Swing State Project

Politico:

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) will be running for Vice President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in Delaware, according to two GOP sources connected to the congressman, instantly giving Republicans the opportunity to flip a traditionally-Democratic seat in their column.

Castle will be making a formal announcement at noon in his hometown of Wilmington. Castle had been debating whether to run for higher office, or retire after serving nine terms in the House.

I’m honestly surprised that Castle, who’s getting long in the tooth, agreed to fight for this four-year term. I’m also not used to Republicans actually having so much honest-to-God success in the recruiting department, but the NRSC has been on an absolute tear this year. Castle will be a formidable candidate for the GOP here; in all three polls that we’ve seen of this state in the past year, Castle has edged Democratic AG Beau Biden by anywhere from 5 to 21 points. That, combined with Castle’s long statewide electoral track record, is enough for us to change our rating of this race from Safe D (RTW) to Tossup.

RaceTracker Wiki: DE-Sen

The Census Bureau recently released all of its data from the 2008 American Community Survey estimates, which is like Christmas Day in the Crisitunity household. I’ll be looking at the data divvied up by congressional district in several different ways in the coming week; today, I’m starting with the most basic element: population change. This doesn’t tell us much about how the composition of each district is changing, but it tells us a lot about what direction different districts are heading as we approach 2010 redistricting.

Let’s start with the 25 districts that have experience the greatest population change over the period from the 2000 census to the 2008 estimate, in terms of raw numbers. These are the districts that will be shedding population in 2010, in some cases into newly-created districts:

District	Rep.	2000	2008	Change
AZ-02	Franks (R)	641,435	991,439	350,004
AZ-06	Flake (R)	641,360	957,920	316,560
TX-10	McCaul (R)	651,523	955,363	303,840
NV-03	Titus (D)	665,345	966,577	301,232
FL-05	Brown-Waite (R)	639,719	920,242	280,523
GA-07	Linder (R)	630,511	901,363	270,852
UT-03	Chaffetz (R)	744,545	974,639	230,094
NC-09	Myrick (R)	619,705	847,888	228,183
TX-26	Burgess (R)	651,858	875,556	223,698
TX-22	Olson (R)	651,657	873,878	222,221
CA-45	Bono Mack (R)	638,553	860,052	221,499
GA-06	T. Price (R)	630,613	834,530	203,917
AZ-07	Grijalva (D)	640,996	840,106	199,110
TX-03	S. Johnson (R)	651,782	845,481	193,699
CA-44	Calvert (R)	639,008	831,454	192,446
FL-14	Mack (R)	639,298	830,717	191,419
TX-31	Carter (R)	651,868	841,984	190,116
CA-25	McKeon (R)	638,768	819,973	181,205
CO-06	Coffman (R)	614,491	794,480	179,989
TX-21	L. Smith (R)	651,930	828,925	176,995
NC-04	D. Price (D)	619,432	794,794	175,362
FL-25	M. Diaz-Balart (R)	638,315	812,082	173,767
GA-09	Deal (R)	629,678	803,245	173,567
IL-14	Foster (D)	654,031	823,661	169,630
FL-06	Stearns (R)	638,952	807,026	168,074

You may recall that we looked at this same project a year ago, using 2007 data. Compared with last year’s list of the top 20 gainers, there’s a lot of stability. AZ-02 moves up from #3 to the top spot, with AZ-06 falling to second place. Entrants to the list are TX-31, CA-25, TX-21, NC-04, and FL-06, while GA-03, ID-01, FL-08, VA-10, and WA-08 fall off.

Much more over the flip…

And here are the districts that have lost the most population in the period from 2000 to 2008. These ones will need to absorb the most surrounding territory (or simply be eliminated and dispersed into their neighboring districts):

District	Rep.	2000	2008	Change
LA-02	Cao (R)	639,048	469,262	– 169,786
MI-13	Kilpatrick (D)	662,844	558,280	– 104,564
OH-11	Fudge (D)	630,668	548,080	-82,588
PA-14	Doyle (D)	645,809	574,861	– 70,948
MI-14	Conyers (D)	662,468	591,652	– 70,816
PA-02	Fattah (D)	647,350	586,216	– 61,134
NY-28	Slaughter (D)	654,464	598,124	– 56,340
TN-09	Cohen (D)	631,740	586,190	– 45,550
AL-07	A. Davis (D)	635,631	591,670	– 43,961
MI-12	Levin (D)	662,559	621,619	– 40,940
MS-02	B. Thompson (D)	710,996	670,638	– 40,358
PA-01	Brady (D)	645,422	606,632	– 38,790
OH-10	Kucinich (D)	631,003	593,065	– 37,938
IL-04	Gutierrez (D)	653,654	618,313	– 35,341
IL-01	Rush (D)	654,203	620,843	– 33,360
PA-12	Murtha (D)	646,419	617,797	– 28,622
NY-27	Higgins (D)	654,200	627,105	– 27,095
MO-01	Clay (D)	621,497	594,535	– 26,962
MI-05	Kildee (D)	662,584	636,803	– 25,781
OH-17	Ryan (D)	630,316	604,607	– 25,709
IN-07	Carson (D)	675,804	650,746	– 25,058
IL-07	D. Davis (D)	653,521	629,923	– 23,598
MN-05	Ellison (D)	614,874	591,467	– 23,407
IL-02	J. Jackson (D)	654,078	630,933	– 23,145
IL-17	Hare (D)	653,531	630,745	– 22,786

No surprise here in terms of change: the Katrina-ravaged LA-02 is still the biggest loser of population (although it’s currently a very fast growing district, as it gradually repopulates). Detroit and Cleveland, though, are depopulating as a result of their own disasters (economic in this case), and MI-13 and OH-11 both nose ahead of the former #2, Pittsburgh’s PA-14. Near the bottom of the list, the dwindling IL-01, PA-12, MI-05, IN-07, and IL-02 move on, while CA-09, KS-01, PA-05, CA-53, and MA-08 arrest their decline a bit and move off the list.

My observations remain much the same as last year: the David Brookses of the world would look at the sheer number of exurban red districts in the fast-growing column and the number of urban blue districts in the shrinking column, and point to hundreds of years of Republican dominance as urbanites are pulling away from the teat of the welfare state and moving out to the exurbs to make a fresh start as Patio Man and Realtor Mom.

Not exactly: as the suburbs start to spread outward into these districts, bringing their annoying diversity, density, and workaday problems with them, these red districts are, for the most part, becoming Democratic. Just for a few examples, consider CA-25, which went from 59-40 for Bush to 49-48 for Obama, or NC-09, which went from 63-36 for Bush to 55-45 for McCain. In addition — as we’ll see in the next installment, where we’ll focus on changes in race — immigrants are often making the suburbs their first destination, quickly changing the complexion of the outer rings around many cities.

Some of you may be wondering, “Well, wouldn’t change by percentage instead of by raw numbers be more interesting?” In this case, it barely makes a difference in terms of ranking, because we’re starting from essentially the same baseline everywhere in 2000 (generally around 660,000). The most noteworthy exception is UT-03, which is lower down the list of gainers (13th) when ordered by percentage because Utah districts started out large.

Another way of looking at this question that isn’t quite so interesting is: what are the most (and least populous) districts? Most of the lists are completely the same, but there are some oddball picks in there, districts that simply started out very big (MT-AL) or very small (WY-AL). The top 10 most populous, by 2008 numbers, are: AZ-02, UT-03, MT-AL, NV-03, AZ-06, TX-10, FL-05, GA-07, UT-01, and UT-02. The 10 least populous are: LA-02, RI-01, RI-02, WY-AL, OH-11, NE-03, MI-13, IA-05, PA-14, and WV-03. (These suggest that, come 2020, we may be looking at Rhode Island dropping to a single district and Nebraska and West Virginia dropping to two each.)

Finally, here’s one other way of slicing and dicing the numbers that’s worth a look: the population change between 2007 and 2008. I was expecting to see a lot of people fleeing the worst epicenters of economic collapse (the manufacturing problems of Detroit and Cleveland, the housing bubble-related problems of Phoenix, southern Florida, and California’s Central Valley), but I simply don’t see much of a pattern. More likely what happened is that the economic crisis really put a damper on overall mobility in the last year, as many demographers have suggested… and what we’re seeing is a lot of float within the margin of error (as, remember, the ACS is an estimate, and there’s a plus-or-minus of more than 10,000 on their population estimates).

Here are the biggest gainers over one year. As I hinted at, the fastest growing district is LA-02, although it’s still way off from its peak:

District	Rep.	2007	2008	Change
LA-02	Cao (R)	395,592	469,262	73,670
UT-03	Chaffetz (R)	907,472	974,639	67,167
TX-10	McCaul (R)	898,647	955,363	56,716
AZ-02	Franks (R)	939,215	991,439	52,224
NY-01	T. Bishop (D)	667,336	713,084	45,748
CA-08	Pelosi (D)	621,146	664,963	43,817
TX-12	Granger (R)	770,083	813,561	43,478
CA-47	Lo. Sanchez (D)	617,224	657,705	40,481
CA-50	Bilbray (R)	708,288	747,880	39,592
CA-25	McKeon (R)	782,014	819,973	37,959

And here are the biggest losers. There are a lot of southern California districts here, but they tend to be either Hispanic-majority districts or comfortable, established areas (CA-46), rather than the stereotypical instant exurbs of CA-44 and CA-45 where option ARMs got a new generation of homeowners into the balsa-wood-and-drywall duplexes of their dreams. Also, interestingly, rather than the canyons of empty condo towers along Florida’s Gold Coast, instead the leader is FL-21, a neighborhood of established middle-class Cubano suburbs west of Miami.

District	Rep.	2007	2008	Change
FL-21	L. Diaz-Balart (R)	707,168	670,760	– 36,408
CA-39	Li. Sanchez (D)	669,981	635,955	– 34,026
TX-07	Culberson (R)	782,163	751,034	– 31,129
MA-09	Lynch (D)	668,799	639,053	– 29,746
CA-18	Cardoza (D)	714,167	686,109	– 28,058
FL-03	C. Brown (D)	668,709	642,194	– 26,515
CA-13	Stark (D)	672,300	647,397	– 24,903
CA-38	Napolitano (D)	653,733	629,942	– 23,791
CA-46	Rohrabacher (R)	655,857	632,809	– 23,048
NJ-06	Pallone (D)	673,587	650,895	– 22,692

Rasmussen Reports (9/30, likely voters, no trend lines):

Jack Conway (D): 40

Trey Grayson (R): 40

Undecided: 17

Jack Conway (D): 42

Rand Paul (R): 38

Undecided: 15

Dan Mongiardo (D): 37

Trey Grayson (R): 44

Undecided: 14

Dan Mongiardo (D): 38

Rand Paul (R): 42

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±4.5%)

In the last two polls we’ve seen of this race (from R2K a month ago and SurveyUSA in August), Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo actually had a small electability edge over state AG Jack Conway. Not so in this poll, and maybe the leaked audiotape of Mongiardo’s foul-mouthed kvetching against Gov. Steve Beshear has something to do with it. (In this same poll, Beshear’s job approval is holding up pretty well — a rarity for Governors these days, it seems — at 59-41.)

Overall, these numbers aren’t bad, especially considering that Rasmussen has tended to put out some of the most R-friendly polling results of the major public firms this cycle. I wouldn’t mind seeing if Mongiardo’s stock has dropped in the Democratic primary, though.

RaceTracker Wiki: KY-Sen

• AZ-Sen: It’s been a rumor all year, but it just won’t die: ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth is reportedly still interested in challenging John McCain in the GOP primary next year. McCain already has a primary challenge from the fringey right, in the form of former Minutemen leader Chris Simcox.

• FL-Sen: Although Rep. Corrine Brown doesn’t seem to be taking any steps to get into the Dem field, it looks like Rep. Kendrick Meek still may not get the primary all to himself: former Miami mayor Maurice Ferre is signaling his interest in the race. Ferre is 74; he was the first Hispanic (he’s Puerto Rican) to be elected Miami mayor. Meanwhile, Meek is the beneficiary of yet another Bill Clinton fundraiser; this is the Big Dog’s fourth on behalf of Meek, a prominent Hillary Clinton endorser in 2008. Finally, Karl Rove is weighing in on the Florida senate primary, albeit just with a $1,000 donation and no loud public pronouncement: he’s backing Marco Rubio.

• IL-Sen: Rep. Mark Kirk says he’s raised $1.6 million for the 3rd quarter, leaving him with $2.3 million cash on hand. State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias hasn’t made any report yet, but ended the 2nd quarter with $1.65 million on hand.

• NV-Sen: The heat is getting turned up on John Ensign; Barbara Boxer confirmed today that the Senate Ethics Committee will be taking up the little matter of getting a lobbying job for cuckolded ex-staffer Doug Hampton and then steering him clients as a parting gift. Meanwhile, the GOP’s new candidate in the 2010 Senate race, Sue Lowden, is still clinging to Ensign, standing by earlier pro-Ensign comments at an Elko appearance on Friday, saying that she hopes to have Ensign campaigning on behalf of Republican candidates (including, presumably, herself) next year.

• WI-Sen: Russ Feingold seems to be sitting pretty, with high favorables and little in the way of GOP opposition. His likeliest opponent is Madison real estate developer Terrence Wall, but Wisconsin’s Blogging Blue makes a nice catch about Wall: he loves doing business in Wisconsin so much that all 16 of his business entities are incorporated in Delaware.

• AZ-Gov: Another minor GOP player is jumping into the gubernatorial primary against appointed incumbent Jan Brewer. Former state GOP chair (during the early 1980s) and former member of the university system Board of Regents John Munger is in the race. He joins Brewer and Paradise Valley mayor Vernon Parker, with state Treasurer Dean Martin and some other higher-profile figures considering it too.

• CA-Gov: Maybe this explains why alleged Republican Meg Whitman is running for governor and not for senate: turns out she endorsed Barbara Boxer in 2004 as part of Technology Leaders for Boxer, and gave her $4,000. No word yet on whether Whitman actually got around to voting for her, though.

• MN-Gov: A straw poll at the Minnesota GOP convention sees former state House minority leader Marty Seifert in pole position; he pulled in 37% of the vote among nine candidates. Little-known state Rep. Tom Emmer finished second at 23%, and former state Auditor Pat Anderson was third with 14%. Norm Coleman was also seen mingling with convention-goers (he got a few write-in votes although his name wasn’t on the ballot); he says he hasn’t fully ruled out running, saying he’ll make a decision early next year.

• SC-Gov: Republican AG Henry McMaster, who’s running to succeed Mark Sanford as governor, has run into his own little ethical snafu. He’s having to return $32,500 in illegal contributions that came from five attorneys after he had hired them to work on cases for the state.

• SD-Gov: Republican Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard officially kicked off his campaign for the 2010 gubernatorial race. In an apparently all-Scandinavian-American rumble, he’ll face off against state Senate majority leader Dave Knudson in the GOP primary, and the winner will face Democratic state Senate minority leader Scott Heidepriem.

• VA-Gov: The money keeps pouring into the Virginia governor’s race. The DNC is throwing another $1 million into Creigh Deeds’ kitty. Also, the RGA is going on the air with a huge ad buy in the DC market with an ad featuring a testy post-debate Deeds interview.

• WI-Gov (pdf): The Univ. of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Policy Research Institute poll the Wisconsin governor’s race, but primary fields only. Unknowns rule the day: on the Dem side, Milwaukee mayor and ex-Rep. Tom Barrett (who hasn’t confirmed his interest) beats Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton, 38-16. On the GOP side, Milwaukee Co. Exec Scott Walker beats ex-Rep. Mark Neumann 39-14, with 4% to Tim Michels. (Barrett is the best known of all the candidates, with a 36/12 favorable.) Current Gov. Jim Doyle heads out of office in net negative territory, with a 43/52 approval, although that still beats a lot of other governors right now.

• WY-Gov: Most of the major players seem to be standing around and waiting to see whether current Gov. Dave Freudenthal challenges the state’s term limit laws in court in order to grab a third term. One Republican isn’t waiting though, becoming the first announced big-ticket opponent: rancher Ron Micheli. He was a state Representative for 16 years and state Agriculture Director under Republican Gov. Jim Geringer.

• NV-03: It looks like the GOP may successfully trade up in the 3rd District. With banker John Guedry bailing out of the race for personal reasons, now it looks like they’ve coaxed former state Sen. Joe Heck out of the gubernatorial primary (where he initially looked like he had a shot at taking out unpopular incumbent Jim Gibbons, but turned into a long shot with the likely inclusion of ex-AG, ex-judge Brian Sandoval in the primary) and into the race against Dem freshman Rep. Dina Titus instead. Heck is still officially mum, but will have an announcement later this week.

• PA-11: Democratic Lackawanna County Commissioner Corey O’Brien had been a long-rumored primary challenger to long-time Rep. Paul Kanjorski in the 11th, and he made it official over the weekend. O’Brien is clearly emphasizing what a young go-getter he is (compared with the aging Kanjorski), kicking things off with 30 straight hours of campaigning.) Kanjo remains undeterred though, reiterating that he’s running for re-election and looking forward to the debate.

• Generic Ballot: PPP fires up another warning flare about 2010, looking at some of the generic ballot crosstabs. Among voters who don’t like either party, they opt for the GOP 50-14. But there’s a disparity by party line among unhappy voters. The unhappy Republicans will still vote GOP, 66-18, but the unhappy Democrats say they’ll cross over to the GOP, 48-26. On the plus side, there aren’t as many unhappy Democrats as there are unhappy Republicans (20% instead of 33%).

• House: Biden Alert! The VP has been working overtime in the last month appearing at fundraisers for vulnerable House members, helping nearly a dozen members haul more than a collective $1 million. He’s also been assisting with recruiting efforts, most notably with the successful score of Bethlehem mayor John Callahan in PA-15.

The Swing State Project announced changes to eight race ratings recently. Since then, we’ve added one more race to the list (VA-Gov), and we’re changing the rating once more on another (AR-Sen). Our writeups for all of these are below. You can find our complete ratings here: Sen | Gov.

Senate races:

AR-Sen (Lincoln): Safe D to Lean D

When we were debating our ratings changes a few weeks ago, we decided to push the Arkansas Senate contest to Likely D. But that was then. We’re now moving the race to Lean D, and even that is probably pretty generous. All the recent polling on this race has shown Blanche Lincoln to be in pretty dire shape – R2K, PPP, and Rasmussen all have her mired in the 40s. The latter two both have her losing to the most recent & credible entrant into the race, non-crazy state Sen. Gilbert Baker.

Arkansas is a rough state which really hates Obama. While it had for a long time been much friendlier to Dems than most of its Southern neighbors, it now seems to be playing catch-up with a vengeance. In a word, Lincoln is in trouble. Probably the only thing keeping this race out of the Tossup column at this point is that Gilbert is still something of an unknown quantity. We’ll be watching him, and especially his upcoming fundraising reports, very closely. (D)

CA-Sen (Boxer): Safe D to RTW

You might recall this race started out as a Race to Watch, then vanished once it was clear that Arnold Schwarzenegger was not going to run against Barbara Boxer. We’re giving it a second look, though, because the NRSC has found another lesser celebrity, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Fiorina (assuming she runs – she’s still in exploratory mode) has a few things going for her: She’s moderate enough to get some traction in the general (assuming she gets by conservative Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in the primary), the NRSC clearly will go all out to help her out, and, most of all, she has gobs of money she can spend on herself. On the downside, she was very publicly and unceremoniously dumped from HP after presiding over its downfall, and she doesn’t have much political discipline yet, as seen by her getting muzzled after a brief stint as a McCain surrogate. Polls have ranged from single-digit to 20-point gaps in favor of Boxer, so the race bears further watching. (C)

NV-Sen: Likely D to Tossup

Harry Reid may have more coin the in the bank than the Bible’s got psalms, but that can’t cover up for the fact that Nevadans have downright frosty feelings for him. Despite avoiding a challenge from any top-shelf GOPers, poll after poll after poll after poll after poll has shown that Reid’s B-grade opponents are all clobbering him in the court of public opinion. (It also looks like Reid might have even mustered a B+ challenger, in the form of state Sen. Mark Amodei.)

Making matters worse for the embattled Majority Leader is the fact that son Rory Reid has a clear, uncontested path to the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Rory seems to be one of the weakest candidates the Democrats could muster for this race, and pappy is apparently unhappy that the Reid name will be so over-exposed on the Nevada ballot next year. Like a major collision that can’t be prevented, the trajectory of this race is both catastrophically ugly and mesmerizing at once. (J)

NY-Sen-B (Gillibrand): Safe D to RTW

The New York State Republican Party is in a shambles, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand looks strong, with lots of money in the bank, endorsements galore, and powerful friends behind her. The only possible wrinkle here is named George Pataki. The former governor has been floated as a potential challenger for some time, but he doesn’t seem to have actually indicated any interest. Still, out of an abundance of caution, we’re going to slot this in as a Race to Watch, in case Pataki does get in. (D)

Gubernatorial races:

CO-Gov (Ritter): Lean D to Tossup

Bill Ritter is being squeezed from all sides. Not only is there new evidence that Democrats are beginning to lag in Colorado after several cycles of strong growth, Ritter has succeeded in making enemies out of friends by vetoing every major labor-friendly bill that the Democratic legislature has churned out over his first term. Polls have shown Ritter in trouble against his Republican opponents, and it wouldn’t be surprising if many rank-and-file Democrats don’t feel compelled to bail Ritter’s ass out at on Election Day next year. (J)

IA-Gov (Culver): RTW to Likely D

Freshman Gov. Chet Culver’s approval ratings have been hard to pin down – as low as 36% in August according to SUSA before rebounding to 41% this month, but 50% according to a recent Selzer survey, down from 55% in April. Luckily, though, Culver hasn’t drawn much in the way of opposition – yet. But in this toxic political environment, few incumbents are truly safe, and regardless of which pollster you believe, it would be hard to describe Culver’s approval ratings as “good.”

Even more worrisome, former Gov. Terry Branstad is supposedly considering the race, and his favorables are quite strong. The good news, though, is that Branstad hasn’t been in office for a decade, and his numbers now are a lot better than they were at the end of his tenure. That will change once he faces a real campaign. Plus, Branstad’s entrance might trigger a civil war between his “moderate” faction and the conservative base. Still, Branstad would be a very formidable opponent and if he does face off against Culver, we will very likely revise our rating once more. (D)

MA-Gov: Lean D to Tossup

With the long-rumored but now-official entry of Treasurer Tim Cahill into the race, we’ve got a serious shot at seeing Massachusetts elect its first-ever Independent Governor. Cahill, who recently dropped his Democratic affiliation in order to challenge the unpopular incumbent Democratic Governor Deval Patrick without the hassle of a primary, seems to have as good a shot as anyone at winning this race. Polls of the race that have just focused on a head-to-head between Patrick and Republican challengers (convenience store czar Christy Mihos, health care magnate Charlie Baker) have given narrow edges to the GOP, while three-way polls have generally shown Cahill either leading or tied with Patrick, as Cahill seems to eat up the protest votes of a lot of Democrats who’ve lost patience with Patrick. Massachusetts has a bad habit of electing moderate non-Democrats as Governor to counteract its Democratic supermajorities in the legislature, so this race is truly anybody’s ball game now. (C)

VA-Gov (Open): Tossup to Lean R

We’re a little late on this one, but we had wanted to give Creigh Deeds the benefit of the doubt. At this stage, though, it’s hard to see how Bob McDonnell doesn’t have the edge. While the race has tightened somewhat lately, Deeds has not led in a single poll since a very brief post-primary bounce back in June. In 2005, this race also tightened up very late, so we’re not ruling out a move back to Tossup status before the end. But Tim Kaine’s move began in September, and now it’s already October. Time’s running out. (D)

WI-Gov (Open): Lean D to Tossup

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s decision to retire rather than to seek a third term may actually prove helpful to Democrats in the long run, as “incumbent fatigue” will not be an issue in retaining this office next year. Still, it’s a wide open race in the near-term, and the GOP has a pair of credible candidates in Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and ex-Rep. Mark Neumann. Democratic Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton is in the race, but she may have to campaign against popular Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett for the nomination. (J)

Yesterday, I provided some details on the Democratic candidate in New York’s 23rd congressional district race, Bill Owens.

In the comments reacting to the post, the big question surrounds Owens and his position on the public option. Obviously, the public option is a huge issue among progressives and the netroots. It is also a question that, in Owens’ case, does not have a clear cut response.

On August 11, Owens was profiled for PolitickerNY. He was called the “DCCC-approved non-Democrat” and was asked a few different questions. It was then that this was said about his position on health care:

Owens took a decidedly moderate line on health care restructuring, saying he does not support a public option available to anyone–the crux of the restructuring put forward by President Obama. He said some health plans in Congress not longer include the idea of a public option. This stance is gaining some traction in the Senate.

“It changes every day, the various iterations,” Owens told me. “The bill that I would vote for would have a couple of elements to it. It would cover the uninsured, it would eliminate the ability to exclude for a pre-existing condition, and also that focuses on cost-reduction.”

At the time, Owens was just picked to be the Democratic candidate and little was known about him.

(As an aside, I would like to add this from the other finalists for the nomination:

“I’m with the president; I think there should be a public option,” John Sullivan, the former mayor of Oswego, told me before Owens was selected. “I’m not a Blue Dog Democrat, let me put it that way. At least in terms of health care.”

Brian McGrath, a Manhattan attorney who grew up in the district, was more cautious, saying that he supported the idea, but that “you have to look at the public option and how it has to be structured.”

The reason I bring this up is that it has been said that Owens was the only one of the finalists to oppose a public option. On the surface, that is true. But McGrath saying that you have look at it and how it is structured certainly got my attention just as Owens and his position did.)

After President Barack Obama gave his health care address to Congress, all three candidates in NY-23 provided updates on where they stand when it comes to health care reform. Owens gave a different perspective on health care than in the past.

Owens, who told me the night he was nominated that he did not support a public option, said that it was, as a component of an insurance exchange, something he “would look very carefully at; they seem reasonable as principles.”

“My view is that there are a couple of principles that have to be adhered to in coming to a resolution of the health care issue,” Owens told me. “I’m not in favor of a litmus test because I think that’s one of the big problems in Washington today. I think we need to be able to analyze the bills and make a rational decision about it in line with the principals in the bill.

“As long as they meet the four criteria that I laid out, those are things that I would consider,” he said. “Again, I don’t want to apply a litmus test, I don’t want to apply a label. I want to be able to analyze the information and the bill and come to a conclusion.”

(His four criteria are that any bill not add to the deficit or “place burdens on small businesses,” bring down insurance costs, provide access to coverage for those without insurance, and ensure those with pre-existing conditions are insured. Owens has said this before, but it’s not on his web site, which provides no information about his biography or positions.)

(Emphasis mine.)

His response to the question about the public option (which, this time, he was actually quoted on) was, just to repeat, something he “would look very carefully at; they seem reasonable as principles.”

Owens’ approach to health care reform includes a lot of key elements. He believes in controlling costs for the middle-class and supports providing access to affordable health care coverage to every American.

This is the full list of what he supports:

·        Supports: Controlling health care costs for the middle class.

·        Supports: Providing access to affordable health insurance for every American.

·        Supports: Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to anybody based on previous existing conditions and bans caps on lifetime coverage.

·       Supports:  Giving small business and individuals access to the lowest rates available to federal employees and large corporations.

·        Supports: Allowing anybody to keep their existing coverage.

·        Supports: Using profits from repayment of TARP funds, allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, increased efficiency in our health care system (like putting all health care records on-line and requiring insurance companies to accept payment on-line), and cutting special interest tax loopholes (like tax benefits for companies that offshore jobs) to help pay for health care reform.

·        Supports: Allowing states to use savings from elimination of uncompensated care costs (Over $100 billion annually) to reduce taxes. In New York this would help prevent property tax increases.

There are three things Owens is opposed to: Cuts to Medicare, taxing health care benefits and increasing the taxes on the middle class.

Back to the public option. It is necessary for Owens to be clear about his position. He first said he opposed it, then a month later, seemed to leave the door open for it.

So for those saying he opposes it, I would hold off on those charges.

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

It is a popular today to say that the South has switched from voting Democratic to Republican. Many people are fond of looking at previous electoral maps. Hey, isn’t that funny – the states have completely switched parties. It’s like the Republicans have recreated the Solid South.

That statement is unequivocally false. Most people have no idea how unbelievably Democratic the Solid South was. For half a century, Democrats in the Deep South did about as well as the Communist Party did in Soviet Union elections.

Let’s take a look at a model Republican southern state: Alabama. John McCain won 60.32% of the vote here, his second best showing in the South. Below are the counties in which Mr. McCain won over 70% of the vote (all my statistics below are from http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ – an amazing website).

That’s a lot of counties. The Republicans are doing quite well – about as well as the Democrats used to do in Alabama, many would say.

Here is another map, filled with blue counties.

It is the 1940 presidential election. I invite you to guess – what do these blue counties represent? Counties in which Roosevelt won over 70% of the vote? 80%? 90%? Remember, Roosevelt was quite a popular guy. He must have done pretty well in Alabama, part of the Solid South.

Continued below the flip.

In fact, the blue counties are those in which Roosevelt won over 95% of the vote in 1940. In all, he won 85.22% of the good folk of Alabama.

Those are incredible numbers. If today that result occurred, we would all cry fraud.

Of course, fraud – of a sort – was occurring in Alabama at that time. As everybody knows, blacks were not allowed to vote at that time. Notice how all but one of the blue counties surround Alabama’s Black Belt. What is less well known, however, is that many poor whites (more likely to vote Republican) were also unable to vote. The poll tax didn’t hurt just African-Americans, after all.

Different southern states enacted different voting restrictions with an intent to continue Democratic dominance. Some were more strict; some were less so. Republicans in North Carolina, for example, generally held Democrats to below 60% of the vote; they even won the state in 1928. On the other hand, South Carolina probably disenfranchised the most voters.

Here is the result:



The blue indicates a county that gave the Republican candidate less than 10% of the vote – for nine straight elections, from 1912 to 1944. From 1900 to 1944, South Carolina’s average vote (per election) went 94.89% Democratic, 3.98% Republican.

How did South Carolina achieve this amazing result?

A revealing clue is provided by looking at the voting count numbers. For example, in the year 1912 a total of 50,405 people voted in South Carolina (48,357 of whom supported the Democrat). At that time the census had just reapportioned electoral votes; South Carolina had a total of nine.

By comparing South Carolina to states with similar populations, one can get an idea of how many potential voters were disenfranchised. Kansas, for example, had ten electoral votes; 365,560 people in the state voted that year. West Virginia had eight electoral votes; 268,828 people voted in that state (remember, this was before women’s suffrage). In South Carolina, therefore, several times more citizens “should” have voted than actually did.

In conclusion, to state that the Solid South always voted Democratic is a misnomer. Even to say that it voted extremely Democratic might still be inaccurate. It would be like saying I’m interested in politics. Technically its true, but the picture the words imply far and away understates the reality.

Cross posted at Daily Kos

The other day, I shattered the ugly belief that the Republican candidate in the 23rd congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, was the most liberal. That post was a direct response to Markos’ post Thursday, which also included a critique of Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

One of the arguments made by Markos is that Owens is a “conservaDem” and that he would be just another member of the Blue Dog Coalition should he win in November. Owens, who was an independent but has changed his party affiliation to become a Democrat, was picked over two Democrats to run.  

Because of that, there is a high level of uncertainty about Owens. Progressives are skeptical (and rightfully so) because they see the Blue Dogs throughout the country and don’t want to see Owens end up just another Blue Dog. I also think that some of this skepticism is related to the district Owens is running in. He isn’t the first Democrat running in an upstate New York district whose views have been questioned and who has been considered a prospective Blue Dog. It apparently comes with the territory, whether it’s fair or not.

Here are two of Owens’ television ads which give you an idea of his approach. His emphasis is jobs and creating jobs in the North Country.

This is what we know about Owens based on the issues page available on his campaign website:

– His area of expertise is jobs. He has a seven-point plan for creating jobs. The plan includes: An emphasis on green energy, recruiting Canadian investment (if you’re familiar with NY-23, you know that it borders Canada), keeping Fort Drum strong, job training for veterans and graduates, investing in local infrastructure, higher education and agriculture.

– When it comes to health care reform, he supports all of the following: Controlling health care costs for the middle class; providing affordable health insurance to every American; preventing health insurance companies from using preexisting conditions and caps on lifetime coverage; giving small businesses and individuals access to lowest rates available to large corporations and government employees; allowing anybody to keep their existing coverage.

This part of his health care reform platform is very interesting:

Using profits from repayment of TARP funds, allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, increased efficiency in our health care system (like putting all health care records on-line and requiring insurance companies to accept payment on-line), and cutting special interest tax loopholes (like tax benefits for companies that offshore jobs) to help pay for health care reform.

He also proposes the following: Allowing states to use savings from elimination of uncompensated care costs (Over $100 billion annually) to reduce taxes. In New York this would help prevent property tax increases.

Owens opposes Medicare benefit cuts, taxing health care benefits and increasing taxes on the middle class.

In addition to all of that, we also know the following:

– Owens supports the Employee Free Choice Act in its current form.

On top of asking about EFCA, the Watertown Daily Times also asked the candidates where they stand on a handful of other issues. Here’s where Owens stands on those issues:

– American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Owens said he would have voted for the ARRA if he was in the House at the time. Scozzafava also said she would have supported it, but then gave critiques of the stimulus that showed she has some problems with the package, which tells me that maybe she would not have voted for it. (Let me just add that it is easy to say now you would vote for it, as a Democrat or Republican, given the ARRA’s positive impact.)

This is what Owens said about the stimulus:

Mr. Owens said he’d like to see more of the funds redirected toward job creation or assisting farmers.

“What you want to do with the stimulus dollars is set up a infrastructure base so that people going forward can independently make their decisions and hopefully be successful in their businesses,” he said.

– Taxation of health benefits: Owens said in the article that he would have to look at it before giving a clear position. That article was written at the end of August. His website, which was recently updated, tells us that he is opposed to taxing health benefits.

– Cash for Clunkers: Owens said he supports the CARS program (commonly known as Cash for Clunkers) and that he believes “It helped put labor back to work. And it did a lot of important things to get the economy moving in the right direction.”

– Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Owens said he wasn’t familiar with this legislation (hard to imagine, given its profile) but he did say that “Everyone should be paid fair wages for their work, irrespective of any other factor that may come into play.” While Owens should know the legislation, that position is better than the position of his two conservative opponents. Scozzafava (a woman, I remind you) said she was oppose the legislation. Conservative Doug Hoffman also said he would oppose the bill.

– Davis-Bacon: If you aren’t familiar with this (the Watertown Daily-Times apparently thought this was a good question to ask), Davis-Bacon is described as the following:

“The law, which has been in effect since the Great Depression, requires construction workers to be paid prevailing wages on public works projects.”

Owens said he would support Davis-Bacon staying in place.

Some of the other positions I have been able to find on Owens is that he supports taking tax breaks away from companies who send jobs out of New York to other locations.

Bill Owens thinks that companies receiving tax breaks from the government must live up to their end of the promise. That’s why he supports holding big businesses accountable by taking away tax breaks from companies that outsource jobs away from Upstate New York.

He also supports agriculture and rural development and this statement on his website gives us a glimpse into what his approach will be when it comes to agriculture:

That’s why Owens will fight to help local farmers and ranchers by using subsidies and import limits to make sure they get fair prices for their goods. And Owens supports Senator Chuck Schumer’s call for an investigation into why dairy farmers are getting paid lower and lower prices for their milk, while the price of milk remains high in stores. Bill will go to Congress and work for farm policy that works for producers as well as consumers to make our local economy work better for everyone.

New York has been hit hard by the dairy price crisis. One of the factors that plays into that are imports that are brought in from outside of New York (and in certain cases, outside of the country) and compete with local producers. Dairy farmers aren’t getting enough to cover the cost of producing milk and that has caused many problems for these farmers. It is key for Owens to address this issue. As an upstate representative, he will be talking about it a lot.

Social issues: There is very limited information out there, but this is what we know about Owens and two big issues: Choice and marriage equality.

On marriage equality, Owens said this to PolitickerNY:

On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage–he opposes any federal action on the “states rights issue”–telling me, “I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process.”

That same PolitickerNY piece said that “Both Scozzafava and Owens are pro-choice; Conservative Doug Hoffman is against same-sex marriage and is pro-life.”

To what degree Owens is pro-choice (there are other reproductive rights issues, obviously, that he should be asked about) remains to be seen.

Here’s the moment of truth: What ideology does Owens belong to? I have a hard time calling him a “conservaDem” or prospective Blue Dog. But I also have a hard time calling “progressive” or “liberal.” This is a man who has been an independent. And in the media accounts about this race, the word “moderate” has been tossed around. I tend to agree with the perception here: Owens is a moderate. We do need to know more (while I know this post is helpful, we need more information on him) but this is a start. The only thing people seem to know about Owens is that he isn’t a Democrat. That leads to immediate skepticism about what he will do, if elected.

Owens has made one thing clear: He will support the President. He’s the only candidate saying that and that’s something we need to focus on.

I hopefully outlined all the reasons why you shouldn’t support Dede Scozzafava. I should also add that she is opposed to cap and trade legislation (even though her predecessor, John McHugh, supported the climate change bill) and that she supports the Bush tax cuts. Owens does not support the Bush tax cuts and has put an emphasis on keeping taxes low for the middle class.

To close, I don’t believe Owens will be a Blue Dog should he be elected. But I also know that we need to know more about Owens. There has been a lack of access and information. Everything I have put here (with the exception of a few points) are items I had to look up on my own. There has been no clarification from the campaign on certain positions and that is something we need. We are working on getting that information, but for now, I hope this will suffice.

Hello everyone, It has been a long long while since I have posted here on SwingStateproject and due to the lack of posting/sleep I figured it would be nice to write up a little summary of how the 2010 Senate races look about a year out and take a closer look at how things may look further down the road.

So far from what I can tell there are 5 Democratic seats that are vulnerable and another 6 Republican Seats that are vulnerable.

Our Democratic Incumbents that face a stiff challenge in 2010.

AR-Sen: (Lean Republican) Senator Blanche Lincoln is polling very weak back home in Arkansas as James post from last week clearly shows.  http://www.swingstateproject.c…

To make the situation worse shes polling badly against virtual unknowns. This race kind of surpirses me since Senator Lincoln was able to win in 2004 with a solid 56-44 as Former (can’t say that enough) President Bush won the state by roughly the same margin. I think the Senator has a serious base problem on both sides. The Democratic base is likely turned off by her flip-flop on the Public Option in the heatlh care while the Republican base in this southern state is likely more energized. This is also one of the few states where President Obama did worse the Senator Kerry in the last presidential election. If I had to pick any incumbent democrat that I thought would go down next election I would place my bets on Senator Lincoln.

CO-Sen: (No Clear Favorite) The question here is will the Democratic primary hurt or help? My personal guess is hurt. Andrew Romanoff the former speaker of the Colorado House is running to challenge the appointed incumbent Senator Michael Bennet. I haven’t seen to many polls for the primary or general election in this state. Rassmussen had a poll about two weeks ago that had the likely Republican nominee Former Lietenant Governor Jane Norton defeating both Democrats (surprise, surprise) http://www.swingstateproject.c…

The Good news for Bennett however is that he is going into this race with a decent financial advantage over the NRSCs newest recruit. Romanoff could prove a problem but I have a feeling that deciding to run to the right of the incumbent Democrat in the Democratic primary is the nail in the coffin for his campaign.

CT-Sen: (No Clear Favorite)

Senator Dodd is in trouble allright. The countrywide scandal isn’t likely to go away anytime soon (no doubt Dodd must be contemplating stabbing Micheal Moore). The Republicans are likely to run on the countrywide scandal and nothing else. While useing scandal as an evasion for providing ideas has proven to work as an effective way of running a campaign in some cases, it might not work here simply becuase of how democratic Connecticut is. One asset Dodd has going for him is that the Senate Ethics commitee cleared him of any wrongdoing which will work well for him in the ad wars. Dodds polling is also on a rebound (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1374) after having been in the tank for several monthes however he still has a lot of work ahead of him if he plans on getting reelected. The likely republican candidate is fomrer Represenatative Rob Simmons.

NV-Sen (No Clear Favorite)

Sen. Harry Reid the guy who beat his opponent by a 2-1 margin in 2004 and rose to become the leader of the democratic caucus is now in the fight of his politcal carrier. Senator Reids position is comparable to that of Senator Lincolns in Arkansas. Both are trailing virtual unknowns. However both have the triditional advantages of incumbency and the money that comes with that. There are only 2 ways I see Reid getting saved between now and next year. 1. He starts winning some legislative victories for his caucus and party or 2. He follows the Corzine (NJ-GOV) Strategy of throwing the kitchen sink and everyone thing else a 8-figure campaign warchest can throw.

PA-Sen: (Lean Democratic) Senator Specters recent change of heart at the sight of polling showing him getting crushed in the Republican primary has not been as easy of a transition as the senator would have liked. Specter is polling dead even with his Republican rival Former Congressman Pat Tomney. Senator Specter also has to watch his left flank where Congressman Joe Sestak is running a tough campaign to defeat Senator Specter in the democratic primary.

Republicans:

KY-Sen (Lean Republican) With Senator Bunning out of the running the democratic hopes for an easy pickup have been dashed and replaced with a competitive open seat fight. The major Democratic candidates are Attorney General Jack Conway and Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo. Mongiardo this week caught a little bit of the shoe in foot while recorder in room disease last week http://www.swingstateproject.c… While this might not be the nail in the coffin for his campaign it certainly isn’t helpful to tell your boss you expect him to fail at this job and you are not interested in the office you are seeking. The Republican frontrunner in both the general and priamry elections by small margins is Secretary of State Trey Grayson. Taking Grayson on in the Republican primary is Son of the libertarian movements hero Rand Paul. I would personally like to see Conway vs. Paul and I think that would be the best scenario for democrats in this race.

LA-Sen: (Lean Republican) Senator Vitter would be a okay if he could have stayed out of the moral hypocracy zone. Sadly for Senator Vitter the democrats have found the one candidate that can give him a decent challenge, Congressman Charlie Melancon of the 3rd district is running.

Senator Vitter will need to rely on the same strategy as Senator Dodd and hope that the Republican lean of his state will help him survive scandal.

MO-Sen: (Lean Democratic) Senator Bond of Missouri has announced his intentions to retire which has opened up his senate seat. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is running on the democratic side and has the primary locked up at the moment. Meanwhile Congressman Roy Blunt has also locked up his parties nomination. It doesn’t look like either side will have the fun of a competitive primary in this state. The head to heads have generaly shown Carnahan with modest leads over Blunt.

OH-Sen: (No Clear Favorite) Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner are leading the charge for democrats in there aim to take back Ohios remaining GOP senate seat. With Republican Senator George Voinovich retiring, republicans have turned to one of the worst places to recruit potential candidates, the bush adminisration. Former congressman and trade rep. Rob Portman has the republican primary locked up. Most head to heads show both Fisher and Brunner with slight leads over Portman. In the Democratic primary it looks like Fisher should be considered the favorite due to a large financial advantage.

NH-Sen:(No Clear Favorite)

This is another state where the Republican incument (Senator Judd Gregg) has retired and both parties have allready selected there nominees for the office. The Republicans have nominated appointed Attorney General Kelly Ayotte while the Democrats have nominated Congressman Paul Hodes. The polling on this race shows a close match up. It is to early to tell which of these two will end up winning however Ms. Ayottes constant dodging of questions related to critical issues certainly is not helping her cause.

Other races that could become competitive:

Illinois: Waiting to see if Mark Kirk can avoid a tough challenge from the right and if he wins how well he polls after the primary.

Florida: If Floridas economic troubles can start being blamed on its governor like the other states have started doing then Crists bid for the Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez may face some opposition.

North Caroinla: The Democrats problem here is that they cannot get a strong candidate to announce. It is quite clear that Senator Burr is vulnerable but without a strong opponent there is a strong chance he will be reelected.

I promise I will do a mop up job of fixing grammatical mistakes after I wake up for real and have some coffee in my system.

Anyway what are your thoughts on the competitive Senate races for the next election?