Swing State Project

(Cross-posted on Calitics and the Daily Kos)

Back in August I posted a diary here re. redistricting California:

http://www.swingstateproject.c…

Since that time, Dave’s Redistricting Application has become available for the state.  The Application is an invaluable tool in doing these maps.  It has helped me greatly in trying to come up with a new, better version of a plan for the state.  I have also taken reader comments from my last diary into consideration in drawing this new plan for California.  The comments have helped me greatly in terms of refining the districts here.  As several readers rightfully noted, several of the districts I drew last time were not Democratic enough to assure that they would be virtually guaranteed to elect Democrats, and parts of the previous map were too gerrymandered.  Here’s my new version …

Like last time, I had several main goals in mind when redistricting California:

1.  Increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.

2.  Draw relatively compact districts that largely adhere to county and community lines.

3.  Increase number of minority-majority districts in the state.

4.  Protect incumbents (at least the Democratic ones).  Towards this goal, I have added a “measuring stick” of sorts to the analysis below.  For each district I provide a “TTP” number (Territory Transfer Percentage – for lack of a better label !) which does nothing more than provide the percentage of the new district’s territory (in terms of population) that was formerly a part of the current district (the Application makes this really easy.)  So, for example, in CA-7, the “TTP” is 79.  The proposed district contains much of the same territory as the current district, and 79% of the new district’s population was formerly a part of the old district; in other words, George Miller would be looking at a district where 79% of his new constituents are the same as his old constituents.

Under this plan, 35 districts are created where Obama had at least 62% of the vote and McCain had at most 36%.  Another 6 districts are ones which are 61-37, 61-38 or 60-38 Obama-McCain.  (All 41 of the districts mentioned went for John Kerry in 2004; including 34 where Bush had 45% of the vote or less in 2004.)  1 district was won by Obama 52-46.  The remaining 11 districts were all won by McCain (and in all 11 districts Bush received 60% or more of the vote in 2004).

In a “neutral” political climate, this plan should result in a net gain of 7 seats for the Democrats (Districts 3, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46, 50).  One additional seat, District 48, might prove to be competitive in the future.  Additionally, this map strengthens several Democratic-held districts, most notably District 11.

Under the new map, 4 new Hispanic-majority seats are created (Districts 16, 25, 26, 46) although it’s really only a net gain of 3 as CA-32 is turned from majority Hispanic to plurality Asian.  Additionally, the new CA-45 becomes 49% Hispanic and may become Hispanic-majority in the future, although in many parts of California, a district needs to be around 60% or more Hispanic to ensure representation.  All-in-all, 21 of 53 districts under the new plan are either Hispanic majority or plurality (including several GOP seats, where many Hispanics are still unregistered or are ineligible because they are non-citizens).  Several existing Hispanic-majority seats (most notably CA-28 and CA-51) become even more Hispanic, where the incumbents there may face a challenge in the Democratic primary.

Districts 15 and 32 become plurality Asian districts.  (Btw, the demographic stats below include percentages for groups that total 10% or more of the population of a particular district).

MAPS:

District 1:

Incumbent: Mike Thompson

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 58; Bush 41)

Demographics: white 68; hispanic 21

TTP: 34

This district combines parts of the current CA-1 (Napa and Lake Counties and parts of Sonoma Co. — Sonoma, Healdsburg) with added parts of Sonoma Co. (Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol), and parts of the central valley (including Chico and most of Butte Co.).  The new district is a bit less Democratic than the current one, but should still be very safe for blue dog Thompson (though he’s really not as conservative as other blue dogs).  Even though only about 34% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-1, another 35% is taken out of areas in Sonoma Co. currently in CA-6 which are even more progressive.  The remainder is in the central valley, but Thompson’s involvement with agricultural issues should be an added bonus in the rural areas of the district.

District 2:  

Incumbent: Wally Herger

Current District:  Obama 43; McCain 55

Proposed District:  Obama 39; McCain 59 (Kerry 33; Bush 66)

Demographics: white 72; hispanic 16

TTP: 69

Combines the most Republican parts of northern California into one district – all of Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Plumas, Sierra, Yuba and Sutter Counties, as well as most of Colusa, small parts of Butte, and some of the most Republican parts of Placer.  District becomes even more Republican than the current CA-2.

District 3:  

Incumbent: Dan Lungren

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 52; Bush 47)

Demographics: white 42; hispanic 23; asian 18; black 10

TTP: 17

The new district combines all of progressive Yolo County with purple to blue-leaning parts of Sacramento Co.; the district stays in the same general area but over 80% of the territory here is new.  A Democrat should do well running here.  In 2008 Lungren only won the current CA-3 by a 49.5 to 44 margin.  Democratic Gain !

District 4:  

Incumbent: Tom McClintock

Current District:  Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District:  Obama 45; McCain 53 (Kerry 39; Bush 60)

Demographics: white 80; hispanic 11

TTP: 75

The new CA-4 includes all of Nevada, El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine and Mono Counties, as well as parts of Placer and Sacramento Counties.  Charlie Brown might have won last year by a sliver under the new lines (he only lost to McClintock by 0.5 point) but the new district is nevertheless a Republican one.

District 5:  

Incumbent: Doris Matsui

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 55; Bush 44)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 19; asian 10

TTP: 55

The new district combines most of the city of Sacramento with GOP-leaning suburbs in Sacramento Co.  The Democratic percentage goes down around 6 points, but the district remains safely Democratic.

District 6:

Incumbent: Lynn Woolsey

Current District:  Obama 76; McCain 22

Proposed District:  Obama 72; McCain 26 (Kerry 66; Bush 33)

Demographics: white 74; hispanic 15

TTP: 58

The new CA-6 includes Woolsey’s current territory — all of Marin and parts of Sonoma Counties.  Additional parts of the north coast are attached — all of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties, as well as a part of northern Sonoma around Cloverdale.  The Democratic margin goes down a bit, but the progressive Woolsey should feel right at home in her new 72% Obama district that stretches along the entire length of the north coast from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border.

District 7:  

Incumbent: George Miller

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 27

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 33 (Kerry 61; Bush 38)

Demographics: white 43; hispanic 23; asian 15; black 12

TTP: 79

The boundaries of the new CA-7 adhere pretty closely to those of the current district.  The lines include most of Solano County as well as parts of Contra Costa Co. — Martinez,  Pinole, Hercules, San Pablo, Clayton and part of Concord.  The Democratic percentage goes down by about 6 points, as the district loses Richmond and expands more into Solano, but the district remains solidly Democratic.

District 8:  

Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi

Current District:  Obama 85; McCain 12

Proposed District:  Obama 85; McCain 13 (Kerry 85; Bush 14)

Demographics: white 44; asian 30; hispanic 15

TTP: 96

The San Francisco based CA-8 changes ever so slightly, as areas in the Sunset district are added to maintain equal population.

District 9:  

Incumbent: Barbara Lee

Current District:  Obama 88; McCain 10

Proposed District:  Obama 76; McCain 22 (Kerry 73; Bush 25)

Demographics: white 43; hispanic 20; black 17; asian 15

TTP: 56

Combines ultra-progressive areas in Oakland, Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville with more conservative (relatively speaking) areas in Contra Costa County (Moraga, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon, Brentwood), as well as Livermore in eastern Alameda Co.  Most African-American areas in Oakland remain in CA-9, even though other parts of Oakland are lost to the new CA-11.  The Democratic percentage goes down a lot, but as it started at 88% Obama, it can afford to fall a lot and still leave this a very solidly Democratic district.

District 10:  

Incumbent: John Garamendi

Current District:  Obama 65; McCain 33

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 60; Bush 39)

Demographics: white 48; hispanic 26; asian 11; black 10

TTP: 51

The new district is largely similar to the current one. Like the current district, it includes communities in Contra Costa, Solano and Sacramento Counties (some, such as Richmond in Contra Costa, have been added).  Livermore in Alameda Co. is taken out and is substituted by the addition of Lodi in San Joaquin Co.  Overall, the Democratic percentage goes up slightly.

District 11:  

Incumbent: Jerry McNerney

Current District:  Obama 54; McCain 44

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 52; Bush 47)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 21; asian 11

TTP: 34

Much of the district remains the same. Some light-blue to purple areas in Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Santa Clara Counties are detached while the district expands into parts of Oakland (blue as can be) and Stanislaus Co (purple).  The expansion into Oakland alone makes the Democratic percentage go up enough to make this a safer Democratic district.  Even though only about 34% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-11, another 31% comes out of Oakland and other progressive areas currently in CA-9 (the expansion into Oakland doesn’t hurt CA-9 at all).  

District 12:  

Incumbent: Jackie Speier

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Proposed District:  Obama 74; McCain 24 (Kerry 72; Bush 27)

Demographics: white 44; asian 30; hispanic 20

TTP: 91

The new district remains very similar to the current one.  Boundaries in San Francisco shift a bit, while in San Mateo Co., a part of Redwood City is added, so that now all of it is in CA-12.

District 13:

Incumbent: Pete Stark

Current District:  Obama 74; McCain 24

Proposed District:  Obama 74; McCain 24 (Kerry 71; Bush 28)

Demographics: asian 33; white 32; hispanic 24

TTP: 94

The new district is very similar to the current one.  It includes Fremont, Newark, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro and Alameda, and remains plurality Asian.

District 14:  

Incumbent: Anna Eshoo

Current District:  Obama 73; McCain 25

Proposed District:  Obama 72; McCain 26 (Kerry 67; Bush 31)

Demographics: white 59; asian 19; hispanic 15

TTP: 59

This is another Bay Area district that stays demographically similar to the current seat under this plan.  The district continues to closely overlap with Silicon Valley; it loses parts of Sunnyvale to the new CA-15 and Santa Cruz Co. areas to CA-17, but expands into new territory in Santa Clara Co. (Campbell, Los Gatos and parts of San Jose).

District 15:  

Incumbent: Mike Honda

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 68; McCain 30 (Kerry 63; Bush 36)

Demographics: asian 43; white 33; hispanic 18

TTP: 63

New district is centered on San Jose; though the boundaries change somewhat.  The district becomes plurality Asian, though it should be noted that the “Asian” population here includes persons from East Asia, South Asia and parts of the Middle East.

District 16:  

Incumbent: Zoe Lofgren

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 29

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 57; Bush 42)

Demographics: hispanic 51; white 25; asian 18

TTP: 58

The new CA-16 combines the San Jose core of the current district with more conservative areas in the central valley.  The Democratic percentage goes down somewhat, but it remains a safely Democratic seat.  The district becomes majority Hispanic, but only by a bare majority.  Lofgren should have no trouble winning here as long as she wants to run, but if she decides to retire the seat may elect a Hispanic representative.

District 17:

Incumbent: Sam Farr

Current District:  Obama 72; McCain 26

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 57; Bush 42)

Demographics: white 62; hispanic 26

TTP: 50

The new district includes all of Santa Cruz County, coastal areas of Monterey County, interior areas of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, as well as portions of southern Santa Clara County (Morgan Hill and parts of San Jose).  It remains safely Democratic.

District 18:  

Incumbent: Dennis Cardoza

Current District:  Obama 59; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 60; McCain 38 (Kerry 50; Bush 49)

Demographics: hispanic 44; white 30; asian 14

TTP: 68

CA-18 remains similar to the current district in many respects, though it doesn’t look quite the same on a map.  Stockton and other areas in San Joaquin Co., parts of Modesto, and areas in Merced Co., which is Cardoza’s home area, form much of the district.  It remains plurality Hispanic.  The partisan breakdown inches up in the Democrat’s direction.  Blue dog Cardoza should have no trouble winning here.

District 19:  

Incumbent: George Radanovich

Current District:  Obama 46; McCain 52

Proposed District:  Obama 41; McCain 57 (Kerry 34; Bush 65)

Demographics: white 56; hispanic 33

TTP: 39

The new district becomes more Republican than the current one, as areas in Fresno County are shifted around; the goal is to make the neighboring CA-20 a bit more Democratic, as well as create a new Hispanic-majority, Democratic district next door (the new CA-25).  The new 19th includes all of Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, most of Madera Co., and parts of Fresno, Kings and Tulare Counties.

District 20:  

Incumbent: Jim Costa

Current District:  Obama 60; McCain 39

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 52; Bush 47)

Demographics: hispanic 69; white 16

TTP: 98

The district remains very similar to the current one, with a few areas shifted around to make it marginally more Democratic.  The district continues to include parts of the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield, as well as more rural areas in between.  (My “TTP” here, 98, may seem off, as the district doesn’t look exactly like the old one.  Some populated areas in northern Kings Co. have indeed been taken out, but as the TTP is a measure of what percentage of the NEW district was formerly a part of the old, any areas taken OUT would have no effect on the measure as they are no longer a part of the NEW district.)

District 21:  

Incumbent: Devin Nunes

Current District:  Obama 42; McCain 56

Proposed District:  Obama 47; McCain 51 (Kerry 37; Bush 62)

Demographics: hispanic 45; white 41

TTP: 40

The new district continues to include much of Tulare County, but also expands into new territory — parts of what is currently CA-25 (Inyo Co. and western portions of San Bernardino Co.).   The new partisan numbers may appear competitive (and the district is plurality Hispanic), but it should be noted that the new district had one of the highest Democratic jumps between 2004 and 2008 (and much of the Hispanic population here is undocumented or unregistered).  Fundamentally, this still remains a very Republican district; the future may hold a different scenario (?).

District 22:  

Incumbent: Kevin McCarthy

Current District:  Obama 38; McCain 60

Proposed District:  Obama 38; McCain 60 (Kerry 30; Bush 69)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 28

TTP: 83

In most ways, the new CA-22 remains geographically and politically similar to the current district.  The San Luis Obispo Co. interior areas are detached.  The new CA-22 is politically the most conservative in California.

District 23:  

Incumbent: Lois Capps

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 58; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 46; white 44

TTP: 98

The new district is almost identical to the current one, following the coast from Oxnard through Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.

District 24:  

Incumbent: Elton Gallegly

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 48

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 55; Bush 44)

Demographics: white 68; hispanic 19

TTP: 56

The new district combines much of Ventura Co. with parts of Los Angeles Co. (Malibu, Santa Monica, Calabassas, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village and parts of the city of Los Angeles).  The new lines and partisan numbers don’t look great for Gallegly.  He won with 58% last year against token opposition in a district that is much more Republican and his Simi Valley home is cut out of the district under this plan.  It should also be noted that Gallegly almost retired in 2006.  This all leads to a likely Democratic Gain !

District 25:  

Incumbent: none (district completely relocated)

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 48 (but not really applicable as district relocated from southern California where it is a GOP district)

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 38 (Kerry 51; Bush 47)

Demographics: hispanic 60; white 27

TTP: 0

CA-25 is a new Hispanic-majority district (at 60% of the population) encompassing much of interior Monterey County (including Salinas), all of San Benito Co. and areas of Madera, Fresno and Santa Clara Counties.  This is a major agricultural area; it is designed to elect a Hispanic-American Democratic Rep.  Democratic Gain !

District 26:  

Incumbent: David Dreier

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 56; Bush 43)

Demographics: hispanic 61; white 22; asian 12

TTP: 18

This new district encompasses only a few of the areas currently in CA-26 — San Dimas, La Verne and Claremont.  It also includes El Monte, South El Monte, Irwindale, Baldwin Park, La Puente, Covina, West Covina and Azusa.  The district becomes Hispanic majority, and a solid majority one at that.  Last year Dreier had 53% to 40% for the Democrat and 7% for a Libertarian candidate.  Good luck to Dreier if he seeks re-election here.  Very likely, a Democratic Gain !

District 27:  

Incumbents: Brad Sherman; Howard McKeon

Current District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Obama 49-McCain 48 in McKeon’s CA-25, which is relocated to central California)

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 57; Bush 41)

Demographics: white 52; hispanic 31

TTP: 33

The bulk of this district is made up of communities within the city of Los Angeles (North Hollywood, San Fernando valley neighborhoods, etc.).  Also attached is Santa Clarita to the north.  The new district is safely Democratic.  Even though only about 33% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-27, another 42% comes out of what is now CA-28, which is an even more progressive area.  The remainder is Santa Clarita and vicinity (McKeon’s CA-25).

District 28:  

Incumbent: Howard Berman

Current District:  Obama 76; McCain 22

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 64; white 22

TTP: 52

This district becomes even more Hispanic than the current version.  The new lines include a good part of the San Fernando Valley as well as Palmdale in northern LA County.  The district becomes less Democratic, but the only upset here could occur in the Democratic primary if a Hispanic-American candidate makes a run for the seat.  Perhaps Berman would decide to run in a primary against Brad Sherman under this map, as over 40% of Sherman’s new district includes territory currently a part of CA-28.

District 29:  

Incumbent: Adam Schiff

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 56; Bush 42)

Demographics: white 49; hispanic 25; asian 15

TTP: 61

The new CA-29 includes most of Schiff’s current territory in Pasadena, Glendale and Burbank.  Areas to the east are added (Sierra Madre, Arcadia, Monrovia, Bradbury, Glendora, La Canada-Flintridge) — mostly from the current CA-26.  The Democratic margin goes down somewhat, but this is still a safely Democratic seat.

District 30:  

Incumbent: Henry Waxman

Current District:  Obama 70; McCain 28

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 33 (Kerry 60; Bush 39)

Demographics: white 63; hispanic 20; asian 10

TTP: 46

This westside LA district includes communities currently in CA-30 (Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and various parts of Los Angeles) as well as newly attached areas in Los Angeles (San Fernando Valley) and in Ventura Co. (Simi Valley, Moorpark).  Santa Monica, Malibu and a few other areas are taken out and attached to the neighboring CA-24.  The district remains a Democratic bastion, and a quite progressive one at that (and yes, the Reagan Library and West Hollywood are now in the same district !)

District 31:  

Incumbent: Xavier Beccera

Current District:  Obama 80; McCain 18

Proposed District:  Obama 80; McCain 18 (Kerry 77; Bush 22)

Demographics: hispanic 64; white 15; asian 14

TTP: 76

This central Los Angeles district shifts westward a bit, but for the most part (including partisan demographics) remains as is.

District 32:  

Incumbent: Judy Chu

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 56; Bush 43)

Demographics: asian 42; hispanic 37; white 16

TTP: 28

The new CA-32 runs from a part of East Los Angeles through Monterey Park, Alhambra, South Pasadena, San Marino, Temple City, San Gabriel, Rosemead, Walnut, Diamond Bar and areas in between.  The district becomes plurality Asian.  Many Hispanic-majority areas of the current CA-32 are detached in order to create the new Hispanic-majority CA-26 just to the north and east of the new CA-32.

District 33:  

Incumbent: Diane Watson

Current District:  Obama 87; McCain 12

Proposed District:  Obama 88; McCain 11 (Kerry 84; Bush 15)

Demographics: hispanic 46; black 29; white 12

TTP: 70

The new CA-33 expands somewhat into south central LA to keep the black percentage as high as possible here, although as south central is rapidly becoming majority Hispanic, the resulting district is only 29% black.  Also added is the Westchester area around LAX., while the Silver Lake/Griffith Park area is taken out of the district.

District 34:  

Incumbent: Lucille Roybal-Allard

Current District:  Obama 75; McCain 23

Proposed District:  Obama 76; McCain 22 (Kerry 70; Bush 29)

Demographics: hispanic 77; white 10

TTP: 76

The new district is very similar to the current one, including downtown Los Angeles, Downey, and everything in between, as well as new territory north of downtown.  Bellflower is detached from the district.

District 35:  

Incumbent: Maxine Waters

Current District:  Obama 84; McCain 14

Proposed District:  Obama 73; McCain 25 (Kerry 68; Bush 31)

Demographics: hispanic 45; black 28; white 15

TTP: 36

There’s only one way the new district here could have been drawn !  Yes … the heart of south central LA/Watts and Inglewood are combined with the Palos Verdes peninsula.  Also included are Carson, the Wilmington and San Pedro areas of LA, and Avalon on Santa Catalina Island.  Even though only about 36% of the new district’s territory is currently part of CA-35, another 26% is taken out of areas currently in the districts of African-American Representatives Diane Watson and Laura Richardson.  The Democratic percentage falls by over 10 points, but Waters should still be very safe in the resulting 73% Obama district.

District 36:  

Incumbent: Jane Harman

Current District:  Obama 64; McCain 34

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: white 42; hispanic 30; asian 17

TTP: 69

The new CA-36 is similar to the current district hugging Santa Monica Bay. Some communities are detached (Wilmington and San Pedro areas of LA.) while others are attached (Hawthorne, Lawndale, Gardena), but the partisan demographics remain the same.

District 37:  

Incumbents: Laura Richardson; Dana Rohrabacher

Current District:  Obama 80; McCain 19 (Obama 48-McCain 50 in Rohrabacher’s CA-46, which is relocated to the inland empire area)

Proposed District:  Obama 65; McCain 33 (Kerry 59; Bush 39)

Demographics: hispanic 38; white 33; black 14; asian 11

TTP: 67

The new district includes most of Long Beach and Huntington Beach, as well as all of Seal Beach and Compton.  About 67% of the new district’s territory comes out of the current CA-37, while about 33% comes out of the current CA-46.  I know that Richardson is not the best California Democratic Rep, but even she should be safe in this seat (any semi-competent Democrat should be OK here.)  Ideally, a better Democrat wins here in a primary.  In the meantime, Rohrabacher can go back to concentrate on his surfing.

District 38:  

Incumbent: Grace Napolitano

Current District:  Obama 71; McCain 27

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 35 (Kerry 57; Bush 42)

Demographics: hispanic 65; white 22

TTP: 47

This remains a majority-Hispanic district encompassing areas like Norwalk, Bellflower, Artesia, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Whittier and a part of East LA — all in Los Angeles County, as well as La Habra and parts of Fullerton and Placentia in Orange County.  Even though only 47% of the new district’s territory comes out of the current CA-38, another 28% comes out of neighboring Democratic-held seats, CA-34 and CA-39; the remaining 25% comes out of currently GOP-held seats.

District 39:  

Incumbent: Linda Sánchez

Current District:  Obama 65; McCain 32

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 61; white 20; asian 10

TTP: 82

The new district is very similar to the current one, including parts of LA County — South Gate, Lynwood, Paramount, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cerritos, La Mirada and a part of Long Beach.

District 40:  

Incumbent: Ed Royce

Current District:  Obama 47; McCain 51

Proposed District:  Obama 46; McCain 52 (Kerry 38; Bush 61)

Demographics: white 45; asian 26; hispanic 23

TTP: 57

The Orange Co.-based district is somewhat similar to the current one, but becomes slightly more Republican, as communities are shifted around.  Placentia, Orange, Villa Park and a part of Fullerton are detached, while Fountain Valley, Newport Beach and parts of Westminster, Huntington Beach and Garden Grove are added.

District 41:  

Incumbent: Jerry Lewis

Current District:  Obama 44; McCain 54

Proposed District:  Obama 44; McCain 54 (Kerry 37; Bush 62)

Demographics: white 59; hispanic 29

TTP: 69

This district includes much of central and eastern San Bernardino County, as well as parts of Riverside Co. (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta and Blythe.)

District 42:  

Incumbent: Gary Miller

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 42; McCain 56 (Kerry 34; Bush 65)

Demographics: white 60; hispanic 22; asian 12

TTP: 56

This is the “stereotypical” Orange County of Richard Nixon.  The district runs from his birthplace in Yorba Linda to his “summer White House” in San Clemente.  Also included are Brea, Orange, Villa Park, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, parts of Placentia, Anaheim and San Juan Capistrano, as well as the Chino Hills part of San Bernardino Co. The new district becomes even more Republican than the current one.

District 43:  

Incumbent: Joe Baca

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 56; Bush 43)

Demographics: hispanic 60; white 20; black 12

TTP: 82

The new CA-43 inlcudes many of the same areas as the current district — the city of San Bernardino, Colton, Rialto and Fontana — as well as added areas, parts of Redlands and Highland.  The new district remains majority-Hispanic.

District 44:  

Incumbent: Ken Calvert

Current District:  Obama 50; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 46; McCain 52 (Kerry 36; Bush 62)

Demographics: white 52; hispanic 34

TTP: 56

The new CA-44 is completely confined to Riverside County, and includes communities like Corona, Norco, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake and Hemet.  I’ve made the adjoining CA-45 much more Democratic, so this district has to become more Republican to balance the numbers.  I hate to leave Calvert in place, but the way the new CA-45 looks, it’s quite likely that Mary Bono could choose to run here instead.  In fact, she already represents almost a quarter of the new district’s population, and it would make more sense for her to run here and challenge the ethically-challenged Calvert in a primary, rather than run in the much more Democratic new CA-45 next door.

District 45:  

Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack

Current District:  Obama 52; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 53; Bush 45)

Demographics: hispanic 49; white 31; black 10

TTP: 42

The new lines here maintain the district wholly within Riverside County.  Only the most Democratic areas are included – including Moreno Valley, Perris, Cathedral City, Palm Springs and much of Riverside.  Bono Mack lives in Palm Springs, and she won last time with 58% of the vote against a weak opponent.  It would make much more sense for her to run in CA-44 next door, or even in the new CA-41 which now expands into Riverside Co. areas just east of Palm Springs.  Both CA-41 and CA-44 GOP incumbents are ethically challenged and Bono currently represents good parts of those districts.   She would have a very hard to win race here.  If a credible Democrat runs in this 53 Kerry-45 Bush district, it is likely to be a Democratic Gain !

District 46:  

Incumbent: none (district completely relocated)

Current District:  Obama 48; McCain 50 (but not really applicable as district relocated from coastal Orange and LA Counties where it is a GOP district)

Proposed District:  Obama 64; McCain 34 (Kerry 54; Bush 45)

Demographics: hispanic 64; white 22

TTP: 0

California’s “Inland Empire” has had some of the state’s highest growth rate of the last decade, fueled largely by an increase in the Hispanic population.  The new CA-46 reflects that growth through the creation of a new Hispanic-majority district here. The new district includes the unincorporated extreme northwestern part of Riverside County as well as areas in San Bernardino Co. (Ontario, Montclair, Chino and parts of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana), as well as most of Pomona in LA County.  Democratic Gain !

District 47:  

Incumbent: Loretta Sanchez

Current District:  Obama 60; McCain 38

Proposed District:  Obama 61; McCain 37 (Kerry 50; Bush 49)

Demographics: hispanic 68; white 15; asian 13

TTP: 97

The new CA-47 is very similar to the current district.  A few more Democratic precincts in Santa Ana are added, while more GOP parts of Garden Grove are detached, making the new district a tad more Democratic.  Parts of Anaheim and Fullerton are also in the district.  The Asian percentage goes down by a few points, as some of the Garden Grove areas are detached.

District 48:  

Incumbent: John Campbell

Current District:  Obama 49; McCain 49

Proposed District:  Obama 52; McCain 46 (Kerry 43; Bush 56)

Demographics: white 57; hispanic 21; asian 16

TTP: 78

The major change here is that Republican Newport Beach and North Tustin/Tustin Foothills are detached, while Democratic Costa Mesa is attached.  Irvine, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Tustin and Lake Forest remain in the district.  The Democratic numbers go up, but probably not enough to initially make a dramatic difference.  However, with changing demographics and the right candidate we may be able to flip this seat in the future.  Coastal areas in California are becoming more and more Democratic over time.  This district is one that is already not very conservative on social issues (a majority here voted against Proposition 4 last year — a measure advocating parental notification before a minor’s abortion, and the electorate just barely voted yes on Prop. 8 — as opposed to other GOP areas in California where Prop. 8 had big majorities).  A hard-core conservative (ie., “birther” John Campbell) may not be able to hold such a district forever.

District 49:  

Incumbent: Darrell Issa

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 49; McCain 50 (Kerry 39; Bush 60)

Demographics: white 55; hispanic 31

TTP: 41

The new CA-49 includes parts of San Diego County — Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Rancho Santa Fe and parts of the city of San Diego (areas like Rancho Penasquitos and Rancho Bernardo).  Only 41% of the new district is territory that is currently in CA-49, while 51% comes out of what is now CA-50 — including Brian Bilbray’s home in Carlsbad.  The creation of this district could produce an interesting GOP primary between Issa and Bilbray.  The new district remains fairly Republican (despite Obama coming within less than 3,000 votes of winning it).

District 50:  

Incumbent: Brian Bilbray

Current District:  Obama 51; McCain 47

Proposed District:  Obama 62; McCain 36 (Kerry 54; Bush 45)

Demographics: white 61; hispanic 17; asian 14

TTP: 42

CA-50 shifts southward under this plan. The new district combines much of the northern parts of the city of San Diego — including La Jolla, Clairemont, Pacific Beach, Mission Hills, Mission Valley, Serra Mesa, Hillcrest, University Heights, Normal Heights, North Park and college areas around UCSD and  SDSU (a number of these neighborhoods are added from CA-53), as well as the incorporated communities of Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas.  The Democratic percentage goes up significantly.  Bilbray (whose home is no longer in the district under the new lines) beat Nick Leibham here last year by 5 points, while in the 2006 special election, Bilbray beat Francine Busby by 4.5 points.  The new CA-50 has a Democratic margin that’s many points higher than the old CA-50; you can do the math.  Democratic Gain !

District 51:  

Incumbent: Bob Filner

Current District:  Obama 63; McCain 35

Proposed District:  Obama 63; McCain 36 (Kerry 53; Bush 46)

Demographics: hispanic 69; white 17

TTP: 79

The new district remains very similar to the current one.  The only major changes are that a part of San Diego as well as unincorporated communities to the north of Chula Vista are detached while Democratic parts of Riverside Co. (Coachella, Indio) are added.  The district remains majority Hispanic.

District 52:  

Incumbent: Duncan Hunter

Current District:  Obama 45; McCain 53

Proposed District:  Obama 39; McCain 59 (Kerry 32; Bush 67)

Demographics: white 68; hispanic 20

TTP: 52

This district becomes considerably more Republican as areas in and around the city of San Diego are detached while more GOP areas in northern San Diego County and southwestern Riverside Co. (Temecula, Murrieta) are added.  Only a little over half of the new district’s territory comes out of the current CA-52; much of the remainder is currently a part of CA-49.

District 53:  

Incumbent: Susan Davis

Current District:  Obama 68; McCain 30

Proposed District:  Obama 66; McCain 32 (Kerry 59; Bush 40)

Demographics: hispanic 37; white 36; asian 12; black 10

TTP: 57

The new CA-53 is anchored by the city of San Diego, with smaller communities like Imperial Beach, Coronado, Lemon Grove, La Mesa and part of El Cajon also included.  The new district includes San Diego neighborhoods like Mission Beach, Mission Bay, Ocean Beach, Point Loma/Harbor, Old Town, Downtown, City Heights and now virtually all of Southeast San Diego.  The district is slightly less Democratic than the current one, but remains solid for us.

So that’s my revised plan for California.  I welcome comments and suggestions.

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

Last night’s election exhibited two trends: one positive for the country as a whole, and one more ominous for Democrats. Firstly, Americans rejected negative campaigning and extremism – whether it be in Virginia, New Jersey, NY-23, or Maine. Secondly, the electorate as a whole shifted quite profoundly to the right.



Negative Campaigning and Extremism

In the most-watched races, voters chose the side that espoused moderation and ran a positive message. The Democratic candidates in both Virginia and New Jersey focused on the negative: state congressman Creigh Deeds of Virginia spent most of his time attacking Attorney General Bob McDonnell’s college thesis, while Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey launched a barrage of negative ads. Both candidates lost.

The other races featured the victory of moderate politics over extremism. In NY-23,  a Republican-represented district since the Civil War, conservatives sabotaged the moderate Republican candidate in favor of hard-line Doug Hoffman. Fortunately, voters in upstate New York rejected the Glenn Beck nominee and instead chose Democrat Bill Owens, an independent turned Democrat.

Thus the election results enforced a positive trend in politics – one of moderation and positive campaigning focused on the issues, rather than divisive personal attacks. For Democrats like myself, however, the other trend – a rightward shift – is more worrisome.

A Rightward Shift

For Democrats, the election’s most worrying result was not in Virginia, New Jersey, or Maine. It was the special election in CA-10.

At first glance, this might seem a bit puzzling. Democrats won that election, after all – and they won it by a comfortable 10% margin.

Yet, when compared to previous elections, this result is quite an underperformance. Barack Obama, for instance, won this congressional district by three times that margin. Since 2002, moreover, former Democratic congressman Ellen Tauscher had never polled below 65% of the vote.

Moreover, the election revealed more about the national mood than, say, Virginia or New Jersey. Those races were heavily dependent on local factors (e.g. the quality of the Deeds campaign, the unpopularity of Governor Jon Corzine). In CA-10, you had two low-recognition candidates and little publicity; it was closer to a generic ballot poll.

If  CA-10 could be characterized as a generic ballot poll, then Democrats should be extremely worried. In 2009, CA-10 went from a 30% Democratic victory to a 10% one: a 10-point shift to the right. Similar shifts were seen in New Jersey and Virginia; the electorate as a whole moved substantially to the right. The Democrats were very fortunate that Tuesday did not constitute a full-blown congressional election; they would have been crushed.

There is good news, however. Democratic weakness two days ago resulted more from an energized Republican base than a fundamental shift in the national mood. Republicans, motivated and unhappy, turned out; President Barack Obama’s coalition did not. The president still attains approval ratings in the low 50s – hardly the sign of an unpopular incumbent.

The bad news is that I am not sure if Mr. Obama’s coalition will turn out for the 2010 congressional elections. His voters have been curiously lethargic ever since his election; their low turn-out was how Senator Saxy Chambliss in Georgia went from a 3% general victory to a 14% run-off victory. Republicans, then, may do well next year.

In fact, I am not even sure Mr. Obama’s coalition will re-emerge in 2012, when he goes up for re-election. The president, after all, ran on a campaign of hope, change, and idealism. The difficult compromises forced by governing have tainted this brand, and it will inevitably continue to be diluted over the next three years. Obama’s 2008 coalition may go down as unique in American history, much like former President Jimmy Carter’s coalition.

I hope it will not. There is that word again.

• FL-Sen: It looks like the Club for Growth has decided to weigh in on the Florida Senate primary, and they’re doing so with a vengeance, with a TV spot going after Charlie Crist’s embrace of the Obama stimulus package. Crist himself has been trying for the last few days to walk back his stimulus support — despite statements on the record from February saying that if he’d been in the Senate, he’d have voted for it. Crist now says he wasn’t “endorsing” it and just playing along so Florida would get a good share of the bennies. (I’m sorry, but my 5-year-old comes up with more convincing excuses than that.)

• NY-Sen-B: Former Gov. George Pataki is reportedly telling friends he’s not that interested in becoming Senator at age 64, and has his eye set a little higher: a presidential race in 2012. The idea of the wooden, moderate Pataki going up against Huckabee and Palin seems a little far-fetched, but a clue in support of that idea is that Pataki joined the Romneys and T-Paws of the world in calling new Manchester, New Hampshire mayor Ted Gatsas to congratulate him. (In case you aren’t connecting the dots, Manchester’s mayor has an outsized influence on NH’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary.)

• AZ-Gov: Appointed incumbent Republican Governor Jan Brewer says she’ll run for a full term in 2010. She already faces several minor primary opponents, and may face off against state Treasurer Dean Martin. Her likely Democratic opponent, AG Terry Goddard, who has had a significant lead over Brewer in recent polls, has to be feeling good about this.

• CA-Gov: Capitol Weekly, via Probolsky Research, takes another look at the primaries in the California gubernatorial race, and find free-spending ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman opening up a lead on her opponents. Whitman leads with 37, against ex-Rep. Tom Cambell at 15 and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner at 6. (Their previous poll, in June, gave a small lead to Campbell at 13, with 10 for Whitman and 8 for Poizner.) On the Dem side, ex-Gov. Jerry Brown led SF Mayor Gavin Newsom 46-19; the sample was completed shortly before Newsom’s dropout last Friday.

• MD-Gov: A poll of the Maryland governor’s race from Clarus Research has a mixed bag for incumbent Dem Martin O’Malley. He defeats ex-Gov. Bob Ehrlich without too much trouble in a head-to-head, 47-40, and he has decent approvals at 48/40. Still, on the re-elect question, 39% want to see him re-elected and 48% would like someone new. That would potentially present an opportunity for the Maryland GOP — if they had someone better than Ehrlich to offer, but he’s really the best they have. (By contrast, Barb Mikulski, who’s also up in 2010, has a 53/36 re-elect.)

• OR-Gov: Moderate Republican state Sen. Frank Morse — who, without Rep. Greg Walden or state Sen. Jason Atkinson in the race, might actually have been the GOP’s best bet — said no thanks to a gubernatorial race despite some previous interest; he’ll run for re-election in 2010. Former Portland Trail Blazers center Chris Dudley has formed an exploratory committee to run in the Republican field, though.

• PA-Gov: Here’s an interesting development in the GOP primary field in Pennsylvania: a very conservative state Rep., Sam Rohrer, is scoping out the race and has formed an exploratory committee. Rohrer isn’t well-known outside of conservative activist circles and his Berks County base, but against the moderate Rep. Jim Gerlach and the generally-conservative but ill-defined AG Tom Corbett, he seems like he could peel off a decent chunk of votes on the far right.

• VT-Gov: Add two more Democratic names to the lengthening list in the governor’s race in Vermont. Former state Senator Matt Dunne officially got in the race, and another state Senator, Peter Shumlin, is planning to announce his bid in several weeks. Dunne lost the Lt. Governor’s race in 2006 to current Republican LG Brian Dubie, who is the only declared Republican candidate to replace retiring Gov. Jim Douglas.

• WI-Gov: Rumors keep flying of the Obama administration leaning on ex-Rep. and Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett to run for Wisconsin governor. WH political director Tom Patrick Gaspard met with Barrett. With Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton having recently and surprisingly dropped her bid, Barrett has a free shot if he wants it.

• AZ-03: Dems seem close to pinning down a candidate to run against Rep. John Shadegg in the Phoenix-based 3rd. Lawyer, businessman, would-be-novelist, and former Gary Hart staffer Jon Hulburd is prepping for the race.

• FL-05: The blood is already flowing down Republican streets in the wake of the NY-23 debacle, even a thousand miles away. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, hardly the first name that comes to mind when you think of moderate Republicans (although she is a Main Street member), is now being challenged by a political newcomer in the GOP primary, Jason Sager. One of Sager’s key talking points is Brown-Waite’s support of Dede Scozzafava, on whose behalf Brown-Waite campaigned last week. And more generally, RNC chair Michael Steele (who one week ago was supporting Scozzafava) is flexing his muscles, telling moderates to “walk a little bit carefully” on health care or “we’ll come after you.”

• FL-08: The NRCC has found a couple willing patsies to go up against Rep. Alan Grayson, whom they’ve been interviewing this week. The two contenders are businessman Bruce O’Donoghue (who owns a traffic-signal business… odd, but I guess somebody has to make them) and first-term state Rep. Eric Eisnaugle. (Carpetbagging real estate developer Armando Gutierrez Jr., radio talk show host Todd Long, who nearly beat then-Rep. Ric Keller in last year’s GOP primary, and three anonymous teabaggers are all in the race, but clearly not striking the NRCC’s fancy.) Attorney Will McBride (whose name you might remember from 2006, when he ran in the GOP primary against Katherine Harris) also talked with the NRCC this week, but just pulled his name from contention today.

• MN-01: Another potential challenger to Rep. Tim Walz popped up: former state Rep. Allen Quist. Quist, who ran in gubernatorial primaries twice in the 1990s, is from the state party’s right wing and is a key Michele Bachmann ally (his wife used to Bachmann’s district director). Republican Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau has also been interested in the race.

• MS-01: After all that work to clear the path for state Sen. Alan Nunnelee in the GOP primary in the 1st, the Republicans may still see a contested primary. Former Eupora mayor Henry Ross is seriously considering the race, and making preparations. This may not result in a pitched rural vs. suburbs battle like the previous primary, though; Eupora (pop. 2,400) is near the district’s southern end, near Columbus. Nunnelee is from the Tupelo area, which is also Democratic Rep. Travis Childers’ base.

• NH-02: Katrina Swett has been slow to get into the field in the Democratic primary for the open seat in the 2nd, letting Anne McLane Kuster raise more than $200K unimpeded and secure the EMILY’s List endorsement. Swett may be ready to make a move, though, as she’s been touting a GQR internal poll giving her a 20-point lead in the primary over Kuster. (The actual polling memo hasn’t been released, though, as far as I know.)

• NY-23: Doug Hoffman already has a key House leadership backer for a 2010 race: Indiana’s Mike Pence endorsed Hoffman.

• PA-06: Looks like we have a real race in the Dem primary in the 6th. State Sen. Andy Dinniman, one of the biggest fish in the district and someone who had considered running himself, endorsed physician Manan Trivedi instead of presumed frontrunner Doug Pike. One advantage that Dinniman sees is that Trivedi hails from Reading in Berks County, the part of the district where Dems have traditionally been the weakest.

• Turnout: If you’re wondering what the crux of what happened on Tuesday is, it boils down to terrible turnout. (And it’s pretty clear that higher turnout benefits Democrats, as younger and/or non-white voters who tend to be less likely voters are more likely to vote Democratic.) In Virginia (where the outcome seemed clear long ago), turnout was the lowest in 40 years, including a 10% falloff in key black precincts. And in New Jersey, turnout was also a record low for the state, even though the race was a tossup — indicating a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate. If you want to dig into exit polls for a post-mortem, the New York Times has them available for New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.

• 2010: The White House (or at least David Axelrod) wants to nationalize the 2010 elections, as a means of fixing the Dems’ turnout problems from this week. Expect to see Obama front and center in the run-up to next year’s elections.

• Illinois Filings: With Illinois’s first-in-the-nation filing deadline for 2010 having passed, as usual, our filings guru Benawu is on the scene with a recap in the diaries; check it out.

Yesterday, John Cornyn declared that the Republican Party establishment is afraid of its base:

“We will not spend money in a contested primary,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told ABC News in a telephone interview today.

“There’s no incentive for us to weigh in,” said Cornyn, R-Texas. “We have to look at our resources…. We’re not going to throw money into a [primary] race leading up to the election.”

But just a year-and-a-half ago, the grownups declared that they were going to take charge. Smarting after special election losses in deep red districts which featured a shabby parade of Republican nominees – Jim Oberweis (IL-14), Woody Jenkins (LA-06), and Greg Davis (MS-01) – John Boehner ordered Tom Cole to jump into the muck:

The NRCC will now wade into competitive GOP primaries when appropriate. This is a significant shift, as Cole’s policy has been to stay out of such contests even when the party believes one candidate would clearly be the best general election bet. In Illinois and Louisiana in particular, Republicans suffered because they fielded a poor nominee. The race to replace retiring Rep. Vito Fossella (R) in New York, which could draw several GOP contenders, could be the first high-profile test of the new policy.

I have to laugh for a moment regarding the Fossella succession – that was a shitshow for the ages. But in general, this move actually made some sense. After all, did the Republicans really want to drown their chances with more Randy Grafs?

It turns out the answer now is yes. Sure, Cornyn runs the NRSC, and here we’re talking about the NRCC. But no doubt Pete Sessions is running scared, too – after all, it was his NRCC that took serious heat from the teabaggers for backing Scozzafava in NY-23, and obviously that race is what inspired Cornyn’s newfound wimpiness. So I’m sure we’ll see a reluctance on the part of both campaign committees to meddle in primaries. The Republicans are terrified of their base – and they should be.

One of the nicest things about this particular win is that NY-23, at 13,200 square miles, is the fifth-largest district east of the Mississippi. The four bigger eastern districts are ME-02, MI-01, WI-07 and WI-03, all of which are already held by Democrats. So this is the biggest swath of bright blue we’re going to get to paint on this side of the Mizzip. Congrats, Bill Owens!

P.S. This is the sixth special election in a row that Dems have flipped from Republicans. Our streak began at the end of a GOP streak of five straight from 1994 to 2001. (Before that, according to Wikipedia, the longest streak appears to have been the eight seats the GOP flipped in succession from 1976 to 1980.)

Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here’s what version 2 looks like, overall:

Statewide Map, Version 2

For comparison, here is Version 1:

Statewide Map, Version 1

Because redistricting diaries often seem to devolve into discussions of the morality of gerrymandering, I will state my thoughts up front in order to try and prevent discussion from thus devolving.

1) In an ideal world, my ideal scenario would be that all Congressional districts in all States would be redistricted by non-partisan commission, so that all districts were fair and no political party was disadvantaged on the national level.

2) We don’t live in an ideal world. If Democrats roll over and play dead during redistricting after the 2010 census, that will do nothing to stop Republicans from gerrymandering every last seat out of states they control, like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. That will result in a national Congressional map unfairly favorable towards Republicans.

3) So Democrats should draw politically favorable maps in states we control. Congressional Redistricting is a blood sport, and unilateral disarmament is not a viable solution. Taking the high road is the Michael Dukakis way, and it is the wrong way.

4) If Democrats draw strong enough maps in states like California that really hurt the GOP, then maybe the GOP will eventually cry uncle.

5) After that, maybe the GOP would agree to adopt a fair national solution in which all states, whether GOP controlled or Dem controlled, drew fair and competitive maps via commission or some other neutral mechanism. That might not happen, but electoral reform of that sort is certainly more likely if we fight back than if we let the GOP roll us.

Now, on to the substance:

Political Impact

The bottom line is that under this map or something similar, California’s Congressional delegation would have many more Democrats and many fewer Republicans. Overall there are now 42 seats classified as Safely Democratic, 4 Lean Democratic. Under this map California would likely send delegation with 46-49 Democrats and 6-9 Republicans to Congress. Currently, California’s Congressional delegation is 33D – 19R, so that is a substantial improvement.

If a handful of GOP incumbents are able to hold on in districts that voted in the mid-50s for Obama, it is possible the number of Democrats could be a bit lower than 46. But even in a very large GOP wave election, the number of Democratic seats would be unlikely to fall much below 42-46, because the vast majority of seats are at least D+10 or very close to it, which is more than high enough to withstand a 1994 or 2006 sized wave election.

	Version 1	Change	Version 2
Dem	39	+3	42
Lean Dem	5	-1	4
Swing	5	-2	3
GOP	4	+2	6

Below, I analyze the districts that change from my previous version.

Northern California

In Northern California, CA-4 is conceded to the GOP. In exchange CA-3 becomes more strongly Democratic and CA-10 much less gerrymandered. Indirectly, this also filters all the way down to San Bernadino County to help make CA-29 and CA-45 a bit more Democratic.

Northern California, Version 2 map

Districts Altered:

CA-2

Incumbent:	?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+11
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	39% Obama, R+14
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	40% Obama, R+13.
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	72% White
District 1.0 Demographics:	78% White
District 2.0 Demographics:	77% White

CA-2 shifts a bit northwards from version 1, getting rid of El Dorado and Amador Counties to move into Nevada County and take in more of the Sacramento suburbs in Placer County. This might make the district about 1 point more Democratic.

CA-3

Incumbent:	Dan Lungren (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	57% Obama, D+4
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	65% White
District 1.0 Demographics:	56% White
District version 2.0 Demographics:	45% White

CA-3 is reworked thoroughly from the previous version. In my previous version, GOP incumbent Dan Lungren was in trouble. In this new version, he is pretty much doomed if he runs in this district. Only 250,000 people in this district remain in Sacramento County, mostly in competitive northern suburbs, with a mix of Obama and McCain precincts. On top of those people, all of Solano County (except for a thin sparsely populated strip of CA-10) and West Sacramento are tacked on, turning a lean Democratic district into a solidly Democratic district.

CA-4

Incumbent:	?Dan Lungren? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R), ?Tom McLintock? (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+10
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	53% Obama, D+0
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	41% Obama, R+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	79% White
District 1.0 Demographics:	57% White
District 2.0 Demographics:	78% White

The flip side of making CA-3 more Democratic is making CA-4 more Republican. The new CA-4 is a suburban swing district no more. It is now a solidly GOP district, combining suburban parts of Placer County with the Sierra Nevadas (minus Lake Tahoe) and strongly GOP north Fresno. 1/10 of the district is also made up of some particularly strong GOP precincts in Sacramento County, most of which are already in the current CA-4. GOP incumbents Dan Lungren, George Radanovich, and Tom McClintock would all have a reason to run here, making for a potential 3-way GOP primary, as substantial amounts of territory each has previously represented is included in this district.

CA-7

Incumbent:	George Miller (D)
Previous District PVI:	D+19
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	65% Obama, D+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	39% White, 27% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	50% White, 31% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	50% White, 28% Latino

CA-7 gives up Antioch in order to pick up Berkeley. In order to keep Richmond contiguous with Oakland while also enabling CA-7 to add Berkeley, there is a thin coastal strip of CA-9 running through Berkeley as well. George Miller should have no difficulties in Berkeley, and when Miller retires, another strong Democrat should do fine in this district as well. Disproportionately few votes in this district are actually cast in San Joaquin county due to the high Latino population there. So the potential problem of someone from Berkeley winning a Democratic primary but then losing a general election (which applied to my previous version of CA-10) ought to be reduced in this modified version of CA-7.

CA-10

Incumbent:	John Garamendi (D)
Previous District PVI:	D+11
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	64% Obama, D+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	56% White
New District Demographics:	46% White

CA-10 is not the monster that the previous district was. The entire Sierra Nevadas section of the district is gone in version 2, and that population is instead picked up in Sacramento County (which now makes up about 4/7 of the district). The Sacramento section looks on its face like it would be Republican because there are large swaths of rural areas in the south-east of the county. But actually most of the population is in relatively Democratic suburban areas (like Elk Grove), and CA-10’s section of Sacramento County voted similarly to the county as a whole. Berkeley is also traded to CA-7 in exchange for Antioch. That makes CA-10 a little less Democratic than it would be, but only by a few points because Antioch is pretty strongly Democratic as well (65% for Obama). This also has negates the chance that someone from Berkeley with limited appeal in the Sacramento suburbs will be a future Democratic nominee in CA-10.

Southern California

An additional district in Southern California is conceded to the GOP (CA-48), in exchange for strengthening a couple of relatively weak Swing/Lean Democratic districts, and reducing gerrymandering in Orange County.

Southern California, Version 2 map

South-East LA & Orange County, Version 2 map

Districts Altered

CA-22

Incumbent:	?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+16
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	32% Obama, R+21
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	32% Obama, R+21
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	57% White, 49% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	62% White, 24% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	62% White, 26% Latino

Because CA-4 does not pick up the lake Tahoe area from CA-10, it has to make up population by pushing down on CA-22 into Fresno. This means that CA-22 also has some more population (114,000) to make up. It does so by crossing into San Bernadino County and relieving Adam Schiff of the most heavily Republican precincts around Barstow and Hesperia. So while the political makeup of CA-22 does not really change, it helps make CA-29 more Democratic, and indirectly helps to make CA-41 and CA-45 more Democratic.

CA-29

Incumbent:	Adam Schiff (D)
Previous District PVI:	D+14
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	61% Obama, D+8
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	45% White, 8% Asian, 34% Latino

As mentioned above, CA-29 sheds some heavily GOP areas to the 22nd district. To equalize the population, CA-29 adds Upland, which has some Democratic precincts to go with its Republican ones, and GOP Yucca Valley and Twenty Nine Palms. Though these areas are still generally GOP, they are a bit less Republican than the areas he loses. I also noticed that there were two prisons with combined populations of about 25,000 people in the middle of the desert/hills of rural San Bernadino county. I was sure to add those to CA-29, serving to increases the relative proportion of the vote cast in the heavily Democratic LA County part of the 29th. So Adam Schiff’s district becomes a bit more Democratic by picking up some relatively less GOP precincts and by adding some prisoners. I thought about putting Lake Tahoe in the 29th district, but didn’t in the end.

CA-40

Incumbent:	?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+8
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	52% Obama, R+1
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	57% Obama, D+4
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	46% White, 16% Asian, 32% Latino

CA-40 is now entirely within Orange County, and, like the rest of the districts in Orange County (except CA-47) is remodeled from version 1.0. This is probably just about the most Democratic district that can be made in Orange County without taking substantively from CA-47. It combines progressive and Democratic leaning Laguna beach with Costa Mesa, Irvine, and some Obama voting areas (with lots of apartments, which presumably explains their Democratic trend) around Laguna Woods/Aliso Viejo. This part of the district is 57% white, and makes up half of the district. The rest of the district (35% white) pecks around the fringes of CA-47, picking up Democratic leaning precincts in parts of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Placentia. Effective mobilization of young and minority voters would be key to any potential pickup of this district for Democrats. Another note is that if the Asian American voters I picked up turn out to be disproportionately Vietnamese, that would also make this district marginally more Republican.

CA-41

Incumbent:	Jerry Lewis (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+10
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	53% Obama, D+0
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	58% Obama, D+5
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	33% White, 11% Black, 45% Latino

CA-41 becomes substantially more Republican and less white than the previous version. It gives up its more rural areas of San Bernadino County (and its prisons) and is pulled westward towards Los Angeles. As the white population declines and the Latino population increases, both Black and Latino voters become a substantially greater proportion of the electorate. Only 50,000 people in the district now live in non-urbanized areas now (in the mountains just to the East of San Bernadino). I would guess this district voted about 58% for Obama, though it is possible that it is even more Democratic than that. The city of San Bernadino, for example, voted 66% for Obama.

CA-43

Incumbent:	Joe Baca (Blue Dog D)
Previous District PVI:	D+13
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	63% Obama, D+10
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	63% Obama, D+10
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	17% White, 65% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	23% White, 62% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	22% White, 63% Latino

From version 1, CA-43 shifts further to the West, adding Chino and Montclair. The Latino majority actually slightly increases in the process. Joe Baca would have no trouble running here, and he would probably have little difficulty in CA-41 either if he preferred to run there.

CA-44

Incumbent:	?Ken Calvert?, ?Mary Bono? (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	41% Obama, R+12
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	41% Obama, R+12
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	44% White, 42% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	60% White, 25% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	62% White, 26% Latino

Version 2 of CA-44 is no different politically than version 1.0 (though possibly it is more like R+11 now). But geographically, it shifts further into Riverside County, adding much of Mary Bono’s GOP base areas, and even picks up a small section of San Bernadino County. This district would likely result in an interesting primary between Mary Bono (who is probably seen as too moderate to go unchallenged in a GOP primary) and Ken Calvert (who is reportedly being investigated by the FBI). Perhaps (I am only half kidding here) Doug Hoffman would run here as well, providing a true Conservative alternative…

CA-45

Incumbent:	Mary Bono (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+3
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	55% Obama, D+2
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	42% White, 45% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	35% White, 51% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	34% White, 52% Latino

CA-45 becomes more Democratic than in version 1 by exchanging white GOP areas for Lake Tahoe. I would have liked to expand the Latino majority in this district, but was not really possible without reducing the Hispanic percentage in other Latino majority districts like CA-42 and CA-51. It was also tough to find somewhere suitable to put Lake Tahoe – I didn’t want to waste a lot of Democratic votes, but there were not many non-majority minority and non-Republican districts in Southern California that could easily extend northwards through Inyo and Mono Counties. The Inyo/Mono/Alpine/Lake Tahoe portion of the district voted 64% for Obama, while the rest (which is 57% Latino) voted about 60% for Obama. Mary Bono would be more likely to try her luck in a GOP primary in CA-44 than to fight a losing battle here.

CA-37

Incumbent:	Laura Richardson (D)
Previous District PVI:	D+26
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	64% Obama, D+11
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	67% Obama, D+14
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	31% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 38% Latino

For version 2 of CA-37, I managed to knock the black population up a notch to 19%, by running through a different section of Long Beach. 37% of the district (Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach) is in Orange County and voted for McCain 54-46. But that Orange County section is overwhelmed by the LA County portion, which includes Compton (96% for Obama), areas of LA nearby, and part of Long Beach. The overall Obama percentage goes up to 67%, partly because it actually gets more Democratic, but also because I think I originally slightly underestimated how Democratic this district was. The vote around Compton is really overwhelming – though it might be less so with Obama not on the ballot, this seat still should be very safe.

CA-46

Incumbent:	Dana Rohrabacher (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+3
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	60% Obama, D+7
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	61% Obama, D+8
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	37% White, 22% Asian, 30% Latino

Only 30% of CA-46 is in Orange County now, but it does get substantially more Democratic (relative to version 1) because the areas of Orange County that are retained (chiefly the area around Westminster) are relatively Republican, while some of the areas of Orange County in version 1.0 (particularly Costa Mesa and Laguna Woods) voted for Obama. Those Democratic Orange County areas are donated to CA-40. Some of the areas in LA County that are added to CA-46 are only relatively weakly Democratic as well, and there are even a few McCain precincts in the LA county part of the district. It would be easy to make this district more Democratic by switching around some precincts with the neighboring 37th and 39th districts, but I didn’t do so in order to keep the minority populations well up in those VRA districts. This district makes much more sense geographically than the elongated snake in version 1.

CA-48

Incumbent:	?John Campbell? (R) ?Ed Royce? (R)
Previous District PVI:	R+6
District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	52% Obama, R+1
District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain:	42% Obama, R+11
Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics:	61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino
District 1.0 Demographics:	44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino
District 2.0 Demographics:	71% White, 11% Asian, 13% Latino

In Version 2.0, CA-48 is conceded to the GOP, becoming a thoroughly Republican district entirely contained within Orange County. It is just about the most heavily GOP district that could be created entirely within Orange County. In the northwest, the district starts in GOP north Fullerton. It takes in all of heavily GOP, high turnout Yorba Linda. More of the same as it heads through heavily GOP areas of Tustin and  Anaheim. It heads east to pick up more GOP areas surrounding the 40th district, including Mission Viejo, Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel. It then turns back to the North-West, through a thin coastal strip of Laguna Beach (hopefully not picking up too many Democrats), and ends by adding Newport Beach. By taking in so many GOP voters, it is possible to make the remaining Orange County districts both more Democratic and more compact. It also allows the 44th District to move into Riverside and San Bernadino counties, making other seats in the inland empire more Democratic.

I also made some minor alterations in the distribution of the Latino districts in LA in order to make the Latino percentages high in each, but that doesn’t alter their political status (safely Democratic).

Survey USA (10/30-11/02, likely voters for primaries, registered voters for general, 8/15-17 in parens):

Rand Paul (R): 35 (26)

Trey Grayson (R): 32 (37)

Other: 15 (20)

Undecided: 18 (17)

(MoE: 4.7%)

Dan Mongiardo (D): 39 (39)

Jack Conway (D): 28 (31)

Other: 18 (17)

Undecided: 16 (14)

(MoE: 4.1%)

Check out those GOP primary numbers. If Rand Paul knocks off Trey Grayson, that really would be quite the coup. The Paulists represent a different, weirder strain of outsider Republicans than do the teabaggers, but I almost wonder if they might make common cause in a race like this. On the other hand, I’ve gotten the sense that Greyson fits the mold of the tribal conservative, so he ought to satisfy the extremists despite his establishment cred. Despite his millions, Ron Paul’s high-water mark in the GOP primaries last year was just 24% (Idaho), so I’m a bit skeptical that Rand’s stronger fundraising alone is the reason for his surge – or perhaps this just means the comparison of son to father is imperfect. Either way, I’m eager to hear from folks on the ground in Kentucky. (And I also want to see if other pollsters confirm this movement.)

The Dem primary numbers are a bit frustrating. Despite getting crushed on the fundraising front and having several embarrassing tapes get released, Dan Mongiardo still leads Jack Conway. Not only do I like Conway far better, he performs better against both Republicans (more on that in a moment). Still, there are a lot of votes up for grabs, and the primary isn’t until May. What’s more, Mongiardo is beating Conway 2-to-1 among self-identified liberals (who make up a fifth of the Dem electorate); given that Conway is largely running to Mongiardo’s left, he ought to be able to make serious headway with that group. For his part, Conway just put out an internal poll from the Benenson Strategy Group showing him down just three points.

Dan Mongiardo (D): 38 (40)

Trey Grayson (R): 48 (46)

Undecided: 14 (16)

Jack Conway (D): 39 (37)

Trey Grayson (R): 43 (44)

Undecided: 18 (18)

Jack Conway (D): 44 (43)

Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)

Undecided: 17 (19)

Dan Mongiardo (D): 43 (43)

Rand Paul (R): 43 (41)

Undecided: 15 (16)

(MoE: ±2.4%)

The fact that Mongiardo has slipped all the way back to ten points behind Grayson troubles me, as does the fact that he’s tied with Paul. Meanwhile, Conway’s numbers have improved a touch. Still, a lot can and probably will change between now and election day. The real news, though, is that Mitch McConnell and his merry band of potentates have a lot to worry about right now.

• CA-Sen: The Carlyfornia Dreaming commenced today, as former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina officially  announced her bid for the GOP Senate nomination. In a development that’s both DeLightful and DeLovely as the GOP barrels headlong into civil war, though, SC Sen. Jim DeMint endorsed GOP Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in the GOP primary, in his ongoing quest to have a Senate caucus of 30 pure Republicans.

• DE-Sen: Also on the GOP civil war front, the movement/establishment split is even spilling over into Delaware, which most pundits look at as the GOP’s closest to a sure thing. Conservative activist Christine O’Donnell, who lost badly to Joe Biden last year, will stay in the GOP field with or without Castle. O’Donnell is sitting on $2K CoH, along with $24K in debts from her previous run.

• IL-Sen: Also on the GOP civil war front, one of Rep. Mark Kirk’s minor-league GOP primary opponents — not Patrick Hughes, but even lower down the food chain: Eric Wallace — is looking at Doug Hoffman and saying “That could be me!” Wallace is dropping out of the GOP field and planning to run as an independent — which could conceivably tip the race to Alexi Giannoulias in a close contest. Kirk, sensing trouble brewing on his right flank, is asking for help from an unlikely source (based on his attacks on her inexperience during the 2008 election). He’s asking queen teabagger Sarah Palin for her endorsement!

• NH-Sen: Also on the GOP civil war front, wealthy businessman William Binnie made official his run for the GOP nod in New Hampshire’s Senate race. Sounds like lots of Granite Staters aren’t buying GOP establishment candidate Kelly Ayotte’s smoke-and-mirrors campaign.

• OH-Sen: Finally, one item from what passes for the Democratic civil war. DSCC chair Bob Menendez all-but-endorsed Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher in Ohio, by mentioning only him in Ohio when talking about pickup prospects. Fisher faces a primary (for the time being) against underfunded SoS Jennifer Brunner.

• CT-Gov: It looks like Ned Lamont, who beat and then lost to Joe Lieberman in 2006, is going to take a whack at the Connecticut gubernatorial race. Lamont just formed an exploratory committee; he’ll face an uphill fight just to get out of the primary, though, against SoS Susan Bysiewicz.

• FL-Gov: So many Kennedys, so little time. Yet another random member of the Kennedy clan is considering a quixotic run for office; this time it’s Maria Shriver’s brother Anthony Shriver (founder of a disabilities-related nonprofit), considering a race in the Democratic gubernatorial primary (which Alex Sink already seems to have locked down).

• NY-Gov: If there’s any doubt that AG Andrew Cuomo is gearing up for a gubernatorial run next year, Cuomo will be holding a big fundraiser in Washington in several weeks, hosted by DC power couple Tony and Heather Podesta.

• CO-04: While state House minority whip Cory Gardner seemed to have impeccable conservative bona fides (running against freshman Dem Rep. Betsy Markey), there’s some new information that calls that into question: it turns out in 1998 he was an active volunteer for Democrat Susan Kirkpatrick, who ran against then-Rep. Bob Schaffer in the 4th. (He even gave the seconding nominating speech for her at the Dem convention in the 4th.) In his defense, Gardner claims he was raised a Democrat, but became a Republican convert in college — but he graduated from college in 1997. Looks like the teabaggers have one more insufficiently pure specimen to add to their hunting list.

• FL-08: The netroots love them some Alan Grayson. Nov. 2’s online moneybomb event netted the Florida rabblerouser over $500,000, from over 13,000 contributions averaging $40 each. (The GOP also has an answer site up — “mycongressmanisnuts.com,” a nice third-grade response to “congressmanwithguts.com”, as apparently “poopyhead.com” was already taken — which so far has brought in $4,000.)

• FL-19: Charlie Crist has set a special election date for the election to replace resigning Rep. Robert Wexler (although there doesn’t seem to be much drama here in this dark-blue district, as the wheels seem to be greased for state Sen. Ted Deutch). The primary will be Feb. 2, and the general will be April 6.

• KS-04: Republican state Sen. Susan Wagle was considered on the short list for the open seat being left behind by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, but yesterday she confirmed that she won’t run for it next year.

• NY-23: The gift that keeps giving. Doug Hoffman is reportedly already sounding interested, via Twitter, in running again in the 23rd. (No clue as to what ballot lines he’d seek to run on.)

• PA-19: Here’s a surprise: long-time Republican Rep. Todd Platts may be looking for an exit strategy. He’s applying to become the Comptroller General, an appointed position at the top of the government’s nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Platts has been safe so far in his York-based R+12 district, but as a Main Street Republican, he’s rather out-of-whack with his red turf and may suddenly not be relishing the thought of having teabaggers using him for target practice in 2010.

• NYC-Mayor: Well, somebody at the White House is feeling defensive over the decision not to get involved in the surprisingly-close mayoral race. When Rep. Anthony Weiner (who’d considered running) asked maybe if Obama should have helped out, an anonymous leaker snarled “Maybe Anthony Weiner should have manned-up and run against Michael Bloomberg.”

• NRSC: Having gotten the message from the rabid teabagging hordes, NRSC head John Cornyn is announcing that the NRSC won’t be spending money in any Republican primaries next year. The NRSC has endorsed in four primaries so far (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania), but it’s sounding like they may not endorse in any more, either… Cornyn admits “Endorsements, frankly, are overrated. They can to some extent be a negative.” Guess who is coming to play in GOP Senate primaries, though? That’s right, the Club for Growth, who are now threatening involvement in Illinois and Connecticut, saying that the best Mark Kirk and newly-converted teabag-carrier Rob Simmons can hope for is to be “left alone.”

• NRCC: Pete Sessions Deathwatch, Vol. 2? All over the punditosphere today are proclamations of the NRCC head as one of yesterday’s top “losers,” as the NRCC’s special election losing streak had two more notches added to it. George Stephanopolous makes the case that Sessions actually managed to lose NY-23 twice, once with Scozzafava over the long haul, then over the weekend again with Hoffman.

According to Chris Cillizza at The Fix, he's got his hands on a memo penned by Mark Kirk agitating for an endorsement from Sarah Palin.  

Kirk apparently sent the memo to Republican 'bigwig' Fred Malek, who's been affiliated with Palin for a while.

After noting that Palin will be in Chicago later this month to appear on "Oprah", Kirk writes that "the Chicago media will focus on one key issue: Does Gov[ernor] Palin oppose Congressman Mark Kirk's bid to take the Obama Senate seat for the Republicans?"

 

Kirk goes on to write that he is hoping for something "quick and decisive" from Palin about the race, perhaps to the effect of: "Voters in Illinois have a key opportunity to take Barack Obama's Senate seat. Congressman Kirk is the lead candidate to do that."

Not sure what Kirk is worried about, as Patrick Hughes seems to be having problems getting his campaign off the ground, but nonetheless Kirk is definitely running to the base as quickly as possible.

At the same time, I’m sure any of the Dem candidates in this race would just love to bring up Kirk being “the candidate of Sarah Palin” or some such thing in the general election.  

On a day when upstart ultra-conservative challengers to the Republican establishment are feeling emboldened, Utah AG Mark Shurtleff (one prominent member of that group) is instead suspending his campaign against incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett:

Mark Shurtleff said he will continue to serve as Utah attorney general while he deals with his daughter’s mental health problems. He said his daughter has been placed in a treatment center.

“Today, I am announcing the suspension of my campaign for the U.S. Senate,” Shurtleff wrote in an e-mail to reporters. “This announcement comes with sorrow because I do want to serve my country, and I do believe both political parties have put this nation in grave danger by spending so foolishly that our children and grandchildren will have a difficult time recovering.”

Our best wishes to Shurtleff. We’ll have to wait and see what the long-term effect of this is… Shurtleff was the top contender against Bennett. Does Bennett skate to re-election? Does one of his lesser, even more fringe-right opponents (like Tim Bridgewater or known gnome-hater Cherilyn Eagar) grab Shurtleff’s support? Or does another prominent figure (like freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who’s been eyeing the race) get in now?