Swing State Project

Dan Jones & Associates for Deseret News/KSL-TV (1/12-13, adults, 11/19-23 in parens):

Peter Corroon (D): 35 (32)

Gary Herbert (R-inc): 48 (56)

(MoE: ±5%)

In a state with a pretty limited Democratic bench, the recent entry of Peter Corroon in the gubernatorial race is a huge boon for Utah Democrats. Corroon isn’t just another sacrificial lamb that Utah Dems have become accustomed to running against entrenched incumbents — he’s the mayor of Salt Lake County, which is home to more than a third of the state’s population. While it goes without saying that this will be a challenging race, Corroon at least gives Democrats a fighting chance here, especially if some of the same budgetary problems facing many of the other beleaguered governors begin to take a toll on the freshly-minted Gov. Gary Hebert. SSP is changing its rating of this race from the sub-competitive Races to Watch to the more competitive category of Likely Republican.

RaceTracker Wiki: UT-Gov

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

Results are soon pending in the special election to replace Senator Ted Kennedy. Once a guaranteed Democratic victory, the race has become surprisingly competitive due to a bad national environment and a lackluster campaign run by Democrat Martha Coakley. In fact, several polls have put Republican Scott Brown in the lead, striking panic amongst the Democratic establishment.

Interpreting incomplete results can be difficult if one is not familiar with how different areas in a state vote. Senator John McCain, for instance, led the vote in Virginia during much of election night; this was because deep-red rural Virginia reported first. After Democratic strongholds in Northern Virginia began posting, Barack Obama quickly pulled away (he ultimately won by 6.30%). Because Massachusetts is rarely competitive outside of gubernatorial elections, geographic unfamiliarity probably extends to even most politically active folk.

I have therefore created a map indicating what a tied election would probably look like:

More below.

Interpreting incomplete results can be difficult if one is not familiar with how different areas in a state vote. Senator John McCain, for instance, led the vote in Virginia during much of election night; this was because deep-red rural Virginia reported first. After Democratic strongholds in Northern Virginia began posting, Barack Obama quickly pulled away (he ultimately won by 6.30%). Because Massachusetts is rarely competitive outside of gubernatorial elections, geographic unfamiliarity probably extends to even most politically active folk.

This map takes data from all statewide elections since 2004, derives the electoral lean of each county, and then averages these results to produce the picture. Here is the data by county:

Ironically, Republicans do better in the most populous counties – the opposite case for the nation in general. Republicans are strongest in the state’s suburbs; Scott Brown will need to win all of them to take the state (on the other hand, these wins need not be exceptionally large). On the other hand, Democrats do best in the city Boston and the more rural western reaches of the state.

Thus on election day when the results start coming in, take a look at the above table and compare it to the actual performances each candidate is posting. Whichever candidate is generally outperforming the table will likely win the election. Finally, look at who is winning Hampden and Bristol counties – the two places that vote closest to the state as a whole. If Martha Coakley is winning them, expect a Democratic victory. If Scott Brown is, then a Republican shocker is in the works. If the two are split, it will a nail-biter that goes deep into the night. There have been not many of those lately.

Whatever the case, tomorrow Tuesday ought be an exciting day for politics buffs. There are not many races where the result has been so uncertain – where practically anything can happen and it would not be surprising for the polls to be completely off. It will be quite interesting to watch.

In the battle of the Steves, two may enter, but only one may leave.

SurveyUSA for Firedoglake (1/12-14, likely voters):

Steve Driehaus (D-inc): 39

Steve Chabot (R): 56

Undecided: 5

(MoE: ±4.1%)

I don’t think you need me to tell you that this is “rough”. Ohio’s 1st District has been a tough nut to crack for Democrats, usually leaning ever so slightly to the GOP. Al Gore lost the district by 46-51 in 2000, and John Kerry came up two points short four years later. Obama finally busted the dam open, winning the CD by a remarkable 55-44 spread. Now, if this poll is to be believed (and I can believe it), Obama has a 42-55 approval rating among likely voters in the district.

Rough.

RaceTracker Wiki: OH-01

I recognize that there is an intense level of anger and frustration among we of the Democratic base right now, faced as we are with a scenario most of us could not have conceived in our worst nightmares, however I think the rabid anti-Coakleyism spreading around the internets these days is getting just a wee bit unfair. In this respect I largely agree with Nate Silver – yes, she is a boring candidate, and yes, she did run a dull, almost absentee campaign… but when you’re in Massachusetts, and you’re a high-profile statewide elected official, and you’re running as a Democrat against a fairly obscure state senator to succeed Ted Kennedy, none of those things should be unforgivable offenses. Let’s face it: there is a LOT of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. To be sure, there were plenty of people (myself included) who had reservations about her in the primary, but clearly none of those concerns translated into anything near the blind, existential panic we are now facing as we creep up upon January 19th. If anyone can point to a post he/she left, here or anywhere else, indicating his/her grave uneasiness about the threat posed by Scott Brown in a general election, I’d love to see it – I’m genuinely curious.

This is obviously not to say Coakley’s camp is blameless. Going dark for a month was malpractice of the highest order, and her campaign manager should never be allowed to work in American politics ever again. But the over-the-top vitriol being directed at the candidate herself is starting to become unseemly, and frankly sort of classless. I doubt any of us can imagine what its like to be in her shoes at this very moment, being pegged by pundits and partisan activists nationwide as the pariah who single-handedly flushed the Democratic supermajority – and by extension, Ted Kennedy’s dream of universal healthcare – down the drain. By all accounts, Martha Coakley is a capable public servant, a fairly committed progressive, and by almost any measure a more qualified candidate for the United States Senate than Scott Brown. Yes, her probable defeat on Tuesday will almost certainly mark the end of her political career, and that can be argued as being perfectly appropriate, but I hardly think it cause for open celebration.

Just as determinate as any particular fault of the Coakley campaign is, I think, the basic issue highlighted by PPP in the poll that touched off this horrific week: a profound disparity in enthusiasm between D’s and R’s, the very same one reflected in the outcomes of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The electorate turning out for special/off-year downballot elections is simply a different universe of individuals than those who came to the polls in 2008. Beyond the predictable backlash from the right, who knows how many people voted for Obama having never voted in their lives, and may never vote again? I think we can anticipate the relative drop-off from here out to be comparable to what we have seen thus far, and that alone augurs poorly for our near-term electoral prospects – whether or not we have Coakleys or Capuanos on the ballot.

This is the end… my only friend, the end.

Yesterday, the DCCC announced a list of twenty-six “races to watch” as part of their “efforts to stay on offense this cycle.” The D-Trip has divided its list into two tiers, “Top Races” and “Emerging Races,” but hasn’t offered a description of the distinction between them. To wit, the list:

I’ll note that two of these seats, though, are currently blue. That’s obviously not part of our “offense,” and to me, it sends a bad message to leave off all the other vulnerable Dem-held open seats. Anyhow, it’s nice to see this list, I suppose, but there’s no doubt we’ll be playing vastly more defense than offense this cycle.

Bad news:

Snyder released the following statement:

“2010 will be a robust election year during which great forces collide to set the direction for our country for another two years. Over the last several weeks Betsy and I have had discussions with family and friends including other members of Congress (Rep. David Price, Rep. Susan Davis, and our own Sen. Mark Pryor) regarding the appropriate balance between family and congressional service when a family has very young children. I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three 1-year old boys under the leadership of their 3-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election. It is the greatest professional honor of my life to represent Arkansas in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I am so grateful to the people of Arkansas to have had this wonderful opportunity. That honor will now pass to someone else at the conclusion of this term.

“This decision has not been an easy one. Two weeks ago my campaign manager came on board, but that first morning I advised him to do nothing to begin the campaign because of my doubts regarding running. The onset of the new year, the time I always begin organizing my campaigns, did nothing to remove these doubts.

This seat was already looking to be a very tough hold (especially given that SUSA poll released earlier today showing Snyder trailing ex-US Attorney Tim Griffin by 56-39). Now it looks to be even tougher, unless Democrats can find a candidate sprinkled with magical Mike Beebe dust all over their person in this Little Rock-based district.

UPDATE: Here’s an idea for a replacement candidate: Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, who has previously been mulling a run for U.S. Senate. Halter lives in the district (North Little Rock), and was born there, too. I think he’d have to seriously consider the opportunity.

Just to give you a better sense of this district, it has a PVI of R+5. Al Gore lost the CD by 48-49 in 2000, Kerry by 48-51 in 2004, and Obama by 44-54 in 2008. Not a good trend, but that wasn’t as bad of a deterioration as seen in the districts held by Marion Berry (AR-01) and Mike Ross (AR-04), where the Democratic share of the vote fell all the way down to the high-30s in 2008.

RaceTracker Wiki: AR-02

Marist (pdf): (1/13-14, registered voters, 11/16-17 in parentheses)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 43

Harold Ford Jr. (D): 24

Undecided: 33

(MoE: ±5%)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 45 (45)

George Pataki (R): 42 (47)

Undecided: 13 (8)

Harold Ford Jr. (D): 36

George Pataki (R): 42

Undecided: 22

(MoE: ±3.5%)

With the once-fanciful idea of Tennessee’s Harold Ford Jr. running for the Senate in New York seeming a little closer to reality with each week, Marist decided to poll the question. (This comes despite various Democratic bigwigs trying to warn Ford off — this time, it was fellow centrist Martin Frost‘s turn.) Marist finds that Kirsten Gillibrand has a large edge over Ford in the Democratic primary, although with a substantial number of unknowns, suggesting that Gillibrand doesn’t have things locked down and that people don’t really know what to make of Ford yet (if they’ve even heard of him, which I suspect most New Yorkers haven’t).

In the general, they find that Gillibrand has improved her position against Republican ex-Gov. George Pataki slightly over the last few months, while Ford loses by 6 (although, again, that may have to do with Ford not being well-known). Also, there’s very low likelihood of Pataki running; while he hasn’t ruled it out, his actions lately have pointed more toward a dark horse run for the Presidency. In fact, another Republican is tired of waiting, and went ahead and declared his candidacy: Port Authority Commissioner Bruce Blakeman. Given the GOP’s recruitment woes in this race, he may be the best they can put forward.

What I’d like to see, though (and I’m a little disappointed Marist didn’t poll on the question) is how Ford would fare as an independent candidate a general election matchup against Gillibrand. To me, this seems like the only way he seems like he’d ever actually get anywhere in New York, by trying, a la Joe Lieberman 2006, to grab the center and most of the right with a marginal Republican having little effect in a general election. Closed primaries in New York prevent him from taking advantage of GOPers and right-leaning indies, but the general election doesn’t have that problem. Taegan Goddard, in particular, has been wondering out loud about this angle, and he’s saying today that Ford didn’t completely shoot down the idea (albeit in a statement saying he would be a Democrat but loaded with weasel words):

I’m a proud Democrat, and I think I’m going to remain that. I think Democrats are looking for a stand-up, independent guy to represent them in this race… So, in that sense, I would run as an independent.

RaceTracker Wiki: NY-Sen-B

• MA-Sen: With last night’s Suffolk poll, there really can’t be any doubt any more that the Massachusetts Senate race qualifies as a “Toss Up,” so we’re changing our rating to reflect that. There’s still room for skepticism on whether Scott Brown can in fact pull it out, given not only the difficulty of pinning down a likely voter universe in a rapidly-fluctuating special election, but also the Democrats’ structural advantages on the ground in the Bay State. (The Democrats have the advantage of labor and local machines long-skilled at rousting out voters and getting them to the polls, while it’s questionable whether the Republicans have, given their long neglect of the state, any ground troops to deploy here, or even up-to-date, refined voter databases.) Nevertheless, given what can actually be quantified, right now the polls balance out to more or less a tie, and that’s how we have to treat the race.

The breaking news du jour is that Barack Obama has finally agreed to head up to Massachusetts and stump for Martha Coakley on Sunday. Also, the Coakley campaign is rolling out a second ad for the weekend, to go with their ad showcasing the Vicki Kennedy endorsement; they’re also running a populist-themed ad on Wall Street regulation (specifically, the rather narrow issue of the proposed bonus tax on banks). The ad deluge is being bolstered a League of Conservation Voters ad buy for $350K; on the third-party front, that’s being countered by a pro-Brown ad buy for $500K from Americans for Job Security.

• CA-Sen: Yesterday I was musing about whether ex-Rep. Tom Campbell’s entry into the GOP Senate primary hurt Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore more, and we already seem to have an answer. The Campbell camp is touting an internal poll showing them with a sizable lead over both Fiorina and DeVore in the primary: Campbell is at 31, with Fiorina at 15 and DeVore at 12. The few polls of the primary so far have shown Fiorina and DeVore deadlocked in the 20s, so maybe it’s safe to say that Campbell hurts them each equally.

• FL-Sen: Which of these is not like the other? There’s a new multi-candidate GOP fundraising PAC called the U.S. Senate Victory Committee, which benefits seven different Republicans: Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, Jane Norton, Rob Portman, Rob Simmons, Pat Toomey… and Marco Rubio? Six establishment candidates, and one insurgent. Or is Rubio the new establishment?

• PPP (pdf): PPP looks all the way to 2012 as part of their wide-ranging Nevada survey, and finds that John Ensign may weather his whole giving-a-patronage-job-to-the-cuckolded-husband-of-his-mistress thing, if he runs again. Ensign trails Las Vegas mayor (but probable 2010 gubernatorial candidate) only Oscar Goodman 43-41, but leads Rep. Shelly Berkley 49-40 and SoS Ross Miller 47-36. Of course, Berkley and Miller aren’t that well-known yet and would presumably gain ground in an active 2012 race, but again, more food for thought on the idea that Republicans really don’t get the vapors over sex scandals after all, so long as they’re perpetrated by Republicans.

• MN-Gov: The St. Paul Pioneer Press is out with a poll of Minnesota voters (by a pollster I’ve never heard of, Decision Resources Ltd.). The poll seemed most focused on the question of whether there should be public funding of the new Vikings stadium, but it did throw in (almost as an afterthought) something we haven’t seen before: general election head-to-heads in the Governor’s race. The numbers are pretty encouraging for the Democrats: ex-Sen. Mark Dayton leads ex-Sen. Norm Coleman 41-31, and state Rep. Marty Seifert (who, assuming Coleman doesn’t get in, is the likeliest GOP nominee) 41-25. State House speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher beats Coleman 33-31, and Pat Anderson (who dropped out of the race this week) 33-23. There weren’t any numbers for Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, another strong contender for the Dem nod. And yes, if you’re wondering, this does take into account the potential spoiler role of Minnesota’s Independence Party; IP candidates account for 11 to 13 percent of the vote in each of these trial heats. (H/t alphaaqua.)

• NH-Gov: One other gubernatorial poll has good news for Democrats, and it even comes from Rasmussen. They find incumbent Gov. John Lynch in safe position with 58/38 approvals and, against his no-name opponents, leading social conservative activist Karen Testerman 53-30 and businessman Jack Kimball 51-32.

• OH-Gov: Who knew that John Kasich had the power to transcend the boundaries of space and time? In an effort to court the GOP’s restive base, Kasich said “I think I was in the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.”

• WY-Gov: One more big-name Republican (by Wyoming’s small standards) is getting into the gubernatorial race, banking on the assumption that incumbent Dem Dave Freudenthal won’t jump through the legal hoops necessary to run for a third term. Auditor Rita Meyer is getting into the race, where potential GOP primary rivals include former US Attorney Matt Mead and state House speaker Colin Simpson.

• AL-05: Rep. Parker Griffith is showing his true colors. The party-switcher has been turning away requests for refunds of contributions that don’t meet the requirements buried in the fine print: he says he can’t refund donations for the 2008 cycle, only the 2010 cycle, because the 2008 contributions were spent long ago.

• AR-02: Rep. Vic Snyder is in pretty dire shape, if a new poll from SurveyUSA is to be believed: he trails Republican candidate and former US Attorney Tim Griffin by a 56-39 margin. You may want to take this poll with a grain of salt, as it was paid for by Firedoglake, who seem to have an axe to grind in the health care reform debate, and the Snyder numbers seem to be less the main point than engaging in strangely-right-wing-sounding message-testing. The good news is that, even after a variety of anti-HCR arguments have been offered (and Nate Silver does a fine job of picking apart the survey), Snyder doesn’t fare much worse (at 58-35); the bad news, though, is that the 56-39 topline question was asked before any of the litany of anti-HCR talking points, suggesting that, HCR or no, we have a major problem in Arkansas.

• AZ-03: Despite Jon Hulburd’s surprising cash haul, he may have bigger company in the Democratic primary to replace recently-retired Republican Rep. John Shadegg. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon is the subject of speculation; he had briefly considered a 2008 run against Shadegg before ruling it out, saying his post-mayoral future would be in the private sector, but all eyes are on what he does now. (Gordon lives slightly outside the district’s boundaries.) On the GOP side, there’s no clear frontrunner at all. State Rep. Sam Crump has already said he’s running. Possible other candidates include state Treasurer Dean Martin (who would have to drop down from the gubernatorial bid he just launched this week), state Sens. Pamela Gorman and Jim Waring, Phoenix city councilor Peggy Neely, former ASU football star Andrew Walter, and, in a shocker, the co-founder of Taser International Inc., Tom Smith. Former state House speaker Jim Weiers has taken himself out of the running.

• NC-11: Businessman Jeff Miller has reversed course and will run against Democratic Blue Dog Rep. Heath Shuler in the 11th. Miller had been recruited to run, but decided against it; he’ll have to face a primary against Hendersonville mayor Greg Newman, who got in after Miller initially declined.

• OH-15: The Ohio GOP is still searching for an Auditor candidate after Mary Taylor decided to run for Lt. Governor instead of re-election. Former state Sen. Steve Stivers has been asked to run for Auditor, but made clear he’ll be staying in the race in the 15th (where he might actually have better odds, considering how close he came to Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy last time).

Yesterday Republican front-runner Terry Branstad’s campaign released some information about its fundraising during the last three months of 2009. As I’d feared, they reported big numbers: nearly $1.55 million raised, with $1.36 million cash on hand left at the end of 2009. You can make a lot of contacts in four terms as governor, and Branstad’s campaign had 3,044 individual contributors, representing all of Iowa’s 99 counties. The campaign also noted that 94 percent of the money raised came from Iowans, and 96 percent came from individuals.

Governor Chet Culver’s campaign responded by announcing that it has $2.59 million on hand:

That total is over $1 million more than any incumbent governor has had at a similar point in their reelection cycle. […]

Over the past 12 months, the campaign received contributions from well over 1,000 donors, 85% of which are Iowa residents.  Additionally, more than half the contributions made to the campaign were for $250 or less.

Culver campaign manager Abby Curran told me that the total amount raised during 2009 was $2.145 million. She declined to tell me how much the campaign spent during the year, but it’s not hard to arrive at a ballpark figure. Last January, Culver’s campaign reported having about $1.5 million on hand. Adding $2.145 million to that and subtracting the $2.59 million the campaign has on hand now suggests that the governor’s campaign spent a little more than $1 million during the past year.

I’ve been concerned about the Culver campaign’s burn rate for a while. It appears that as in 2008, the campaign spent roughly half of what it took in during 2009. Presumably a lot of that money went toward running this statewide television ad in October and this one in November. I liked the ads, especially the second one, and I understand why they wanted to spread a positive message when the governor was going through a rough political stretch. But Culver and Jim Nussle raised about $15 million combined during the 2006 campaign, and this year’s race will be more expensive. The Democratic and Republican governors’ associations are likely to spend substantial money here (both organizations have a lot of money in the bank). Even so, Culver needs to raise a lot more money.

Another point of concern is that Branstad has more individual donors. If half of Culver’s donations were for $250 or less, then the overwhelming majority of his money came from donors giving several thousand dollars. Iowa has no campaign contribution limits, so there’s no reason these people couldn’t give again, but Culver has a smaller pool of past donors to tap. In my opinion this reflects the governor’s failure to build strong coalitions and deliver on various issues of importance to Democratic activists who supported Ed Fallon or Mike Blouin in the 2006 primary. The friction between him and organized labor hasn’t helped either.

The good news for Culver is that he can continue to build his war chest while Branstad is forced to spend a lot of money during the Republican primary.

Speaking of which, the other Republican candidates for governor haven’t released their fundraising numbers yet. They must file reports with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board by January 19, so we’ll know more next week. I assume State Representatives Chris Rants and Rod Roberts will have very little cash on hand, and Bob Vander Plaats won’t have nearly as much as Branstad reported. But Vander Plaats should be able to announce a credible number. At this point in the 2006 election cycle he had raised nearly a million dollars. Thanks to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, Vander Plaats received much more publicity among social conservatives nationwide last year than he had in 2005.

Any thoughts about the Iowa governor’s race are welcome in this thread.