Redistricting Louisiana

Using Dave’s Application, I have drawn a redistricting plan for Louisiana.  It appears that the state will be losing one seat in 2012, so the plan here has six seats.  There is currently only one Democrat in the entire delegation, and this plan aims to make that two or three Democrats, including two African-Americans.  I tried to make the map so districts are relatively compact, no parish is split among more than two districts, and altogether only 13 out of Louisiana’s 64 parishes are split at all.  

Louisiana’s legislature is currently Democratic controlled, although it may switch to GOP or divided control by 2012.  The governor is a Republican.  Nevertheless, the state is about 1/3 black, and so out of 6 seats, two should ideally be represented by an African-American.  With preclearance and VRA requirements, it may indeed be possible to draw a plan such as this and the Obama DOJ may even aim at making such a plan mandatory (even if state government control was all in GOP  hands).  Even with a huge loss of population in New Orleans, two relatively compact African-American Democratic seats centered on New Orleans (LA-2) and Baton Rouge (LA-6), respectively, are still quite feasible.  

The third possible Democratic seat, LA-4, would be in the northern part of the state (with GOP control, it would perhaps be hard to draw the seat this way, but if the legislature stays Democratic, it may be possible, especially because the seat as drawn is quite compact).  I must admit I am not that familiar with the intricacies of Louisiana politics, so perhaps this plan would not work at all, but I’m throwing it out there anyhow.

Photobucket

District 1 – blue

81% white; 9% black; 21% Obama; 78% McCain

Suburbs and exurbs of New Orleans and Baton Rouge, this district would become perhaps the most Republican congressional district in the country under this plan.

District 2 – green

50% black (50%+); 40% white; 66% Obama; 33% McCain

Due to large population losses following Katrina, this New Orleans based district has to necessarily expand geographically.  I make it go into areas south and west of the city, maximizing black and Democratic numbers.  The new district is less Democratic than the current one (which is 74% Obama) but whichever Democrat beats Cao in 2010 should have no trouble here come 2012.

District 3 – red

73% white; 18% black; 28% Obama; 70% McCain

This district includes a good part of “Cajun Country” in southern Louisiana as well as the eastern part of East Baton Rouge parish.  The new seat is heavily GOP.

District 4 – purple

55% white; 40% black; 44% Obama; 55% McCain

If Carmouche had run under these new lines, he would have very likely won last year, as the current district is only 40% Obama/59% McCain and Carmouche lost to Fleming by a couple hundred votes.  Whether Carmouche or another Democrat can win here in the future is another story, but the district might be competitive at some point in the next decade.

District  5 – teal

77% white; 17% black; 26% Obama; 73% McCain

The new 5th combines much of the current 5th and 7th districts in central and southwestern Louisiana, and should be a GOP stronghold under this plan.

District 6 – yellow

53% black; 42% white; 57% Obama; 41% McCain

This new district includes most of Baton Rouge and most areas bordering the state of Mississippi.  The current 6th is only 41% Obama/57% McCain and this plan flips those numbers around to 57% Obama/41% McCain.  The district is sufficiently Democratic and African-American to elect a black Democrat here.

So that’s my plan for Louisiana. I welcome your comments.

NY-23: Scozzafava’s Record At A Glance

Last night, Markos wrote that Republican Dede Scozzafava was “the most liberal candidate” in the 23rd congressional district race.

This doesn’t surprise. A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call “liberal” and some progressives like Markos have called a “Blue Dog.”

After reading Markos’ post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his “liberal” labeling of Scozzafava.  

– She has been endorsed in the past by the very progressive Working Families Party.

– She is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, which puts her at odds with the conservatives in the Republican Party.

– She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it.

First, those three points. The Working Families Party does endorse Republicans and allow them to run on their line. It happens, but they are more likely to back a Democratic candidate. Living in New York, my state senator is George Maziarz. He has been endorsed by the Working Families Party in the past because of his connections to people within the WFP.

For Scozzafava, being backed by the WFP can be contributed to a few things. She ran unopposed in 2008 and was not on the Working Families line when she ran for re-election in 2006. She also was not on the line in the 2002 general election. The only times since redistricting in 2002 that she appeared on the WFP line was in 2004 and 2008. In both elections, she ran unopposed. Therefore, the WFP endorsements were more by default than anything. It’s not as if she had to fight for those endorsements with another candidate.

The pro-choice and pro-marriage equality positions are very good and is a breath of fresh air for a Republican. But just as we don’t like it when Republicans try to define us based on social issues, we should not be guilty of the same when it comes to determining whether someone is progressive or not. Is she progressive on these issues? No doubt. But don’t judge a book by its cover.

The last point of Markos: She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it. In New York, that can be seen as a good and/or bad thing. There are good taxes and fees, bad taxes and fees and others that are somewhere in between. Any good progressive in New York will tell you that not all taxes are good and that not all taxes are bad. There is a middle ground. The problem in New York is that we have had too many regressive taxes and not enough progressive taxation. So giving Scozzafava credit for being liberal on this is misguided for the reasons I have shown.

But aside from Markos’ points, I also wanted to address some of the past votes Scozzafava has cast in the Assembly .

– An important issue for progressives in New York has been Rockefeller Drug Law Reform. A bill (A.6085) was passed in the Assembly and a deal was reached with both houses to reform the broken drug laws that led to extreme sentences for some of the most minor offenses. The roll call vote shows that Scozzafava voted against these reforms.

– Earlier this year, the Assembly passed a comprehensive gun package to combat gun violence and put laws in place to provide for better tracking of guns and provide for more accountability. The package includes 13 bills that were passed in the Assembly. Of those 13 bills, Scozzafava voted for only one. That bill was A.7733 and its purpose is to “Authorizes courts to revoke firearms license and seize the weapons of certain individuals.” Essentially, if the person is a threat to the public, courts could take away the firearms license and weapons of that person.

It is safe to say that Scozzafava is pro-gun and clearly anti-gun control of any kind. (I would give her credit for the single “Yea” vote, but it was a unanimous vote in the Assembly. Every Republican voted for it.)

Also, keep in mind that the package came after the shootings in Binghamton, which was a national news story and led to immediate action in the Assembly.

– Scozzafava’s record on the environment is mixed, at best. She voted against the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, but voted for the Green Jobs bill that was unanimously passed in the Assembly. The Assembly passed a package of environmental bills earlier this year. Of the 14 bills included in the package, Scozzafava voted for six of the bills and against eight of them. These were bills that were supported by progressives and the Democratic conference in the Assembly.

– Scozzafava voted against the Farmworkers Bill of Rights that passed the Assembly. This was seen as a pro-labor and pro-worker bill to support farm laborers who face unpleasant conditions in some instances.

– Voted against a bill that would provide additional compensation for police officers in New York City that use a foreign language in the course of their duties. She also voted against legislation that would give the attorney general jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute police misconduct.

– Voted against regulating the use of “no-knock” warrants and monitoring the use of all search warrants.

– Cast a vote against the 2010 Campaign Finance Reform Act, which would provide “for optional partial public financing of certain election campaigns in this state.” (Here is more on this legislation she voted against.)

– Voted against a bill that would require restaurants (with 15 or more outlets in the U.S.) to post the caloric information of menu items. Also voted against a bill banning trans fats in restaurants.

– Voted against legislation that would strengthen New York’s laws against unfair debt collection practices. Also voted against “legislation requiring debt collection firms to provide consumers a written “Debtor’s Bill of Rights” along with their initial debt collection communication.”

– Voted against expanding foreclosure protections. This bill included protections for tenants in property that is being foreclosed.

– Among the many areas, one area that Scozzafava seems to have a consistent record of voting “no” in is housing. This year, the Assembly has passed 20 pieces of legislation related to housing. Of those 20 bills, Scozzafava voted against several of them. The bills she voted against include: A rent increase cap, rent increases linked to inflation rate, Section 8 housing being included in rent regulation, landlord rental unit recovery, affordable housing preservation, excessive rent increase shield and expansion of the Loft Law.

The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.

One more thing: This statement on Scozzafava’s website came after President Barack Obama’s health care address a couple of weeks ago. One of the ideas she pushes? Tort reform. Not exactly the progressive approach to solving the health care crisis, but it’s one of the first (if not THE first) things brought up by Scozzafava.

The conclusion I draw from looking over numerous pieces of legislation is that Scozzafava on most issues is nothing more than your average Assembly Republican. Most of the votes that she did support the Democratic (or progressive) positions came when the whole Assembly voted unanimously for a bill. Scozzafava’s conservative positions are not reflected in the mainstream media, where she is labeled a “liberal” because of her stances on two social issues that, while important, should never define any candidate and should never be the sole indicator of a candidate’s ideology.

I see Scozzafava as someone who is far from the Glenn Becks of the world. But that doesn’t mean she is not conservative. The modern-day conservative is a different breed, but a lot of what Scozzafava stands for resembles an old school conservative. At best, she’s a moderate with conservative leanings. At worst, she’s a conservative Republican whose liberal stances on two social issues have given her an inaccurate label.

Would she be a Susan Collins-type, as Markos suggested? Probably not. Her record has shown that she hasn’t really been willing to buck the GOP party line on big issues (unless the whole GOP goes along with it). There are worse Republicans than Scozzafava, but she isn’t someone I would depend on to cross party lines and vote on a Democratic (and/or progressive) issue.

SSP Daily Digest: 10/2

CA-Sen: We’re starting to get fundraising reports filtering in, via the media and the rumor mill. And one of the most eyebrow-raising numbers comes from Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, of all places: he pulled in $330K in the third quarter, leaving him sitting on over $700K. He’s been given afterthought status as the NRSC and tradmed have rushed to fawn over Carly Fiorina, but his seeming success at tapping movement conservative wallets indicates that he won’t be going away quietly.

FL-Sen: When you have so many people giving you money, a few of them are bound to be very bad apples…. Alan Mendelsohn, a prominent eye doctor and chief fundraiser for the Florida Medical Association PAC, was also a key financial backer of Charlie Crist and a member of his transition team. Yesterday he was charged by a federal grand jury with mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and lying to federal agents.

IL-Sen: Maybe Mike Ditka doesn’t have the same iconic power that he used to, but if he does, then upstart GOP primary challenger Patrick Hughes got a really big get. The former coach of da Bears endorsed Hughes, who seems to be coalescing most of the hard-right, anti-Mark Kirk sentiment in the Senate primary.

MA-Sen: More showy fundraising numbers out of Massachusetts, where everyone is scrambling for money in view of the primary election a few months away. Most notable is AG Martha Coakley, whose only real weakness seemed to be a lack of money (as she already has statewide name rec, is the only woman in the race, and a big edge in the polls). That’s a weakness no longer, as she raised $2.1 million in less than a month. By contrast, Rep. Michael Capuano raised only $300K in that period; even with the $1.2 mil in his House account, his one advantage — money — has now vaporized. The big surprise is City Year founder Alan Khazei, who raised $1 million in just a week after a late start to his candidacy; the question is whether he can convert that into a decent share of the vote. Celtics co-owner Steven Pagliuca raised only $200K, but can dip into his own money to advertise.

NV-Sen: A long but must-read piece from the NYT looks at the tangled web between John Ensign and the Hampton family. Most significantly, it looks like Ensign not only went further than previously thought in trying to line up a job for Doug Hampton (the mistress’s husband) but then used his governmental power to do favors for Hampton’s new employer, Allegiant Air — certainly a violation of Senate ethics rules. And this is the Ensign that new GOP golden girl Sue Lowden was trying to circle the wagons around, even long after most of the rest of the local GOP had decided he was better served under the bus.

NY-Gov: This is interesting: Mitt Romney is moving to back ex-Rep. Rick Lazio in the governor’s race and hosting a Lazio fundraiser. Since polls show Lazio getting completely flattened by Rudy Giuliani if they face off in a gubernatorial primary, Romney’s expenditure of political capital is either a) a sign that insiders are pretty well aware that Giuliani won’t be getting into the governor’s race after all, or else b) a repayment for Lazio’s backing in the 2008 prez primary and a thumb-in-the-eye for primary rival Giuliani.

GA-12: More news out of the 12th: Wayne Mosley, a wealthy doctor and the NRCC’s recruit in the race thanks to his self-funding capacity (in fact, one of their top recruits in the nation, if you believe Mosely himself), had to drop out of the race. Mosely is being sued by his hospital for breach of contract, and apparently that’s taking up all his time and money. That leaves Thunderbolt Fire Chief Carl Smith and activist Jeanne Seaver as options to go up against Blue Dog Dem Rep. John Barrow.

HI-01: Here’s some good news for those of us who’d like to see the House stay nice and Ed Case-free: state Senate president Colleen Hanabusa is getting in the race for the Democratic nomination for the open seat in the 1st being vacated by Neil Abercrombie. Hanabusa’s main opponent looks like it will be ex-Rep. Ed Case, who beat Hanabusa in the 2002 race in HI-02; the progressive Hanabusa may have better odds against the moderate Case this time, as Case alienated a lot of the local party with an ill-advised primary challenge to Sen. Dan Akaka in 2006.

MO-03: Rep. Russ Carnahan picked up a Republican opponent: attorney Ed Martin. The 3rd is a D+7 district that has presented Carnahan with little trouble in the past.

NY-23: Dede Scozzafava finally hit the TV airwaves with a new ad, leading the polls but lagging both her opponents in the battle for the airwaves. Also, check out Robert Harding’s thorough examination at the Albany Project of Scozzafava’s not-so-liberal actual voting record in the Assembly, if you’re looking for a counterpoint to yesterday’s Daily Kos piece about Scozzafava.

SD-AL: Republican state Rep. Blake Curd, a Sioux Falls surgeon, is the first opponent to officially get in the race against Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Secretary of State Chris Nelson is still considering the race, though, and given his statewide profiel seems like he’d be likelier to win the GOP primary if he got in.

VA-10: Rep. Frank Wolf, the Republican dean of the Virginia delegation, has picked up a Democratic challenger in the form of attorney Patrick Lewis. Demographics are quickly moving this NoVa suburban/exurban district in the Democratic direction (it’s up to R+2 now), but Wolf has the kind of personal staying power that makes Lewis’s challenge an uphill fight.

OH-SoS: Bad news out of the Ohio Secretary of State race (on the short list as one of the nation’s most important downballot statewide offices): Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown decided to end her bid for the Democratic nomination, preferring instead to run for re-election. While this may spare the Dems a contested primary, this leaves only the much more conservative state Rep. Jennifer Garrison in the race, which may leave the base unenthused for the general election.

ME-Init: Democracy Corps has a poll out on the anti-gay marriage ballot measure in Maine. They find 41% “yes” and 50% “no.” (Remember, as with California’s Prop 8, a “yes” vote is a vote against gay marraige.) These numbers are slightly better than the near-even split an R2K poll found a couple of weeks ago. But as Markos notes, D-Corps tested registered voters, while R2K looked at likely voters. (D)

DE-Sen: Castle Leads Beau by 5

Rasmussen (9/30):

Beau Biden (D): 42

Mike Castle (R): 47

Undecided: 6

Beau Biden (D): 49

Christine O’Donnell (R): 40

Undecided: 8

(MoE: ±4.5%)

These are the best numbers yet for Beau in a head-to-head against Castle. Back in March, Public Policy Polling had Castle up by 8 points, and a debatable Susquehanna Research poll from May had Biden trailing by 21 points.

Biden’s back from Iraq, and everyone — Castle, included, it seems — is waiting for him to make the first move. There have been some mixed signals out of Delaware on Biden’s intentions, but the overwhelming sentiment is that he’ll jump into the race soon. So what’ll it be for Castle: retiring to catch some rays in Florida or jumping into a Senate campaign?

RaceTracker: DE-Sen | DE-AL

NY-23: Money Where Their Mouths Are

It looks like the independent expenditure war in New York’s 23rd District is heating up in a big way. The Club For Growth reported a $275,000 media buy attacking Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava earlier this evening with the FEC, on top of a $15K direct mail piece in support of Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.

The party committees are also in the thick of it, too: the NRCC upped their ad buy against Owens by $35K, raising their total tab for the open seat race to just north of $150,000. The DCCC dropped another $65K on media buys earlier this week, too, bringing their total amount spent on Owens to $127K. I’d expect those buys to snowball in the coming days, as the committees try to neutralize the Club For Growth’s investment.

NJ-Gov: Two More Pollsters Show a Tightening Race

Monmouth University (PDF) (9/24-29, likely voters, 9/8-10 in parens):

Jon Corzine (D-inc): 40 (39)

Chris Christie (R): 43 (47)

Chris Daggett (I): 8 (5)

Undecided: 8 (7)

(MoE: ±4.3%)

As we’ve seen from some other polling firms, Corzine’s numbers haven’t really improved, but Christie’s keep dropping – take a look at the Pollster chart. Monmouth also shows the race tied among registered voters, 40-40.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (9/28-9/30, likely voters, 8/3-5 in parens):

Jon Corzine (D-inc): 42 (40)

Chris Christie (R): 46 (48)

Chris Daggett (I): 7 (-)

Undecided: 5 (9)

(MoE: ±4%)

R2K didn’t ask about Daggett last time (which was a couple of months ago), but he seems to be drawing from Christie and the undecided column, rather than Corzine, which is good. Incidentally, “even the conservative” Wall Street Journal has a new editorial out tomorrow, hammering Christie for running an “empty” campaign. They hit him hardest for his failure to articulate any plans for dealing with Jersey’s high property taxes (this is the WSJ, after all) – hopefully this attack will resonate with the anti-tax GOP base and keep them home or spur them to vote Daggett. The WSJ finishes with this:

Even if Mr. Christie ekes out a win because Mr. Corzine is so unpopular, the Republican will arrive in Trenton with a mandate to do what he campaigned on – nothing.

Ouch! With friends like these….

Ohio, Part 4

By: http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the last part of my review of the swing state Ohio.

Republican Ohio

What parts of Ohio vote Republican?

All of it, of course, except for the parts that vote Democratic.

That is a pretty facetious answer to a fairly serious question, but there is something to it. Blue Ohio has a set of defined, separate characteristics. Red Ohio does too, but not to the same degree. It is far easier to describe Democratic Ohio than Republican Ohio.

The following map is a good beginning in exploring Republican Ohio.

Photobucket

These are the places which most heavily supported John McCain (for those who are curious, the most Democratic counties were Cleveland, Toledo, Ohio University, and Youngstown). They are located primarily in the southwestern portion of the state, away from the Democratic ‘7’. Interestingly, practically none are part of Appalachia – considered Obama’s weakest region in the country.

Southwest Ohio historically – and to this day remains – the most conservative part of Ohio. Geographically, it is the Republican base; even in Democratic landslides, it often will vote for the red candidate.

There is another trait the highlighted counties have in common: most are semirural and somewhat less populated. Another map helpfully illustrates this.

Photobucket

Compare the two maps. Very few of the counties in which John McCain took over 60% of the vote were populated enough to appear on the above map. There is very little overlap between the reddest parts of Ohio and the densest parts of Ohio – except, importantly, the suburbs of Cincinnati.

More below the flip.

This does not mean, however, that all counties with over fifty thousand votes went blue. Quite the opposite, in fact: many of the yellow counties voted for McCain. Only counties with over one hundred thousand votes tread Democratic. Take a look:

Photobucket

What does this mean?

The yellow counties are an imperfect representation of what famously cost John Kerry the state: the exurban reaches of Ohio, especially in Columbus and Cincinnati. Most of them are well-off and home to middle-class folk, like exurbs in general. White flight played an important role in their formation (although it was not, as some maintain, the biggest motivator). Both McCain and Bush got their largest margins from these places; they constitute an important – perhaps the most important – block of the GOP coalition today.

This has not always been the case. Before 2000, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) tended to give Republican candidates their biggest margins in the state. Today, it has been replaced by the surrounding counties, rapidly growing exurban communities. Nevertheless, Hamilton County remains a reliable Republican stronghold.

Contrary to popular perception, the city Cincinnati itself is not that conservative (not anymore); its deep red suburbs account for the county’s Republican lean. Cities in general never vote Republican, but in GOP strongholds – like Cincinnati – the overwhelmingly red suburban vote outweighs their Democratic lean.

For a visual illustration of Cincinnati’s importance, here is how George Bush did in Ohio:

Photobucket

Cincinnati and its surrounding exurbs provide the largest Republican margins. The exurbs of Columbus are going heavily Republican; so is much of eastern Ohio.

Note, however, that George Bush only won the state by 3.5%. Unfortunately the Times does not have maps of stronger Republican victories (e.g. 1988, 1980).

How has the Republican base changed since 2000? The following map provides a sense of how things stand today.

Photobucket

There is not too much to show. One can see a coherent north-south divide; northern Ohio has become more Democratic, southern Ohio less so. Most of the rural southwest is fairly lukewarm to Obama – but so is the blue east. Interestingly, the exurbs seem to have moved Democratic more than their rural brethren. Note that most counties are blue because the country as a whole voted more Democratic in 2008.

It is difficult to tell how much of this is permanent and how much was specific to 2008. Perhaps the exurban counties were only bluer because of the housing crisis. Certainly a place like Cincinnati (with its large black population) voted for Obama as a person, not the Democratic party. Then again, maybe not; the county supported Bush ’04 by only 5%.

But as a whole, red Ohio seems to vote the same way it has for the past few years (or generations). Neither it nor the Ohio Republican Party has changed much in recent years. The same cannot be said for the Democrats.

Alan Grayson, 2010 and smart fundraising.

Let me begin by saying that I agree with nearly everything that Congressman Grayson said and agree particularly with his comments that House Republicans are Neanderthals. I agree that someone who stands up and defines the Republican House Caucus for exactly what they are is an incredibly valuable thing. But at the same time I worry about campaign giving which depends almost completely on emotional response and which then leaves the donor nearly powerless over what happens to that money and which does nothing to solve what at this moment is the Democrats current biggest problem when it comes to the 2010. It is also important to look into the facts which surround every race, from the money dumped on Congressman Grayson, or Rob Miller who is challenging Joe Wilson in South Carolina’s second district.

For instance, what percentage of Congressman Grayson’s donors knew that he is a massive self-funder who gave himself more than three million dollars for his 2008 race.  This does not automatically mean he should be forced to self-fund forever, or that he isn’t worthy of donations, but it does raise the question  at least slightly.  

When the money simple rains onto incumbents it distorts the system. It is more than likely that amongst the something like 100 democratic candidates running in either  open seats or challenging incumbent Republicans there is another Alan Grayson, or Carol Shea-Porter , or David Loebsack  who given the nature of the race they are running, are only that 100k, or so away from being for real.

As a first step, might I suggest to Congressman Grayson, that in response to the outpouring he has received his campaign committee goes out and finds ten strong house challengers who are progressive champions  and gives them the maximum allowed by law. This will run him at most half, of what he has raised from the progressive blogosphere and will strengthen his influence far more than simply keeping it for more television ads in his own district. If he announces those ten, we can have a multiplier effect, and truly strengthen our hand. It isn’t perfect, but it is a start.  

While this would be a good start is doesn’t address the bigger problem of how dollars often spent in ways which don’t strengthen the progressive movement or deal with the big problems we face.  One such potential instance is the nearly $ 250,000 being spent  on T.V. ads attacking Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe  on Healthcare and the Public Option, by the Progressive Change  Campaign Committee and Democracy for  America.   Don’t get me wrong I want the Public Option but it seems that either efforts are playing into the very same game that we don’t want to play.  

This  is because I don’t think Olympia Snowe will vote for the kind of bill that we want to see. It seems unlikely that she will be truly willing to be the only Republican willing to break with her entire caucus.  While I would love to be able to put her seat into play  in 2012 the total failure to touch her much more conservative counterpart in 2008, it seems like a pretty remote possibility. The White House in searching for Bipartisanship is focusing on her, but when we play along we raise her importance and that is bad.

The Baucus ads are also somewhat questionable, first of all while not facing the voters again until 2014, it is unlikely these ads will have an impact on his re-election efforts.  In general I take him at his word that he supports a public option  but feels constrained by  needing to get 60 votes in the Senate. While I agree this is a somewhat lame answer, the reality is that for rural red state Democrats, in a 60 plus Democratic Senate, the sixty vote rule is the an important defender of their power, and thereby the power of  their States. This is a complicated internal fight, where I agree the White House in facts holds more cards than does either Baucus or Harkin, as does the Progressive Block in the House. Hoping to improve Baucus’s behavior with T.V. maybe a good idea but might not be.

The major problem with issue ads, is that they quickly disappear, and it is very difficult to pin people down on their support for particular legislative tools.  We know, what we mean, but the broader audience probably doesn’t, as can be seen by the very different answers you can get when asking about the Public Option.

The big structural problem.

Going in 2010 we as progressive face a serious structural problem. It can be described best as a Demographic gap, and it something that gets whispered about but never discussed openly nor is much of a cure sought or hope made in that effort. In 2006, which was a very good Democratic year, the gap persisted.  The 2006  electorate was much older and much whiter than the 2008  electorate. It is because of this and this alone that Republicans are in serious contention for making serious gains in 2010, gains which if made will be difficult to change in 2012, because  of the way the Senate Map exists.  On a national level, in 2006, the electorate was 12% under 30.  In 2008, it was  18%.  In 2006 the electorate  was 10% African American and  in 2008 it was 13% African American.  Given how those groups voted in 2008, that amounts to a nearly four point swing to Republicans in 2010 before anyone even changes their minds.

 In two of the three most endangered  Senate  seats, the problem is even worse.  In Connecticut in 2006% the electorate was 8% African American , in 2008 12%, Latino’s were 5% in 2006, and 8% in 2008,  under 30 was 18% in 2008, and 10% in 2006.  In Nevada in 2006 African Americans were 6%, in 2008 10%, Latino’s  in 2006 12%, in 2008 15% under 30, 2006  12%,  2008, 17%.  With the 2008 Electorate, Dodd and Reid are on much firmer ground, with the 2006 electorate they face much scarier races.  

Conclusion

While obviously a win on healthcare with a public option would be very helpful, and might even have some dent on fixing this Demographic problem, this problem needs to be tackled much more carefully, and obviously the formula of the past, particularly relaying on T.V. Ads[ far and a way still the biggest campaign expense for both production, consultant fee’s and of course the air time itself.] is wrong.  We need to experiment in new and different types of infrastructure to tackle this problem, and between Grayson, Miller and the ads on Baucus and Snowe.  The progressive blogosphere spent nearly a million dollars,[depending how you count Miller even more.]  Without spending a dime on the most pressing problem. A million dollars is a lot of money in politics if it is spent wisely, but when it is simply handed over to campaigns with no future accountability, and in potentially inefficient ways, It is a shame because the problems we face from a policy perspective comes from spending advocacy and campaign dollars inefficiently and worse playing the game of those who rig it so we never win.

PA-Sen, PA-Gov: Tight Senate Race, Corbett Leads for Governor

Quinnipiac (9/22-28, registered voters, 7/14-19 in parentheses):

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 42 (45)

Pat Toomey (R): 43 (44)

Don’t know: 13 (10)

Joe Sestak (D): 35 (35)

Pat Toomey (R): 38 (39)

Don’t know: 25 (23)

(MoE: ±3%)

Arlen Specter (D-inc): 44 (55)

Joe Sestak (D): 25 (23)

Don’t know: 28 (19)

(MoE: ±?%)

Quinnipiac (9/21-28, registered voters, 7/14-19 in parentheses):

Dan Onorato (D): 28

Tom Corbett (R): 47

Don’t know: 24

Jack Wagner (D): 29

Tom Corbett (R): 44

Don’t know: 25

(MoE: ±3%)

Dan Onorato (D): 14 (16)

Joe Hoeffel (D): 12 (NA)

Jack Wagner (D): 11 (16)

Chris Doherty (D): 8 (NA)

Tom Knox (D): 5 (13)

Don’t know: 46 (54)

Tom Corbett (R): 42 (38)

Jim Gerlach (R): 13 (15)

Don’t know: 43 (37)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Lots of data to look at from Quinnipiac, who look at the primary fields in both the Senate and Governor’s races in Pennsylvania as well as head-to-head general election matchups in both races. The Senate race has both Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak neck-and-neck with ex-Rep. Pat Toomey; there has actually been very little movement since the previous Quinnipiac poll in the head-to-heads, although the Democratic primary looks a lot closer (but at this point Specter seems to be bleeding votes to “don’t know” rather than directly to Sestak).

Things look worse in the Governor’s race, where AG Tom Corbett leads both Auditor Jack Wagner and Allegheny Co. Executive Dan Onorato by double digits. In July, everyone was so little-known that Quinnipiac simply asked a Generic D/Generic R question (where “R” won, 38-37), so clearly Wagner and Onorato are underperforming their imaginary Dem colleague. This may, however, be a factor of name recognition, as Corbett is much better-known than any of his competition (he has 43/7 favorables with 49% don’t know, while Gerlach and all the Dems top 70% don’t know). It seems like Wagner (who is elected statewide, and actually had the biggest victory of anyone running statewide in 2008) should be well-known — but setting aside us political junkies, who really knows who their Auditor is (while Corbett has spent years in the spotlight via the Bonusgate investigation)?

There’s one other consideration here, one that cropped up with Quinnipiac’s last poll too: they sampled an equal number of Democrats and Republicans (they may have oversampled to compensate, but they simply don’t provide any more details in the crosstabs as to whether that’s what they did), which is way off from the state’s actual composition. Bear in mind, though, that Nate Silver re-ran the July numbers to correct for that problem and found that it only made a few points’ worth of difference… so at this point, this looks more a case of low-info voters not yet knowing enough about Toomey other than that he’s not Arlen Specter, and not knowing much of anything about anybody other than Corbett in the governor’s race. (UPDATE: In response to questions about the July poll, Quinnipiac said they weighted, but based on ‘party identification’ rather than registration. Assumedly they’re using the same method this time too.)

RaceTracker: PA-Sen | PA-Gov