792,095	54.9	– 12.0	45/52	57/42
CA-03	Lungren (R)	474,940	639,374	74.3	488,421	783,317	62.4	– 11.9	41/55	49/49
FL-15	Posey (R)	497,676	639,133	77.9	539,194	813,570	66.3	– 11.6	46/54	48/51

Districts appearing in the 2010 data’s top 25 that weren’t present in 2008 are VA-10, TX-02, FL-08, CA-41, and NV-01; while the other four are driven mostly by Latino growth, the growth in VA-10 (in Washington DC suburbs, more and more centered on once-exurban, now-suburban Loudoun County) is more Asian. These five replace TX-05, AZ-03, TX-06, TX-03, and NJ-07.

This presents a very different picture than the districts ordered according to the actual raw number of white residents lost. That list starts with GA-13 in first, which fell from 295,107 white residents in 2000 to 202,053 in 2010. This is the southern tier of Atlanta’s suburbs and exurbs, which is increasingly becoming a magnet for both Atlanta African-Americans moving outward and northern blacks moving south – in turn driving a lot of white flight, much of which seems to be rearranging itself north of Atlanta, especially in the 9th. The fast-growing 13th is unusual on this list, though; most of the remaining top 10 losers are districts where the overall population is stagnant or going down: MI-12, IL-03, PA-14, OH-10, IN-07, IL-02, CA-13, FL-20, and MO-01. As you’ll see in upcoming charts, blacks are replacing whites in MI-12, Hispanics are replacing whites in IL-03 and FL-20, Asians are replacing whites in CA-13, while in PA-14, OH-10, IN-07, IL-02, and MO-01, everyone is leaving, with whites are leaving the fastest.

Much, much more over the flip…

Here are the districts with the biggest gains among non-Hispanic whites:

District	Rep.	2000 white	2000 total	2000 %	2010 white	2010 total	2010 %	% change	2000 election	2008 election
IL-07	Davis (D)	178,144	653,521	27.3	204,780	638,105	32.1	4.8	83/16	88/12
NY-15	Rangel (D)	106,664	654,355	16.3	133,839	639,873	20.9	4.6	87/7	93/6
NY-11	Clarke (D)	140,595	654,134	21.5	161,819	632,408	25.6	4.1	83/9	91/9
NY-12	Velazquez (D)	150,673	653,346	23.1	180,232	672,358	26.8	3.7	77/15	86/13
GA-05	Lewis (D)	216,674	629,438	34.4	232,507	630,462	36.9	2.4	73/27	79/20
NY-10	Towns (D)	106,746	665,668	16.0	124,232	677,721	18.3	2.3	88/8	91/9
MI-14	Conyers (D)	213,120	662,468	32.2	187,516	550,465	34.1	1.9	81/18	86/14
CA-33	Bass (D)	126,488	638,655	19.8	137,720	637,122	21.6	1.8	83/14	87/12
CA-31	Becerra (D)	62,177	639,248	9.7	69,321	611,336	11.3	1.6	77/19	80/18
SC-06	Clyburn (D)	269,215	669,362	40.2	280,474	682,410	41.1	0.9	58/40	64/35

While you might expect the biggest white gains to be in the exurbs, that’s not the case at all (as suburbs and even exurbs are often becoming a first stopping-point for new immigrants). Instead, most of this list shows regentrification at work, especially in the parts of the outer boroughs of New York City currently under invasion by hipster armies (and also new additions CA-31 and CA-33, evidence of the very recent momentum in the revival of downtown Los Angeles). Similarly, Atlanta is becoming whiter even as its suburbs become much more African-American (which we got a preview of with last year’s mayoral race, where a white candidate nearly won). The odd district out is Detroit-based MI-14, where whites seem to be fleeing at a slower rate than everyone else. Only five additional districts had a percentage gain in white residents, for a total of 15 of all 435: LA-02, HI-02, CA-29, PA-02, and IL-04. (HI-02, NY-14, and CA-29 fall off the top 10 list from 2008, replaced by CA-33, CA-31, and SC-06.)

If you’re wondering which districts had the biggest numeric gains of white residents, rather than changes in the white percentage, here’s where the exurbs come in; the list looks a lot like the list of the biggest gainers altogether, or at least the whiter districts among the biggest gainers. AZ-06 in the Phoenix suburbs (with a large Mormon core in Mesa) had the biggest gain, from 490,359 to 673,881, followed by FL-05, AZ-02, ID-01, UT-03, GA-09, CO-06, SC-01, TX-26, and TX-31.

Now let’s turn to African-American populations:

District	Rep.	2000 black	2000 total	2000 %	2010 black	2010 total	2010 %	% change	2000 election	2008 election
GA-13	Scott (D)	255,455	629,403	40.6	439,119	784,445	56.0	15.4	57/43	71/28
GA-07	Woodall (R)	72,962	630,511	11.6	196,955	903,191	21.8	10.2	31/69	39/60
MI-12	Levin (D)	77,403	662,559	11.7	133,766	636,601	21.0	9.3	61/37	65/33
IL-02	Jackson (D)	403,522	654,078	61.7	414,414	602,758	68.8	7.1	83/17	90/10
MD-05	Hoyer (D)	198,420	662,203	30.0	281,862	767,639	36.7	6.8	57/41	65/33
FL-19	Deutch (D)	37,821	638,503	5.9	91,391	736,419	12.4	6.5	73/27	65/34
MD-02	Ruppersberger (D)	178,860	661,945	27.0	232,194	700,893	33.1	6.1	57/41	60/38
MO-01	Clay (D)	307,715	621,497	49.5	324,711	587,069	55.3	5.8	72/26	80/19
MI-11	McCotter (R)	23,456	662,505	3.5	64,239	695,888	9.2	5.7	47/51	54/45
GA-03	Westmoreland (R)	119,766	630,052	19.0	198,089	817,247	24.2	5.2	33/67	35/64

The list of the top 10 districts in terms of percentage gains among African-Americans is the same 10 as 2008, although with a few changes in the order. The story continues to be African-Americans moving from the cities to the suburbs, especially in the Atlanta area but also Detroit (with Detroiters moving north into the 12th), Chicago (with the metaphorical South Side now starting to extend south well below the city limits and even below I-80), and Washington DC (with Prince George’s County now largely black outside the Beltway, into the 5th, as well as inside in MD-04).

The top 10 gainers by raw numbers has many of the same districts, although also some of the suburban districts that gained a lot of everybody (like TX-22 and NC-09). It starts with GA-13 (from 439K to 629K), followed by GA-07, MD-05, GA-03, TX-22, NC-09, MI-12, FL-19, MD-02, and TX-24.

District	Rep.	2000 black	2000 total	2000 %	2010 black	2010 total	2010 %	% change	2000 election	2008 election
IL-07	Davis (D)	402,714	653,521	61.6	322,730	638,105	50.6	– 11.0	83/16	88/12
GA-05	Lewis (D)	350,940	629,438	55.8	313,302	630,462	49.7	– 6.1	73/27	79/20
LA-02	Richmond (D)	407,138	639,048	63.7	287,077	493,352	58.2	– 5.5	76/22	74/25
CA-09	Lee (D)	164,903	639,426	25.8	131,574	648,766	20.3	– 5.5	79/13	88/10
CA-35	Waters (D)	216,467	638,851	33.9	188,365	662,413	28.4	– 5.4	82/17	84/14
CA-33	Bass (D)	189,855	638,655	29.7	156,406	637,122	24.5	– 5.2	83/14	87/12
NY-11	Clarke (D)	379,017	654,134	57.9	335,828	632,408	53.1	– 4.8	83/9	91/9
PA-02	Fattah (D)	392,293	647,350	60.6	355,849	630,277	56.5	– 4.1	87/12	90/10
NY-15	Rangel (D)	198,915	654,355	30.4	169,460	639,873	26.5	– 3.9	87/7	93/6
TX-18	Jackson-Lee (D)	260,850	651,789	40.0	260,585	720,991	36.1	– 3.9	72/28	77/22

The list of districts with the biggest percentage losses among African-Americans mostly parallels the list of districts with the biggest white gains, where regentrification is changing the complexion (and that it includes the catastrophic regentrification of New Orleans). It also includes several traditionally black districts where the blacks are being replaced mostly by Hispanics: CA-09, CA-35, and TX-18. IL-01 and MD-04 have fallen off the list from 2008, replaced by PA-02 and TX-18.

The top 10 by raw numbers of losses among African-Americans is led (perhaps no surprise) by LA-02, which went from 407K to 287K, followed by MI-13, IL-07, MI-14, IL-01, NY-11, GA-05, PA-02, CA-33, CA-09. Interestingly, because New Orleans in general lost so many people, the 2nd still significantly trails IL-07 in terms of the percentage loss.

Now let’s look at Asian-American populations:

District	Rep.	2000 Asian	2000 total	2000 %	2010 Asian	2010 total	2010 %	% change	2000 election	2008 election
NY-05	Ackerman (D)	159,491	654,253	24.4	218,275	670,130	32.3	8.2	67/30	63/36
CA-13	Stark (D)	179,681	638,708	28.1	239,434	665,318	36.0	7.9	67/30	74/24
CA-15	Honda (D)	187,198	639,090	29.3	246,832	677,605	36.4	7.1	60/36	68/30
CA-48	Campbell (R)	80,095	638,848	12.5	137,094	727,833	18.8	6.3	40/58	49/49
NJ-12	Holt (D)	58,748	647,253	9.1	104,996	701,881	15.0	5.9	56/40	58/41
VA-10	Wolf (R)	41,846	643,714	6.5	107,583	869,437	12.4	5.9	41/56	53/46
WA-08	Reichert (R)	50,745	655,029	7.7	108,807	810,754	13.4	5.7	49/47	57/42
CA-11	McNerney (D)	55,895	639,625	8.7	114,217	796,753	14.3	5.6	45/53	54/44
CA-14	Eshoo (D)	102,430	639,953	16.0	140,789	653,935	21.5	5.5	62/34	73/25
CA-03	Lungren (R)	36,970	639,374	5.8	84,384	783,317	10.8	5.0	41/55	49/49

The Asian gains, percentagewise, are concentrated in the Bay Area, although the #1 gainer is NY-05, where the majority of the population is in NE Queens. Flushing is now thoroughly Asian, and that’s starting to spill over into Bayside (of Archie Bunker and Jerky Boys fame). That’s followed by the East Bay’s CA-13, the first non-Hawaiian district to have an Asian plurality. The rest of the list is mostly affluent suburban areas which are starting to become light-blue at the presidential level even as they keep Republicans in the House; will declining white populations in these districts be enough to push them over the edge?

NY-06, NJ-07, and TX-22 have fallen off the list from 2008, replaced by NJ-12, WA-08, and CA-03. If you’re curious about the top 10 by raw numbers gain, it mostly overlaps the above list, although with some of the all-purpose growth engines (like NV-03) on there too: NV-03, VA-10, TX-22, CA-13, CA-15, NY-05, CA-11, WA-08, CA-48, and VA-11.

Only twelve districts have experienced any drops in the Asian population by percentage, and most of the drops are small, so there’s not much need for a chart for them; HI-02 (28.0% to 24.9%) had the most significant change, partly because of an influx of white retirees but more so because the big rise in “Two or more” as a common choice in Hawaii. That’s followed mostly by districts with rapidly growing Latino populations:  HI-01, CA-20, CA-18, IL-02, TX-29, FL-17, CA-51, TX-30, CA-35, NY-16, and TX-16. Only six districts had drops in raw numbers of Asians: IL-02, MI-13, TX-29, FL-17, IL-05, and IL-01.

Finally, let’s look at Hispanics:

District	Rep.	2000 Hispanic	2000 total	2000 %	2010 Hispanic	2010 total	2010 %	% change	2000 election	2008 election
IL-03	Lipinski (D)	139,268	653,292	21.3	225,298	663,381	34.0	12.6	58/40	64/35
CA-25	McKeon (R)	174,193	638,768	27.3	330,711	844,320	39.2	11.9	42/56	49/48
CA-41	Lewis (R)	150,076	639,935	23.5	277,907	797,133	34.9	11.4	41/56	44/54
CA-43	Baca (D)	371,501	637,764	58.3	510,693	735,581	69.4	11.2	64/34	68/30
CA-22	McCarthy (R)	133,571	638,514	20.9	255,209	797,084	32.0	11.1	33/64	38/60
CA-18	Cardoza (D)	268,586	639,004	42.0	381,039	723,607	52.7	10.6	53/44	59/39
FL-20	Wasserman Schultz (D)	132,575	639,795	20.7	216,352	691,727	31.2	10.6	69/31	63/36
TX-10	McCaul (R)	122,894	651,523	18.9	282,641	981,367	28.8	9.9	34/67	44/55
TX-29	Green (D)	430,980	651,405	66.2	514,861	677,032	76.0	9.9	57/43	62/38
TX-02	Poe (R)	82,578	651,605	12.7	176,196	782,375	22.5	9.8	37/63	40/60

As in 2008, the biggest gainer is IL-03, covering Chicago’s Southwest Side. (I’m truly not sure if people are moving from the depopulating, closer-in IL-04 to the slightly more spacious 3rd, or if the 3rd is becoming the destination of choice for new émigrés; maybe Chicagoans in the comments might shed some insight into that.) And in second place continues to be CA-25, a Republican-held district linking LA suburbs like Santa Clarita with high desert outposts like Lancaster. Interestingly, the list is pretty evenly divided by Democratic-held districts that already were substantially Hispanic and just got much more so (like TX-29 and CA-43), and Republican-held suburban districts where voting patterns haven’t caught up with the Hispanic population (and given the number of kids and non-citizens among those numbers, where it’ll take many more years for that catching up to happen).

There’s been a lot of churn among districts since 2008, perhaps a result of the difficulty of estimating Hispanic populations: districts falling off the top 10 list since 2008 are TX-32, TX-05, AZ-04, and CA-52. These have been replaced by CA-43, CA-18, TX-10, and TX-02.

The top 10 in raw numbers gain doesn’t correlate directly with districts that had biggest white percentage drops or Hispanic percentage gains. Instead, the list pretty thoroughly overlaps with the list of the top population gainers overall; while the Hispanic percentage went upwards in all of those districts, many of these districts were ones with a large Hispanic share already: case in point, the biggest gainer, FL-25 in Miami’s westernmost suburbs (which went from 398,986 to 577,998). That’s followed by CA-45 (which I certainly would have expected to see in the top 10 Hispanic percentage changes, but where the share increased “only” by 7.2%), TX-28, TX-10, CA-25, AZ-07, TX-15, CA-44, TX-23, and CA-43.

One remarkable thing about Hispanic growth is that it’s present almost everywhere. Only six districts experienced any drops in the Hispanic percentage whatsoever, all in urban districts where regentrification is occurring: starting with NY-12 (48.7% to 44.6%), followed by CA-31, NY-15, CA-29, IL-04, and NY-14. Those same six districts were the only ones to report drops in raw numbers, either: IL-04 had the biggest loss (from 486,839 to 442,018), CA-31, NY-12, NY-15, CA-29, and NY-14.

It’s a subject of much debate (and some confusion), and it’ll remain at least somewhat opaque until the Obama Department of Justice weighs in, but the question still is: Where will we see new majority-minority districts created in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act? I invite you to list any states – and especially regions of those states – where you think maj-min districts could get drawn, whether by state legislatures, by the DoJ, or in the end, by the courts. Bonus points for anyone who actually draws any proposed VRA districts.

This map is extremely ugly, but it gets the job done.  The main reason for its ugliness is the VRA retrogression rule.  So, in order to use white Democrats to our advantage, almost all the whites in the VRA-protected 4th and 7th districts are Republicans.  Likewise, in the other districts, almost all the Democrats are white.  If not for the VRA, we could have made a much more compact map with a nearly invincible 8-0 delegation.

The main goals here were:

1. Make an Obama district for Kratovil.

2. Knock out Bartlett and Harris.

3. Make almost all the other districts 60% Obama.

Here’s the map:

District 1 (blue): Frank Kratovil?

It keeps the Eastern Shore intact, but sheds the conservative areas in Northern Maryland.  It uses water contiguity to grab liberal areas of Annapolis, as well as parts of mid and southern Maryland.  The current PVI is R+13.  It’s now like R+4 or 5, which should be no problem for Kratovil, barring another 2010.  It also manages to move Harris into one of the other districts.

Obama: 50.5%, McCain: 48% (previously 58-40 McCain)

White: 68.9%, Black: 22.3%

VAP: White: 71.5%%, Black: 21.3%

Likely D for Kratovil, Lean R otherwise

District 2 (green): Dutch Ruppersberger/Andy Harris

The district is weakened considerably from its current D+7 to around D+2, but Harris has no chance here, considering he lost in an R+13 district in 2008.  In Congressional races between 2006-2008, the Democrat actually won an average of 59.7%.  Parts of Baltimore County are more Democratic than the Obama-McCain numbers show.  Some of the people actually vote for Democrats, but are notorious racists and McCain mopped up in this area.  For example, in Edgemere, all 3 precincts went solidly for McCain, but the congressional Democrat won in both 2006 and 2008.  So, Ruppersberger should be fine in this district, barring another 2010.   As a side note, John Sarbanes probably lives here as well, but would likely opt to run in the new 3rd.

Obama: 54.8%, McCain: 42.8% (previously 60-38 Obama)

White: 68.5%, Black: 19.0%

VAP: White: 71.8%, Black: 17.1%

Likely D vs. Harris, Lean D otherwise

District 8 (light purple): Chris Van Hollen

This stretches north and adds northwest Maryland, as part of the plan to knock out Bartlett.  It goes down from D+21 to about D+7, but Van Hollen is definitely safe.

Obama: 60.5%, McCain: 37.9 (previously 74-25 Obama)

White: 65.1%, Hispanic: 12.7%, Asian: 10.8%

VAP: White: 67.0%, Hispanic: 11.7%, Asian: 10.9%

Safe D

Central Maryland:

District 3 (purple): John Sarbanes

Not too much to say here.  Its PVI of D+6 probably stays about the same.

Obama: 59.8%, McCain: 38.2% (previously 59-39 Obama)

White: 57.9%, Black: 24.2%

VAP: White: 61.0%, Black: 23.0%

Safe D

District 4 (red): Donna Edwards

This black-majority district extends far north and south to take in as many Republicans as possible.  Might a lose a few points off its D+31 rating, but it’s not like that would make any difference.  It barely meets retrogression requirements by staying at 56.8% black.

Obama: 76.5%, McCain: 22.6% (previously 85-14 Obama)

Black: 56.8%, White: 30.7%

VAP: Black: 56.4%, White: 32.2%

Safe D

District 5 (yellow): Steny Hoyer

The used-condom district includes liberal areas in Montgomery, Prince George, and Anne Arundel Counties, as well as Republican areas from wrapping around the 4th district.  Hoyer doesn’t live here, but he basically lives in DC anyway, so he would just run here.  It may be weakened a bit from its current D+11, but he’s still safe.

Obama: 60.0%, McCain: 38.3% (previously 65-33 Obama)

White: 54.9%, Black: 24.6%, Hispanic: 11.4%

VAP: White: 57.1%, Black: 24.0%, Hispanic: 10.1%

Safe D

District 6 (teal): Roscoe Bartlett

Bartlett is technically the incumbent, but has pretty much no chance here.  His current district is R+13, but this is D+6 or 7.  We’ll still probably have to run a minor campaign the first time to ensure he doesn’t become a Republican Chet Edwards, but otherwise we’re safe.  Someone who knows more about Maryland politics could suggest a possible Dem candidate here.

Obama: 60.2%, McCain: 38.1% (previously 58-40 McCain)

White: 57.1%, Black: 17.2%, Hispanic: 15.8%

VAP: White: 59.6%, Black: 17.0%, Hispanic: 14.5%

Likely D vs. Bartlett in 2012, Safe D otherwise

Baltimore Area Close-up:

District 7 (gray): Elijah Cummings

Perhaps the ugliest district on this map, this includes black areas in Baltimore City, as well as deep red parts of Baltimore and Harford Counties.  It probably stays at around D+25.

Obama: 71.5%, McCain: 27.1% (previously 79-20 Obama)

Black: 59.1%, White: 34.5%

VAP: Black: 57.9%, White: 36.3%

Safe D

Sounds like we’re getting exactly what we expected:

Indiana lawmakers unveiled a new draft of legislative maps Monday morning that would solidify some Republican congressional seats, while making one Democratic congressional seat nearly certain to shift into Republican hands.

The maps proposed in the Senate Elections Committee this morning would make major changes to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly’s 2nd District, in north-central Indiana.

Lawmakers are proposing to drop Howard County, which includes the Democratic-leaning city of Kokomo, as well as part of Democratic-leaning LaPorte County, and add all of Republican-leaning Elkhart County and much of strongly-GOP Kosciusko County, among other changes.

I’ll wait until the numbers get run, but it sure seems likely that this new map will inspire Donnelly to run for Senate instead. Assuming Hoosier Republicans don’t melt down the way their counterparts have just done in Louisiana, these new plans should pass easily, seeing as the GOP controls the trifecta. Anyhow, the new map is just below, and new state Senate and House maps are below the fold (and no, I don’t know why the House map appears to be suffering from gigantism).

UPDATE: Statement (via email) from Donnelly:

I am disappointed because it appears that politics played into the drawing of the congressional district lines revealed this morning by Republicans in the General Assembly.  By comparison, the Indiana Senate Democrats released a map of congressional districts a few weeks ago that respected “communities of interest,” as called for by Governor Daniels.  For example, in the Senate Democrats’ map, LaPorte County was intact in the 2nd Congressional District and Kosciusko County was intact in the 3rd Congressional District.  In the Republicans’ map, LaPorte County is divided between the 1st and 2nd Congressional Districts and Kosciusko County is divided between the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts.

Even though it appears that politics played a role in the drawing of this map, I am confident that a Democrat can win in the new 2ndCongressional District.  Then-Senator Obama performed well in this district in 2008, earning 49% of the vote.  Also, it is not uncommon for a Democratic candidate in Indiana to outperform his or her nominee for president.  I did it in 2008, outperforming then-Senator Obama by 13 points, and I know it can be done again.

As for my future plans, my decision will ultimately be based on how I can best serve the people of this great state.  I will soon be sitting down with my wife and children and expect to make a decision in the coming weeks.

State Senate:

State House:

My analysis after the numbers

https://spreadsheets.google.co…

	Brown	Whitman	Total Votes	D%	R%
Agoura Hills	4037	4295	8332	48.45%	51.55%
Alhambra	11075	5267	16342	67.77%	32.23%
Arcadia	6012	8070	14082	42.69%	57.31%
Artesia	1618	1160	2778	58.24%	41.76%
Avalon	456	447	903	50.50%	49.50%
Azusa	5505	2914	8419	65.39%	34.61%
Baldwin Park	8403	2235	10638	78.99%	21.01%
Bell	3732	727	4459	83.70%	16.30%
Bell Gardens	3647	652	4299	84.83%	15.17%
Bellflower	8462	4924	13386	63.22%	36.78%
Beverly Hills	7156	5579	12735	56.19%	43.81%
Bradbury	117	247	364	32.14%	67.86%
Burbank	17818	12079	29897	59.60%	40.40%
Calabasas	4194	3988	8182	51.26%	48.74%
Carson	19010	5060	24070	78.98%	21.02%
Cerritos	8087	7109	15196	53.22%	46.78%
Claremont	8254	5426	13680	60.34%	39.66%
Commerce	2126	437	2563	82.95%	17.05%
Compton	14783	759	15542	95.12%	4.88%
Covina	6364	5409	11773	54.06%	45.94%
Cudahy	1932	337	2269	85.15%	14.85%
Culver City	11810	3759	15569	75.86%	24.14%
Diamond Bar	7271	7449	14720	49.40%	50.60%
Downey	14314	9269	23583	60.70%	39.30%
Duarte	3576	2125	5701	62.73%	37.27%
El Monte	9385	3175	12560	74.72%	25.28%
El Segundo	2925	3489	6414	45.60%	54.40%
Gardena	9995	2936	12931	77.29%	22.71%
Glendale	24362	16771	41133	59.23%	40.77%
Glendora	6582	10251	16833	39.10%	60.90%
Hawaiian Gardens	1186	393	1579	75.11%	24.89%
Hawthorne	11037	3260	14297	77.20%	22.80%
Hermosa Beach	3948	3907	7855	50.26%	49.74%
Hidden Hills	336	562	898	37.42%	62.58%
Huntington Park	5561	896	6457	86.12%	13.88%
Industry	19	31	50	38.00%	62.00%
Inglewood	22667	1810	24477	92.61%	7.39%
Irwindale	306	93	399	76.69%	23.31%
La Canada Flintridge	3744	5569	9313	40.20%	59.80%
La Habra Heights	739	1645	2384	31.00%	69.00%
La Mirada	6275	7474	13749	45.64%	54.36%
La Puente	4798	1290	6088	78.81%	21.19%
La Verne	4954	6523	11477	43.16%	56.84%
Lakewood	12636	11322	23958	52.74%	47.26%
Lancaster	14276	15632	29908	47.73%	52.27%
Lawndale	3610	1545	5155	70.03%	29.97%
Lomita	2836	2691	5527	51.31%	48.69%
Long Beach	68343	36700	105043	65.06%	34.94%
Los Angeles	590793	213305	804098	73.47%	26.53%
Lynwood	7739	1055	8794	88.00%	12.00%
Malibu	2919	2528	5447	53.59%	46.41%
Manhattan Beach	7162	8587	15749	45.48%	54.52%
Maywood	2723	391	3114	87.44%	12.56%
Monrovia	5984	5037	11021	54.30%	45.70%
Montebello	9631	2983	12614	76.35%	23.65%
Monterey Park	7632	4138	11770	64.84%	35.16%
Norwalk	13042	5862	18904	68.99%	31.01%
Palmdale	15179	12707	27886	54.43%	45.57%
Palos Verdes Estates	2329	4535	6864	33.93%	66.07%
Paramount	5627	1315	6942	81.06%	18.94%
Pasadena	28307	13897	42204	67.07%	32.93%
Pico Rivera	10777	2806	13583	79.34%	20.66%
Pomona	15825	6406	22231	71.18%	28.82%
Rancho Palos Verdes	7322	10508	17830	41.07%	58.93%
Redondo Beach	12730	11692	24422	52.13%	47.87%
Rolling Hills	238	784	1022	23.29%	76.71%
Rolling Hills Estates	1334	2432	3766	35.42%	64.58%
Rosemead	5144	2157	7301	70.46%	29.54%
San Dimas	4852	6357	11209	43.29%	56.71%
San Fernando	2855	828	3683	77.52%	22.48%
San Gabriel	4263	2852	7115	59.92%	40.08%
San Marino	1817	3266	5083	35.75%	64.25%
Santa Clarita	21113	31224	52337	40.34%	59.66%
Santa Fe Springs	2739	1203	3942	69.48%	30.52%
Santa Monica	26817	9164	35981	74.53%	25.47%
Sierra Madre	2759	2559	5318	51.88%	48.12%
Signal Hill	1871	1007	2878	65.01%	34.99%
South El Monte	2070	492	2562	80.80%	19.20%
South Gate	11093	2502	13595	81.60%	18.40%
South Pasadena	6456	3353	9809	65.82%	34.18%
Temple City	4318	3923	8241	52.40%	47.60%
Torrance	20974	23561	44535	47.10%	52.90%
Vernon	10	14	24	41.67%	58.33%
Walnut	4223	4021	8244	51.23%	48.77%
West Covina	14056	8930	22986	61.15%	38.85%
West Hollywood	11026	2457	13483	81.78%	18.22%
Westlake Village	1628	2308	3936	41.36%	58.64%
Whittier	12770	10409	23179	55.09%	44.91%
Unincorporated area of Los Angeles County	144758	78196	222954	64.93%	35.07%
Aliso Viejo	5363	8067	13430	39.93%	60.07%
Anaheim	29395	34529	63924	45.98%	54.02%
Brea	4546	8698	13244	34.32%	65.68%
Buena Park	8044	8476	16520	48.69%	51.31%
Costa Mesa	11389	15715	27104	42.02%	57.98%
Cypress	6129	8836	14965	40.96%	59.04%
Dana Point	4808	8555	13363	35.98%	64.02%
Fountain Valley	6960	12816	19776	35.19%	64.81%
Fullerton	14349	20155	34504	41.59%	58.41%
Garden Grove	16601	19682	36283	45.75%	54.25%
Huntington Beach	24769	43552	68321	36.25%	63.75%
Irvine	25659	30915	56574	45.35%	54.65%
La Habra	5750	7176	12926	44.48%	55.52%
La Palma	2109	2672	4781	44.11%	55.89%
Laguna Beach	5707	5259	10966	52.04%	47.96%
Laguna Hills	3703	6975	10678	34.68%	65.32%
Laguna Niguel	8450	16007	24457	34.55%	65.45%
Laguna Woods	4849	5096	9945	48.76%	51.24%
Lake Forest	8048	15745	23793	33.83%	66.17%
Los Alamitos	1607	2077	3684	43.62%	56.38%
Mission Viejo	11727	23818	35545	32.99%	67.01%
Newport Beach	10546	26983	37529	28.10%	71.90%
Orange	13839	24103	37942	36.47%	63.53%
Placentia	5344	9681	15025	35.57%	64.43%
Rancho Santa Margarita	4701	10550	15251	30.82%	69.18%
San Clemente	7829	16243	24072	32.52%	67.48%
San Juan Capistrano	3838	7681	11519	33.32%	66.68%
Santa Ana	27616	15471	43087	64.09%	35.91%
Seal Beach	5018	6999	12017	41.76%	58.24%
Stanton	3052	2837	5889	51.83%	48.17%
Tustin	6838	9770	16608	41.17%	58.83%
Villa Park	658	2552	3210	20.50%	79.50%
Westminster	9356	12705	22061	42.41%	57.59%
Yorba Linda	6889	19832	26721	25.78%	74.22%
Unincorporated area of Orange County	13177	29650	42827	30.77%	69.23%
Banning	3498	4219	7717	45.33%	54.67%
Beaumont	3413	4484	7897	43.22%	56.78%
Blythe	1739	881	2620	66.37%	33.63%
Calimesa	919	1635	2554	35.98%	64.02%
Canyon Lake	1000	2829	3829	26.12%	73.88%
Cathedral City	5475	4102	9577	57.17%	42.83%
Coachella	2806	530	3336	84.11%	15.89%
Corona	13285	17573	30858	43.05%	56.95%
Desert Hot Springs	2044	1657	3701	55.23%	44.77%
Eastvale	4222	4012	8234	51.28%	48.72%
Hemet	7235	10213	17448	41.47%	58.53%
Indian Wells	567	1764	2331	24.32%	75.68%
Indio	6854	6578	13432	51.03%	48.97%
La Quinta	4119	7699	11818	34.85%	65.15%
Lake Elsinore	3619	4314	7933	45.62%	54.38%
Menifee	7538	12231	19769	38.13%	61.87%
Moreno Valley	19145	11567	30712	62.34%	37.66%
Murrieta	8544	16493	25037	34.13%	65.87%
Norco	2100	4499	6599	31.82%	68.18%
Palm Desert	6043	9839	15882	38.05%	61.95%
Palm Springs	9848	5518	15366	64.09%	39.33%
Perris	4755	1911	6666	71.33%	28.67%
Rancho Mirage	2870	4269	7139	40.20%	59.80%
Riverside	31925	28034	59959	53.24%	46.76%
San Jacinto	3323	3493	6816	48.75%	51.25%
Temecula	7956	16088	24044	33.09%	66.91%
Wildomar	2601	4757	7358	35.35%	64.65%
Unincorporated area of Riverside County	38955	53470	92425	42.15%	57.85%
Adelanto	1739	1078	2817	61.73%	38.27%
Apple Valley	6237	12279	18516	33.68%	66.32%
Barstow	1880	1785	3665	51.30%	48.70%
Big Bear Lake	582	1356	1938	30.03%	69.97%
Chino	7556	8122	15678	48.19%	51.81%
Chino Hills	8771	12020	20791	42.19%	57.81%
Colton	5551	2454	8005	69.34%	30.66%
Fontana	18868	9922	28790	65.54%	34.46%
Grand Terrace	1664	1867	3531	47.13%	52.87%
Hesperia	6253	9419	15672	39.90%	60.10%
Highland	5746	5191	10937	52.54%	47.46%
Loma Linda	2119	2549	4668	45.39%	54.61%
Montclair	3549	1943	5492	64.62%	35.38%
Needles	536	489	1025	52.29%	47.71%
Ontario	15031	10177	25208	59.63%	40.37%
Rancho Cucamonga	19542	23661	43203	45.23%	54.77%
Redlands	9762	11635	21397	45.62%	54.38%
Rialto	10473	4035	14508	72.19%	27.81%
San Bernardino	19302	10638	29940	64.47%	35.53%
Twenty-nine Palms	1052	1604	2656	39.61%	60.39%
Upland	9207	11708	20915	44.02%	55.98%
Victorville	8747	8106	16853	51.90%	48.10%
Yucaipa	5284	9144	14428	36.62%	63.38%
Yucca Valley	2002	3504	5506	36.36%	63.64%
Unincorporated area of San Bernardino County	26125	37531	63656	41.04%	58.96%

 

I’ve opted to break down some of the larger counties and the ones that I know a lot about. Results by city are very telling. I’ve compared results just by the two way vote between Brown and Whitman, just to get a clearer look at how the both main parties match up head to head in each municipality. I got the numbers from the Secretary of State’s site, but I worked out the percentages myself with the help of Calc (please point any errors if you notice any).

Los Angeles County

As you can see, most of the usual pockets of Republican strength went to Whitman, with wealthier municipalities giving her the highest margins. The Senate results were almost identical, with only Lomita voting Democratic for Governor and Republican for Senate. The income polarization is very noticeable, the highest income place won by Brown was Beverly Hills. Malibu was probably the second highest income area Brown won, while Calabasas would likely rank behind it.

Orange County

Clearly, no surprise that most municipalities voted Republican and by sizable numbers. Laguna Beach, Santa Ana and Stanton voted for Brown. The lighter Republican voting areas aren’t that surprising, save for Laguna Woods, which is an exclusive retirement community. Again, income counts for a lot, since most of the municipalities won by Whitman are very high income and exclusive. Minority population growth has cause Republican numbers to erode, but it still is decisively Republican.

Riverside County

Whitman won the county overall, but well below the margins Republicans used to post here. Minority population growth has really boosted Democratic fortunes in Riverside County. Riverside proper and Moreno Valley have seen the biggest increase in minority population. Once again, the higher income communities are the darkest red, with exclusive Canyon Lake being the most heavily GOP voting.

San Bernardino County

Voted along the lines of Riverside County, but had a couple of split decisions. Barstow and Needles voted Democratic for Governor and Republican for Senate. I would imagine that Brown’s crossover appeal from his previous service helped him here a bit. Just like Riverside County, Whitman’s performance was well below what most Republicans in other states get in suburbs in good GOP years. Democrats have a solid foundation in Fontana, Ontario, Rialto and San Bernardino proper, which have grown a lot over time, with most of that growth being minorities who have left Los Angeles seeking better housing and work.

Senate:

• CT-Sen: William Tong, a state rep we mentioned once before, is supposedly gearing up to enter the Democratic primary. He was recently in DC “making the rounds,” and is reportedly trying to hire staff. I don’t really see how he has a chance, given that two big names are already in the race, but maybe he’s hoping for a good enough showing to improve his name rec with the political classes for a future run. (Tong’s only in his late 30s.)

• NE-Sen: State Sen. Deb Fischer, a sorta dark-horse candidate given that two statewide officials are already running in the GOP primary, is getting encouragement from a one-time statewide office-holder: former Gov. Kay Orr, the first Republican woman to be elected governor in the United States. Interestingly, the man who stopped Orr in her bid for re-election in 1990 is the guy Fischer would take on: Ben Nelson.

• OH-Sen: As promised early last week, Josh Mandel filed paperwork with the FEC to form a Senate campaign committee, but his mouthpiece insists that it’s not a formal statement of candidacy, just “a step.”

• WI-Sen: GOP ex-Rep. Mark Neumann, on a two-race losing streak, is hoping that the third time’s the charm. After offering some recent hints, Neumann’s now explicitly saying he’s considering a run against Herb Kohl. He hasn’t offered any kind of timetable, except to suggest he’s kinda-sorta waiting on Rep. Paul Ryan, the guy who inherited his seat in the House. (I seriously doubt Ryan will run, given his prominence in the House GOP leadership.) Neumann was last seen losing the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary to none other than Scott Walker. Before that, he’d been out of politics for a long time, narrowly losing the 1998 Senate race to Russ Feingold. Neumann has some personal wealth he could throw into the race, though of course Kohl has a ton of money (and a history of self-funding).

House:

• NY-26: The cries of “splitters!” from the Judean People’s Front/People’s Front of Judea battle raging in upstate New York have just grown louder. The leaders of one teabagger group, TEA New York, issued an endorsement to Republican Jane Corwin, furious as they are over Crazy Jack Davis appropriating their good name and branding his ballot line the “Tea Party.” Meanwhile, another teabagger org, the Tea Party Coalition, gave their seal of approval to Davis, who denounced TEA NY as a tool of the GOP. Oh, it also helps that the leaders of the TPC are on the Davis payroll. But for the full flavor, I strongly encourage you to read Alan Bedenko’s hilarious summation of all this mishugas.

• TX-26: Dianne Costa, a former GOP mayor of Highland Village (pop. 17K) has filed paperwork to run in the 26th CD, currently held by backbencher Michael Burgess. Odds are this is a Schrödinger’s Seat situation. (H/t FEC Kenobi)

Other Races:

• Las Vegas Mayor: I’m borderline uncomfortable reporting polls from Strategic National, because their chief, John Yob, established himself as an untrustworthy partisan hack almost right out the gate. But in any event, Jon Ralston obtained a copy (warning: Word file) of a poll they just took in this race, showing Carolyn Goodman ahead of Chris Giunchigliani by a 48-34 spread. It’s not clear who if anyone the poll was taken for, but oddly enough, it tests some negative messages against both candidates – not something you usually see in a poll that gets released into the wild. It also features percentages that go into the thousandths, which means you know it’s extra-accurate.

• Wisconsin Sup. Ct.: It’s sort of redundant to begin a bullet linking to 538 by saying “Nate Silver crunches the numbers,” because of course that’s what he’s just done. Anyhow, click the link for his look at whether the Wackiness in Waukesha points to incompetence or fraud (conclusion: “[I]f you want to allege that there’s a conspiracy afoot, the statistical evidence tends to work against you.) Craig Gilbert of the Journal Sentinel also thinks the new numbers are plausible. And for a more amusing tidbit that definitely tilts in favor of Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus being a boob, check out this entertaining story from Michigan Liberal.

Meanwhile, despite now facing very challenging odds (or perhaps because of it), JoAnne Kloppenburg has hired Marc Elias, the attorney who led Al Franken’s legal efforts in his recount battle. David Prosser is tapping Ben Ginsburg, who, in addition to representing Norm Coleman, played a big role in the Bush Florida recount team.

Remainders:

• Voter Suppression: Huh – why is Jon Husted, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, trying to sound reasonable on the issue of voter ID? In the fact of pending legislation which would require voters to bring a government-issued photo ID with them to the polls, Husted instead is in favor of allowing people to use other forms of identification, like a utility bill or government-issued check. Given how deep VOTER FRAUD!!!!!!!1111 runs in the teabagger bloodstream, this is one issue (like immigration) on which any sensible Republican with higher ambitions would be wise to avoid, yet here Husted is sticking his neck out on it. What gives?

Redistricting Roundup:

• Colorado: Colorado’s new congressional map is now not expected until April 21st, instead of April 14th, as originally planned. Republicans are whining about the delay, which is partly due to the fact that 2010 precinct-level data is still being churned out by the Secretary of State’s office. (The SoS claims they usually don’t get it out until June 30th… why should it take eight months to do this?) Anyhow, I don’t really understand why Republicans would be better off if Dems don’t use the 2010 data, unless they think Democrats are dumb enough to redistrict solely based on 2008 numbers. (They aren’t.) It doesn’t matter, though, since the GOP isn’t going to get their way here.

• Connecticut: The redistricting process is (slowly) starting here in CT.

• Florida: This is fiendish: Republicans in the legislature are pushing a constitutional amendment which would split Florida’s seven-judge Supreme Court into separate five-member civil and criminal divisions, and which would also shunt the three most senior members into the criminal section. That would give Rick Scott three new appointments, and whaddya know! the four most junior justices are all Charlie Crist appointees, while the longest-serving three were all elevated by Dem Gov. Lawton Chiles. This is appearing in the redistricting roundup because Dems are (rightly) accusing the GOP of trying to pack the court in advance of the inevitable legal battles over redistricting. In order for this measure to appear on the ballot before Nov. 2012, though, it’ll require the support of some Dems in the House. Let’s hope they aren’t stupid enough to fall for this.

Anyhow, the legislature is starting work on redistricting, but it sounds like they are in no hurry to get the job done (the above story might be part of the reason): House Speaker Dean Cannon told members who want to be on the redistricting committee to expect to work hard into next year. Of course, we do things quite a bit fast around here, so if you want to play around with the latest redistricting toy, check out this new online tool for remapping Florida.

• Iowa: Today is the deadline for members of Iowa’s advisory commission to issue its recommendations on the state’s new set of maps, after which the lege has to give them an up-or-down vote. All signs point to passage, which would make Iowa the first state in the nation to complete its redistricting process.

• Louisiana: Well, after a quick start with a flurry of plans getting subject to scrutiny, things have definitely gone off the rails in Louisiana. Five of the state’s six Republican congressmen sent a letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal asking the legislature to delay federal redistricting until next year – and Jindal apparently agrees with the idea. Daily Kingfish describes this as a big setback for Jindal, given that his party controls the entire lege. It is a little surprising to me that one man, Rep. Charles Boustany, apparently has the power (and the allies in the state Senate) to mess with Jindal like this, but perhaps the governor simply thinks he can steamroll Boustany after the November elections, assuming Republicans gain more seats.

• New Jersey: The fallout continues: Three NJ legislators have announced they will move into new districts so that they can run again this fall, and apparently all of them are being welcomed to do so by their own parties. Of course, it’s still early, and some people will definitely get squeezed out by the end.

• Ohio: This is actually the same link at the voter suppression story above, but it contains a throw-away line at the end in which SoS Jon Husted says congressional districts need to be re-drawn by Sept. 1st in order for Ohio to hold its primary by March 2012. (Otherwise it would have to get moved – to May, according to the article, but if the process really drags on, who knows how late things could get shifted.)

• Sacramento: You can redistrict the city of Sacramento, California in this online game.

• Virginia: Played for fools – that’s what Virginia House Democrats are. GOP Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is praising the Republican gerrymander of the state House, which passed with near-total Dem support in that body, despite representing a deliberate plan to fuck over Democrats, as having “strong bipartisan support.” At the same time, he’s slamming the Dem state Senate map, which GOPers had the good sense to vote against en masse, as some kind of unholy gerrymander. Duh! Bolling is trying to goad the lege into adopting maps produced by Gov. Bob McDonnell’s commission (not gonna happen), but he’s also suggesting that McDonnell could “substitute” the commission’s maps for whatever the legislature passes. I admit I’m not entirely clear on how that would work – a particularly egregious use of the line item veto, or something along those lines? Seems risky.

Of course, all of this is predicated on bipartisan incumbent-protection agreement which includes the federal map as well. But is this deal unraveling? Dem state Sen. Janet Howell, who created the senate map, says she “doubts” her body’s congressional map will match the House’s, which was released just last week (the Janis plan). I’m surprised to hear this, because I thought a clear understanding had been worked out between the two houses, but I suppose there is still some negotiation left to be done over the federal map.