Swing State Project

No! I like it in here!

• CO-Sen: The Denver Post does some interesting digging into how former House speaker Andrew Romanoff wound up in the Senate Democratic primary against Michael Bennet after all. Governor Bill Ritter tried to give the Lt. Gov. spot to Romanoff after Barbara O’Brien left the position in January, but the deal collapsed, leaving Romanoff to decide on the primary instead this summer.

• IL-Sen: Chicago’s city treasurer, Stephanie Neely, has decided not to run in the Senate primary. However, Chicago’s inspector general David Hoffman seems to be taking tangible steps to get into the race, saying he’ll make a formal announcement after Labor Day.

• MA-Sen: Rep. Stephen Lynch picked up filing papers for the Senate special election in Massachusetts, indicating he’s likely to soon join Martha Coakley. Lynch, who represents a heavily blue-collar Catholic district based in south Boston, would likely be the only anti-abortion Democratic in the race, but he has strong ties with organized labor.

• MD-Gov: While most of the question marks surrounding the Maryland governor’s race involve whether or not GOP ex-Gov. Bob Ehrlich wants a rematch with current Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, now some are wondering if O’Malley will face a primary challenge from former Prince George’s Co. Executive Wayne Curry. Speculation centers on how O’Malley has nailed down endorsements from Dems all over the state but is missing some key endorsements from PG County.

• NJ-Gov: Wow, what is it with this guy? So it turns out that back in 2002, Chris Christie turned his sail barge the wrong way down a one-way street, struck a motorcyclist (who was taken to the hospital)… and didn’t get a ticket. No claims about a tow-truck driver recognizing Christie this time – here, we know he identified himself to the officer on the scene. When he was asked if Christie’s title affected the officer’s decision not to issue a summons, the police director said “I don’t think I want to make that kind of deduction, but I think the facts speak for themselves.” Ouch. (D)

• OR-Gov: Lots of movement in the Oregon governor’s race now that John Kitzhaber is in. Democratic state Rep. Brian Clem (who had set up an exploratory committee a few months ago) quickly moved to endorse Kitzhaber and not just get out of the way but join Kitz’s campaign as a director. Meanwhile, Republican state Senator Jason Atkinson — who finished third in the GOP primary in 2006 and has “next in line” status — informally told his hometown paper, the Medford Mail-Tribune, that “he’s running,” although the formal announcement won’t happen for a while. Finally, it sounds like Rep. Peter DeFazio is making a move to… do something. He’s still considering the race, but will make a decision “around Labor Day,” which is soon.

• SC-Gov: Here’s a tea leaf that Jim Rex, who’d be the Dems’s strongest candidate, seems likely to get in the gubernatorial race. In the midst of touring the state and raising money, he says he won’t run for another term as Superintendent of Education.

• AZ-01: It sounds like the GOP has a candidate lined up in the 1st, to against freshman Dem Ann Kirkpatrick, who’s a definite improvement over the sad Sydney Hay from last time. Former state Senate majority leader Russell “Rusty” Bowers (also a former state Rep., and now a sand-and-gravel industry lobbyist) seems like he’s set to run.

• IN-08: The NRCC, however, wasn’t able to pin down a challenger to Brad Ellsworth in the 8th. Former Vandenburgh County Commissioner and county assessor Cheryl Musgrave decided not to run against Ellsworth, although she is considering a state House run instead against incumbent Dem Gail Riecken.

• PA-03: The GOP had been previously struggling to find anyone at all to go against freshman Dem Kathy Dahlkemper, but now they’ve landed someone fairly impressive sounding. John Onorato (not to be confused with Dem gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato) is the former Erie County Solicitor (analogous to DA in most states), giving him a large constituency to build on.

• SD-AL: State Rep. Shantel Krebs of Sioux Falls said that she’s considering challenging Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in 2010. Krebs would likely need to get past Chris Nelson, the state’s two-term Secretary of State, in the GOP primary though; he’s also in the “considering” phase. (Remember that South Dakota House districts are teeny constituencies, with only 22,000 residents each.)

• NYC-Mayor: One more SurveyUSA poll of the Dem primary in the Big Apple. William Thompson and Mark Green have pretty clear paths in the Mayor and Public Advocate primaries (Thompson leads Tony Avella 52-14), but check out the Comptroller’s race. It’s a three-way slugfest between three city councilors: 25% for John Liu, 24% for Melinda Katz, and 21% for David Yassky.

• Ads: The DNC, via Organizing for America, is running cable TV spots for four potentially vulnerable House Dems, thanking them for their pro-stimulus votes: Ben Chandler, Martin Heinrich, Travis Childers, and Zack Space.

• Polling: The Masters of the Crosstabs were all on hand to do a panel on polling at Netroots Nation last month: Charlie Cook, Mark Blumenthal, Nate Silver, and Charles Franklin, moderated by Greg Dworkin (aka DemFromCT). At the link, you’ll find a video of their session. (Charlie gives a nice shout-out to SSP at about 7:40, and again at 80:20, where he talks about the “growing sophistication of the blogosphere.”) (D)

• Humor: Autotune the News 8 is out, in case you’ve ever wanted Joe Biden to sing you a slow jam.

For those who aren’t tired of celebrating Curt Hanson’s win in the Iowa House district 90 special election, this article by Jason Clayworth in Thursday’s Des Moines Register should be good for a few laughs.

Link:

A group opposed to same-sex marriages failed to secure victory for Republicans in Iowa this week, but the massive injection of out-of-state money on the issue foreshadows what’s to come in next year’s elections, political scholars said Wednesday.

Despite the loss, the National Organization for Marriage succeeded in making gay marriage an issue, the head of the group said Wednesday. He vowed that its “Reclaim Iowa Project” will remain active in the 2010 state elections.

I’m sure “making gay marriage an issue” was just the kind of success the NOM’s generous donors (whoever they are) were looking for. Why, Iowans in House district 90 might never have realized same-sex couples could marry if not for the NOM’s major ad campaign.

Back to that Register article:

Jeff Boeyink, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party, said many no-party voters Tuesday supported [Stephen] Burgmeier. That was a victory itself, he said.

Voters want the opportunity to vote on the gay marriage issue, he said.

“We moved the needle a lot,” Boeyink said. “We didn’t get the victory, but we take away some real positives out of this.”

Sure, Mr. Boeyink, you “moved the needle a lot.” Your candidate, elected three times as a Jefferson County supervisor, lost his own county by more than 600 votes.

The marriage group did not lose the race for Burgmeier, said Chuck Hurley, a former Republican legislator and now president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group against gay marriage. He said the issue will be a major topic in the 2010 elections.

“Marriage won the day,” Hurley said of the election. “I think it was a huge issue in the campaign.”

Yes, Republicans tried to make marriage a huge issue in the campaign while Curt Hanson talked about jobs, economic development and renewable energy. The National Organization for Marriage’s television ad used the same kind of rhetoric as the Iowa Family Policy Center’s “Let Us Vote” campaign: instead of advocating discrimination against same-sex couples, the ads supported Burgmeier as someone who would “let voters have a say.” Well, voters in House district 90 had their say.

I don’t want to get too cocky. Tuesday’s election could have gone the other way if not for the outstanding GOTV effort by organizers supporting Hanson. But the fact is, a special election a few months after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling went into effect is exactly the kind of race likely to be disproportionately influenced by same-sex marriage. In Vermont and Massachusetts, the electoral backlash against supporters of marriage equality was short-lived. If the Iowa Family Policy Center (which designated a staffer to work on Burgmeier’s campaign) and nearly $90,000 worth of NOM tv ads couldn’t leverage this issue into a victory on Tuesday, I don’t think Republicans will get far running against gay marriage 14 months from now.

For a more honest Republican assessment of Tuesday’s special election results, read this post by Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican.

Back in 2004, North Carolina preferred a potted plant (err..Richard Burr) over an uncharismatic, aloof candidate (Erskine Bowles).  Although trailing in the polls during the 2004 Summer, Burr caught on fire and defeated Bowles 52-47.

How did Burr win?  Well, it wasn’t for his charisma, and it wasn’t because of name recognition.  It wasn’t for his progressive ideas or his brain power.  Burr won because (a) the GOP brand was hot in 2004, (b) the Democrat was a crummy candidate, and (c) Bush ignited the Republican base.

Going forward today, let me list Richard Burr’s accomplishments during his tenure in the US Senate.  Well, let me think…oh yeah, he told his wife during the financial meltdown to withdraw as much as humanly possible out of the ATM that night (and every other day afterward).

I’m being sarcastic..I’m sure he has some sort of record that he can promote, but he’s not too good about communicating them to the folks in NC.

Going to the 2010 election, what plan does Burr have to win re-election?  He doesn’t have Dubya running, and the GOP brand is not as hot in NC as it was in 2004.  His only hope is that the Democrats nominate an uncharismatic candidate and that the Obama administration has some severe stumbling blocks.

I don’t see Burr winning re-election unless the GOP name catches on fire again to the 2004 level.  I also don’t see the Democrats nominating a boring candidate like Erskine Bowles again.

My preferred candidate is Cal Cunningham.  He’s young, attractive, and a progressive.  He’s a Captain in the U.S Army reserves.  He has charisma.  He could be the next John Edwards (the 1998 version) to sweep NC.

Okay, everyone is thinking of “name recognition”.  In NC, name recognition of new candidates don’t mean much.  John Edwards wasn’t a true “name candidate” in 1998.  He was a high-profile attorney in Raliegh, but most of the state had no idea what John Edwards was about.  Kay Hagan was not well-known, either.

What did Hagan and Edwards have in common?  They were both young candidates that represented the ideas and beliefs better than the incumbent.  In addition, both were much younger than the incumbent Senator.  Cunningham also is considerably younger than Burr, and he is also a better fit for the NC electorate than the very conservative Richard Burr.

Don’t dismiss Cunningham because of his lack of name recognition.  Name recognition should be Burr’s problem (a third of the electorate has no idea that he is their Senator).

 

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (8/31-9/2, likely voters):

Harry Reid (D-inc): 40

Danny Tarkanian (R): 45

Harry Reid (D-inc): 41

Susan Lowden (R): 44

(MoE: ±4%)

These results match pretty well with recent internal surveys released by the camps of Lowden and Tarkanian, and also with Mason-Dixon’s latest survey of the state.

Now, some may say that Reid has a lot of room to grow due to his early inability to consolidate the Democratic vote (just 70% of Dem voters are committing themselves to his re-election so far, compared to over 80% of Republicans who are firmly voting against him), but I’d still call this “deep shit” territory. Reid’s going to be draining his war chest dry — and probably lean on the DSCC to help — even if the GOP nominates a third-stringer like Tarkanian or Lowden. Even if Reid manages to survive, it looks like it’ll be an ugly win.

RaceTracker Wiki: NV-Sen

(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)

This redistricting map has really been a long time coming, but trying to match up the 36,000 census blocks of NYC and the 20,000 blocks of Nassau County (among many, many others) with a precinct and creating a consolidated population-political data file tends to take a while. But unquestionably, I also think this is my best map yet. I used 2008 population estimates by city/town, projected forward to 2010. I also worked painstakingly hard for population equality, which I think is evident in that the total deviation for all 28 districts is 86, or 0.012% of a single district.

At a whopping 26-3, our NY delegation is already pretty maxed out. With the loss of a district in 2010, there’s a good opportunity to consolidate and create what could possibly be a 27-1 delegation. I chose to do this by eliminating John McHugh’s district and then employing some old-fashioned cracking of Nassau County to defeat Peter King. Side goals included strengthening Massa, Arcuri, Murphy, Hall, and McMahon, while preserving VRA districts for Meeks, Towns, Clarke, Velazquez, Rangel, and Serrano.

My district maps later. First, some eye candy:

I’m sure there’s enough in these maps to make for its own diary, but that’s for another time….

(Sidenote: Yes, I am sending my dataset to Dave and David, so hopefully this can be incorporated into DRA. I do have a ‘tutorial’ on how I do my redistricting where I used Wisconsin as an example that I will hopefully post shortly.)

Now, here’s my map:

Starting upstate:

As is the case with a lot of my districts, I took some inspiration from the districts of yesteryear (or… 1993-2003). This would still be Louise Slaughter’s district, recentered around Monroe County (with an arm to grab Geneseo out of Livingston County). The percentage drop seems daunting at first (down from 68.47%), and there’s not a good reason for Buffalo and Rochester to be packed into the same district. Anyways, Slaughter is familiar with the area and would be solid for any Rochester Democrat should Slaughter choose to retire.

I think a lot of times, we overestimate the Democratic strength of Brian Higgins’ district – he was only elected in 2004, and Obama only scored 54.19% here. I’ll admit, I shuffled around this district quite a bit, with it going from Buffalo north instead of south. We add all of Niagara and Orleans Counties, with a sliver of Monroe for population balancing, but we do retain all of Buffalo’s South District, which Higgins represented in the Buffalo Common Council before getting elected to Congress. From this we get slightly more than a 3% boost to 57.52%; this should be safe for a long time to come.

Granted, I shifted around Massa’s district quite a bit too, with it now going to Buffalo instead of Rochester. I did this in the interest of centering the 28th in Monroe County and leaving room for the sprawling 23rd. However, I think it retains its Southern Tier character (roughly 40%). The nastier bits of Steuben and Allegany counties are carved out. The Democratic boost from the remaining parts of Buffalo doesn’t hurt either, leaving this district 5 points better at 53.52%.

This district doesn’t substantially differ from Maffei’s current version, though I do take out a chunk of southern Onondaga county to make room for the 24th to pass through. Since we’re dismantling the current 23rd, the section of Oswego County begins to pick up some of the pieces. Still centered on Syracuse and DeWitt, this district has a marginal improvement of 0.2%, leaving it still a touch short of 56% Obama.

Tompkins County saved Arcuri from defeat in 2008, and this district helps on that front. It now incorporates all of Tompkins. Arcuri’s base in Utica remains as well, though the rest of Oneida County is surprisingly hostile to Democrats. Eastern Oswego and western Jefferson Counties are added, again to compensate for the elimination of the current 23rd. Overall, this district improves modestly to 52.08% from 50.33%. Obama only narrowly lost the district outside of Tompkins, but Ithaca is really what anchors the district.

I’ll be the first to say it, this district is pretty disgustingly drawn. Communities of interest went flying out the window – the only thing the parts of this district have in common are their Republican political dispositions. We go from the Buffalo suburbs (Clarence, Lancaster), across Western New York and the Southern Tier to near Binghamton, through to the Capital District (Schenectady, Saratoga) and also north to the Adirondacks and even parts of Rome. The 24th and its misshapen bird form was bad, but I really challenge you to tell me what the 23rd looks like.

With Ithaca out of the picture shoring up the 24th, and with the 23rd cutting off any access route, I had to scrounge for Democratic votes to keep Hinchey at a comparable level. We get a vaguely frog-like district (facing east), in my opinion. One leg is for Binghamton, another for the less-Republican areas not in the 23rd and for population balance. Retained is Hinchey’s base in Ulster and Sullivan counties, with arms for Newburgh and Middletown in Orange County. Also of note is the string along the Hudson in Dutchess County, from Red Hook through Poughkeepsie down to Beacon. The lack of Ithaca still shows, but with some effort, there’s only a 0.7% drop.

With problematic Schoharie County out of the way, Tonko’s 21st can look to some greener (bluer?) pastures. Mostly, this is just some housekeeping down in Otsego, Delaware, and Greene counties. Tonko’s residence in Amsterdam stays in, as well as the entirety of Albany County, and Rensselaer and Troy. The net is a very marginal (less than 0.1%) improvement.

You look at this district and you ask, can this really be called Scott Murphy’s and not Dede Scozzafava’s district? I say yes for two reasons. First, Murphy lives in the northern part of the current 20th, which is also included here. Second, slightly more than half the population is from the current 20th, including Saratoga Springs. Tedisco did quite well in Saratoga, but the more Republican parts are stripped out for the 23rd. For our efforts, we’re rewarded with a 2.5% boost to 53.2% from 50.7%.

We’re getting into Westchester now, so I’m guessing you’ll want a more detailed map:

John Hall’s district also gets quite the makeover. However, it retains Hall’s residence in Dover Plains and most of Dutchess County, as well as the Democratic-leaning parts of Putnam and Cortlandt/Peekskill in Westchester. There’s also an arm into Rockland, nabbing the heavily Democratic parts of Ramapo town. Notable removals include the heavily Republican towns of Monroe in Orange County (including Kiryas Joel village) and Carmel in Putnam County. In order to accomodate the 22nd, the 19th doesn’t get as much of a boost, only to 52.3%, up 1.6%.

To help Hall, Nita Lowey’s district picks up the eastern half of Putnam County. With Hall’s district shifted northward, most of Westchester gets put here, all the way from Somers to White Plains to New Rochelle and the Bronx line, with a nice arm into Yonkers to hold the Democratic percentage up. There’s still a 2.5% drop though, thanks to Carmel. Not that Lowey has to worry.

Finally, we’ve broken the city barrier. But first, the district takes in a lot of Rockland and Orange counties that didn’t get lumped into the 19th. There are some pretty Republican (or at least anti-Obama) pockets in the towns of Monroe and Ramapo – most likely owing to the Orthodox Jewish communities in Kiryas Joel, Monsey, and Viola. I do think there’s a good chance they’d vote for Engel, though. In Westchester, I kept the riverside villages of Hastings-on-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, and Irvington whole (though the district still jumps the Tappan Zee). Yonkers and Mount Vernon are still here, as well as Wakefield and Woodlawn in the Bronx. Engel still lives here, though the district is less Bronx-centric (and yes, 10% less Democratic at 62.0%) than before.

Now that we’re in the city, here’s a map of the city districts.

She’s still Jenny from the Block, and this is pretty much the old 16th district centered on SoBro the South Bronx. More than 95% of the new and old 16ths overlap, and the result shows at 95% Obama. From Mott Haven through to Fordham, this district remains heavily Hispanic at 63.04%.

I’m not sure when the tradition of putting Rikers into the 15th was started, but it’s been that way since at least 1993, and I’ve kept it that way. Again, the vast majority of the district is the same, from Inwood to Washington Heights to Harlem, Spanish Harlem, and Morningside Heights. I tried for clean lines in the city: the border with the 14th remains straight on 96th street. The west side is a bit harder for population balancing. Still ridonkulously Democratic, giving the 16th a run for its money. (Note how Obama got 97.26% in the 70th Assembly District. That’s… almost Detroit-level.) Still plurality-Hispanic.

Again, not much different here either. Maloney keeps all of Central Park and the East Side of Manhattan through to Houston Street. Again, I tried for clean lines, with Central Park West/8th Ave., then 7th Ave. (with a bump-out in Midtown to balance population). On the Queens side, still essentially the same areas of Astoria and Ravenswood, though Long Island City/Hunters Point is shifted to the 12th. Again no news here, just a slight bump up from 78.2%.

McMahon keeps his Staten Island-centric district. I tried to make the Brooklyn parts as Democratic as possible, losing Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, and Gravesend in favor of Democratic Coney Island. A 2.4% boost to 51.2% results, though I don’t think McMahon was really in any danger.

Really, nothing new here either, except we’ve shifted it from plurality to majority Hispanic. Same neighborhoods, from Sunset Park to Red Hook, Loisaida, Greenpoint, and Bushwick. A notable shift is that Chinatown is removed and Williamsburg is added, dropping Obama’s performance by 1% (to a still-astronomical 85%).

Not much new here either, still a central-Brooklyn based district for Yvette Clarke centered in Flatbush, Prospect Park, Park Slope, and Crown Heights. The district does move farther south into Ocean Parkway though, mostly to relieve stress on the 9th. Still majority-Black, though the southward shift lowers the Democratic percentage by 2 points.

Same story for Ed Towns, with an arcing district from Brooklyn Heights to Bed-Stuy, East New York, and south to Canarsie. Again a slight southward expansion to boost the 9th. Still majority Black, a slight drop to 88% Obama (oh the humanity).

Weiner was never in any danger, really, but it was just odd to have an only 55% Obama district in the city. (IMO, Staten Island doesn’t count.) The district becomes more Queens-centric, while retaining Weiner’s home in Forest Hills, as well as taking in Middle Village, Maspeth, Kew Gardens, parts of Ridgewood, and Ozone Park. Same deal in Brooklyn, keeping Gerritsen, Sheepshead Bay, and Brighton Beach. It does lose parts of Ocean Parkway and Borough Park, picking up slightly-less Republican Gravesend. The boost helps, bringing this to 59% Obama, up roughly 5%.

Nadler’s district, again, is mostly unchanged. Upper West Side, Chelsea, Greenwich Village, TriBeCa, SoHo, the FiDi, etc stay in the Manhattan parts. In Brooklyn, there’s Borough Park and Dyker Heights. Obama only scored 38% in the Brooklyn section. This is countered by the 84.8% Manhattan section, averaging out to 73.9% Obama (+0.2%).

Most of the creative districting in the city came in Queens, I think, and the 7th is a good example. The Bronx portion doesn’t change too much, except it stretches to the Hudson now that the 17th is more suburban. Otherwise, Co-op City, Pelham Bay, Soundview, and Parkchester stay in, jumping Long Island Sound at Throgs Neck. It takes in more suburban areas of Queens than before, including Whitestone and Beechhurst. Crowley does live in Woodside, but there’s an arm for that.

Gregory Meeks’ district gets quite the change as well, and becomes the first of three Nassau-Queens hybrid districts. The district remains centered on East Queens, though, from Jamaica and Ozone Park east to the Nassau line. In Nassau, we try to grab the most Republican parts in southwestern Hempstead, including Woodmere and Lawrence. Also of note is the shift of the entire Rockaway Peninsula (the western part of which is quite Republican) to the district. Broad Channel is also no longer split in two. Amazingly, the district is still majority-Black (just barely at 50.16% non-Hispanic-or-Latino Black). The Nassau parts do bring down the Democratic percentage 9.5% to 79.5%.

This district is pretty hideous, too. With a lot of suburban Queens in the 7th, the 5th can pick up more of the more-Democratic inner neighborhoods of Queens. So, we get a district that stretches from Elmhurst and Jackson Heights to Huntington. Again, harking back to the olden days, the district grabs out some choice precincts in Suffolk County, relieving pressure on the 1st and 2nd. In Nassau, it keeps Great Neck and Port Washington, but also adds Old Westbury, Syosset, and Glen Cove. In Suffolk, we avoid Huntington (the hamlet), since Steve Israel lives there, but we do get Cold Spring Harbor and Fort Salonga, all the way to the Huntingtown-Smithtown line. All this results in a 2% drop to 61.2% Obama, buoyed by the 74% Democratic section of Queens. Regardless, Ackerman will be fine.

Here’s the third of the Queens-Nassau districts. The current 4th gets its Democratic strength from Uniondale and Hempstead, but those would fit well in a newly Democratic 3rd district. Thus, two prongs into Queens, one into Briarwood and one into Flushing, which meet in Briarwood. In Nassau, this district includes closer-in Democratic areas like Elmont and Valley Stream balanced by swing areas like Mineola and extremely Republican Garden City. In total, the Queens section again anchors the district, leaving it at 58.2% Democratic, up 0.2%.

My favorite district, really. You might look at the map and say… is that really an improvement? Yes, Massapequa, Bethpage, and Levittown are still here, as Amityville, Copaigue, and West Islip. However, in picking up Uniondale, Hempstead, and Freeport in the Town of Hempstead, and parts of Syosset, Jericho, and Plainview, the Democratic performance improves quite a bit. It would have been higher had I not included the South Shore in Suffolk County and instead grabbed Plainview, but I wanted to hold the 2nd constant. All in all, up 6.6% to 54.0% Democratic. Perfect for someone like Dave Mejias who can keep the margins in Massapequa down.

Steve Israel’s district is mostly unchanged, still centered on the towns of Huntington, Islip, and Babylon, including Melville, Dix Hills, and Ronkonkoma. It also takes in a small section of Nassau (parts of Woodbury, Plainview, and Old Bethpage), keeping the Democratic performance up. Instead of Republican Smithtown, the district takes out Patchogue, Holtsville, and Farmingville from the town of Crookhaven. Democratic performance is essentially unchanged from 56.13%.

Lastly, we arrive at the 1st district, again, mostly unchanged. It contains the Hamptons, Southold, Riverhead, all of Smithtown, and most of Brookhaven. Obama’s performance is up just a tad to 51.52%.

And there we have it, my 27-1 plan for New York. Comments and questions (and witty remarks!) welcome, as always. (That tutorial is coming up, I promise!)

They’re considered a minority in the United States, composing a rapidly growing sub-set of the population. The majority are immigrants; public sentiment, aroused by nativism, is sometimes hostile towards them. They vote heavily Democratic, but because many are immigrants they turn-out in numbers not as great as the share of the population they compose.

I’m not talking about Latinos. I’m talking about white Catholics in the early 20th century.

Today, Democrats hope that the Latino vote will be an essential part of a permanent majority, the keys to an unyielding period of Democratic dominance. Latinos were a major part of Obama’s victory in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. They’ve turned California blue for the foreseeable future. Red states Arizona and Texas are home to millions of Latinos, who represent a threat to the Republican character of those two states. Opportunity beckons.

Or so it seems.

In reality, however, it seems that the path of the Latino vote is the same as that of the white Catholic vote. The more Catholics that entered the country and the more time that passed, the more assimilated they became. In the early 20th century, Catholics were seen as an “other,” as Italian and Irish immigrants not fully part of the Unite States. Today, however, such sentiment is long gone. We regard white Catholics as normal, dull. The days of anti-Catholic discrimination are long gone.

With it has disappeared the Democratic hold over the Catholic vote. JFK won nearly 80% of Catholics because he was Catholic, and because in that time there was still anti-Catholic sentiment. 40 years later, John Kerry lost the Catholic vote, despite being a Catholic.

Will Latinos follow the same path? It seems likely. A large part of what connects Latinos to the Democratic Party is that they are an immigrant community – and Democrats have always represented immigrants. If – when – they assimilate, and the word Latino becomes just another synonym for white, Latinos will behave much as white Catholics do today. Which is to say that they will vote no different from the rest of America.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Here in New York City, we’re being deluged with direct mail, not only for Mayor (why doesn’t Bloomberg just save his money, since we all know him, and he’s gonna win, anyway?) but for lower offices, such as Comptroller and DA. This diary will be about the candidates for DA.

There are three candidates in the Democratic primary for New York County DA: Cy Vance, Richard Aborn, and Leslie Crocker Snyder. Amazingly, no-one is running on the Republican line.

Cy Vance, the son of the former Secretary of State under Carter, is endorsed by the New York Times, apparently the Daily News (“Vance stands well above his rivals”), and an array of New York City politicos and activists, including Caroline Kennedy, former Mayor David Dinkins, Gloria Steinem, and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, but probably most importantly, the legendary outgoing DA, Robert Morgenthau, who calls him the “best qualified” for the job.

Richard Aborn, endorsed by Bill Bratton – the former brilliant NYPD Commissioner, hired early in Giuliani’s administration and eventually forced out because his extremely successful crime-fighting ways made him too popular for Giuliani’s liking – and my congressman, Jerry Nadler, among others, is making reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws (here’s a critical look at them) his main campaign plank. In his direct mail, he calls for:

treat[ing] substance abuse as a public health problem, not just a criminal one[, providing] drug treatment for non-violent offenders who have a substance abuse problem[, and…]providing retroactive sentencing relief to non-violent offenders still incarcerated under obsolete laws[.]

He doesn’t make clear in the mailing or in the relevant section of his website how he would be able to reform laws as New York County DA, but it seems clear that he would use his “judicial discretion to divert non-violent, low-level drug offenders into treatment programs rather than sentencing them to state prison.”

Finally, there is Leslie Crocker Snyder, a former Judge of the New York City Criminal Court (appointed by Mayor Ed Koch and reappointed by David Dinkins) and New York Court of Claims (appointed by Republican Governor George Pataki) and longtime attorney.

Based on her direct mail, her campaign seems to be an attempt at frightening people into voting for her. In 2005, she tried to beat DA Morgenthau by arguing that he was too old and she should replace him almost just because she is younger. It seemed that everyone who knew and worked with him said that he was extremely sharp mentally and worked long hours tirelessly, so Snyder’s strategy backfired, and she was heavily defeated. Now that the position is open, she appears to consider Cy Vance her main opponent, and seems to be once again trying to get in through sleazy methods. She is sending a 4-page direct mail brochure. On the first page, there is an ugly, mirror-image photograph of what is supposed to look like New York in the bad old days. The text on top of the page says as follows (in all caps):

WHEN TIMES WERE TOUGH IN MANHATTAN WHAT DID THE CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DO?

On the second page:

JUDGE LESLIE CROCKER SNYDER STAYED AND FOUGHT TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS

On the third page:

CY VANCE JR. MOVED TO SEATTLE TO MAKE MILLIONS DEFENDING MURDERERS, MOBSTERS AND WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINALS.

The brochure details two of the criminals he defended, as if their crimes reflect badly on him as a defense lawyer. This is demagogic in the extreme. As Vance said to Snyder in an excerpt from a debate that took place on New York 1 TV (I didn’t hear the whole debate):

I believe that everybody in this country deserves the right to a fair trial, particularly those who are presupposed guilty like the individual in the Sudafed case. I took on that case in a court-appointed capacity. I believe that is the job of a defense lawyer to protect people and to make sure the government proves its case. Now if you believe otherwise, you shouldn’t be running for this job.

My inclination is to vote for Aborn, based on his strong position on the drug laws, which have caused almost incalculable waste in money and human lives, but if I find out that this is really a two-person race between the other candidates, I will vote for Vance without hesitation in order to keep Crocker Snyder out.

I’d welcome your opinions about this race, and any polling data you may have come across.

• MA-Sen: AG Martha Coakley wasted no time in announcing her candidacy for the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat; unlike the myriad members of the House delegation, she’s not waiting to see if a Kennedy gets in. Meanwhile, people are definitely talking about a candidacy by Curt Schilling, retired from the Boston Red Sox. If Schilling runs, he’s ineligible to do so as a Republican, though; he’s registered as an independent, and he doesn’t have enough time under Massachusetts to change his registration to be able to run as an R. (Schilling himself acknowledges he may not be the best candidate, although he clearly is enjoying the spotlight.)

• NC-Sen: Former state Sen. and Iraq vet Cal Cunningham seems to be acting more like a candidate, and he got a big boost from a recent speech to a Democratic group in Charlotte which has gone viral, as they kids say these days. He lit Burr up with zinger after zinger, effectively summing up the anonymous Burr this way: “In 15 years on Capitol Hill you can’t name one thing that Richard Burr has done to make your life better, and I can’t either.”

• NV-Sen: Feeling confident after seeing several polls giving her an edge over Harry Reid, Nevada GOP chair Sue Lowden is resigning her post, presumably with an eye toward a Senate run. Since there are already announced candidates (former SoS candidate Danny Tarkanian), she’s resigning as of Sep. 30 to avoid a conflict of interest.

• PA-Sen, PA-Gov (pdf): Franklin & Marshall is out with a poll of the Pennsylvania races, although the undecideds are bizarrely large. Case in point, Arlen Specter leads Joe Sestak 37-11 in the Dem primary (with 46% don’t know and 6% other). Specter bests Pat Toomey in the general, 37-29, while Toomey beats Sestak, 26-22. (As an amusing aside, Sestak and Toomey had a Specter-free debate at Muhlenberg College last night and then adjourned to a local pub together for a round of beers and further private trash-talking of Specter.) F&M also polled the GOP gubernatorial primary, where Tom Corbett leads Jim Gerlach 15-6 (with 73% don’t know!). Outgoing Gov. Ed Rendell has quickly plunged from most popular figure in the state to least popular, with a favorable of 32/53.

• MN-Gov: Former Dem state House leader Matt Entenza recently hired Friend of SSP Dana Houle to manage his campaign for governor. Congrats to Dana, and best wishes to Entenza, who made a wise choice. (D)

• NV-Gov: You know your political career is over when other members of your own party are using your name as a cudgel against their opposition. Minor GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Montandon issued a press release attacking John Ensign over his alleged recruiting of recently-retired federal judge Brian Sandoval into the gubernatorial primary. (Although presumably the intent was to besmirch his opponent Sandoval, by linking him to Ensign.)

• VA-Gov: One more poll to mention in Virginia, not as favorable as the PPP poll from Tuesday. Rasmussen’s latest look at the race gives Bob McDonnell a 51-42 lead over Creigh Deeds with leaners (49-39 without), not much changed from the early August sample of 47-38. The entire one-day sample was on Sep. 1, after news of McDonnell’s anti-fornicator manifesto had broken. Speaking of said master’s thesis, Deeds is already on the air with radio spots (wisely airing only in northern Virginia) attacking McDonnell over the thesis. In another sign of Dems’ renewed confidence in this race, the DNC is pouring a truckload of cash into the race: $5 million.

• CA-50: Dave Roberts, a city councilor and former mayor in Solana Beach, confirmed today that he’ll be a candidate in the 50th against GOP Rep. Brian Bilbray. Roberts, an openly gay veteran, has sounded more conservative notes than the other Dems in the primary, 2006 candidate Francine Busby and attorney Tracy Emblem; he recently changed his registration from Independent to Democratic. (UPDATE: The Roberts camp informs us that he is not a veteran.)

• FL-16: The DCCC sounds happy with its recruit to go against freshman Tom Rooney, 36-year-old St. Lucie County Commissioner Chris Craft. He also has a compelling backstory, as seen in this recent interview.

• NH-01: Here’s a poll of the hotly contested race in the 1st, courtesy of Populus Research (the same guys who polled NH-Sen a few weeks ago and found no undecideds) on behalf of the conservative site Now Hampshire. Carol Shea-Porter leads GOP mayor of Manchester Frank Guinta, 46.3%-43.4% (I’m not sure what’s up with the extra significant digits when the MoE is still 4%, but who am I to nitpick?). Guinta previously released an NRCC internal poll in April that had him down 43-34.

• NY-23: Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava seems to have one Achilles heel in the NY-23 open seat special election: her brother Thomas (in the fine tradition of Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, and Neil Bush). Turns out she owns $1 million in preferred stock (and a 3% voting stake) in her brother’s troubled company, Seaway Valley Capital Corporation, a holding company whose subsidiaries owe $192,000 in back taxes. She maintains she’s a mere “passive investor,” although she is COO of an affiliated company, Seaway Capital Partners.

• KY-State Sen.: It looks like Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear is going to continue his stealth plan to dismantle the GOP’s majority in the Kentucky state Senate, one seat at a time. Still riding high off of Democrat Robin Webb’s recent win of a GOP-held state Senate seat, Republican Senate President David Williams is pre-emptively whining in the press about Beshear’s efforts to see that GOP Senate Majority Leader Dan Kelly gets nominated to a vacant circuit judgeship. This move has been rumored for some time, and back in July, the names of two Democrats were floated for a potential special election in Kelly’s seat in central Kentucky’s Bourbon territory: former state Rep. Jodie Haydon of Bardstown or Nicky Rapier, the son of the late House leader Kenny Rapier. (J)

Once upon a time in a land known as America circa 2004, a growing consensus was emerging.  The evangelical right had just flexed their political muscle, not only overwhelmingly voting to re-elect President Bush by a 70% margin (many would argue pushing him over the edge in Ohio) but also approving gay marriage bans in 11 different states, boosting their turnout in crucial battlegounds and making life hell for Team Blue.  The political calculus was that the gay marriage argument was an effective cudgel to use against Democrats, as it guaranteed high Christian Right turnout and inevitably lead to defeat for Democrats who were associated with anything other than a full government-sponsored ban.

Flash forward a few years, and a different trend is emerging.  Despite reprising the gay marriage argument again in 2006, Democrats managed to completely bypass the issue and still succeeded (the Virginia Senate election being a good example).  The proposed Federal Marriage Amemdment went down in flames.  More states began to adopt marriage equality, and public opinion shifted more towards gay rights than ever before.

But a different trend emerged as well.  Namely, the gay marriage argument had less hold in elections.  Say what you want about Obama’s policies on the issue since taking office, but he campaigned as the most pro-gay Presidential candidate in US history – while against full marriage equality, he supported about every other major position from repealing DOMA and DADT to full protection in the workplace and in hate crimes.  It barely came up as a blip in the overall election.  In Iowa, despite the GOP’s attempts to turn gay marriage into a major issue, the general response has been a collective shrug, as no Republican has been able to make significant ground on Gov. Culver on the issue, and it didn’t have an impact in last Tuesday’s HD90 special as Democrat Curt Hanson still prevailed.

In California, the AD51 special played out in a similar way.  The district, which is heavily African-American and voted in large numbers for Prop 8, elected Steve Bradford, a candidate that received a 100% rating from California Equality.  His opponent Gloria Gray targeted the church community to attack him over his pro-gay views, ran ads questioning his Christian values, and even push-polled on the gay marriage issue. Bradford got 52% of the vote while Gray couldn’t even crack 20%, with the consensus being that voters were turned off over her narrow focus on gay marriage.

My question is – are we seeing a larger trend emerging?  Is gay marriage no longer going to be the hot-ticket item for the Republican party?  Why has it fallen off?  And why are voters more willing to split their votes – that is, vote against marrriage but still support Democrats – than they were only a few years ago?

This is a diary intended to spark dialogue about the political ramifications of this issue, not over whether you think marriage equality ought to happen.  I’m curious about this because it wasn’t too long ago it was viewed as the linchpin to future Republican success, not only for high evangelical turnout but to also peel away socially conservative African-American and latino voters from the Democrats.  Several prognosticators including Michael Barone and Ruy Texeira predicted it would be a huge wedge issue in the Democratic Party, leading to further dischord and electoral losses.  None of this has occured.  So what’s your take on it?  Is it because of economic woes, and the issue will surface again once people aren’t worried about their paycheck?  Or are we moving into a new era in the gay rights debate?