Swing State Project

One nice thing about writing for a blog that focuses on downballot issues is that you’re never that far away from an Election Day. Today it’s California’s turn; the marquee event is the race in open CA-32 to replace the new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. There are also six of ballot measures dealing with various budgetary issues, almost all of which are unpopular across the political spectrum and headed for defeat.

The two heavyweight contenders in CA-32 are Board of Equalization Chair (and former Assemblywoman) Judy Chu, and state Senator Gil Cedillo. Both are reliably liberal, so the election is more a question of tone, and what sort of coalitions the candidates can cobble together. This district, located in the San Gabriel Valley in the suburbs immediately east of Los Angeles, has a Latino majority (63%) but a large Asian bloc (22%, with non-Hispanic whites making up 11%).

Despite the district’s demographics, Chu has taken on something of frontrunner status in recent weeks in the eyes of observers at The Hill and NPR. Chu has a fundraising edge and some of the most valuable endorsements. This includes the endorsement of the state Democratic Party, as well as United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta and some key Latino politicians, such as LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Rep. Loretta Sanchez. (Cedillo has the endorsements of most of the other Latino Reps. in the area, such as Xavier Becerra, Joe Baca, and Linda Sanchez, as well as the LA County Young Democrats.)

In addition, Cedillo having gone significantly negative in the last few weeks indicates he may be feeling a loss in momentum… not just negative against Chu, but also likely third-place candidate Emanuel Pleitez, a 26-year-old rising star who was a member of the Obama transition team, suggesting that Pleitez is eating into Cedillo’s Latino base.

Besides the district’s ethnic composition, Cedillo has one other ace in the hole. The main Republican opposition in the race is also named Chu: Monterey Park City Councilor Betty Tom Chu (who apparently has some sort of grudge with the other Chu, and may be in the race at least partly as an attempted spoiler). Cedillo’s main hope, though, is to maximize Latino turnout, so this race (in the prohibitively expensive LA media market) is being fought entirely on the ground.

This election is run as an all-party primary, with all candidates listed together (with party ID) in one big pool. If no candidate breaks 50% total (which, with 12 candidates in the race, seems unlikely), the top finisher from each party advances to a July 14 runoff. In a D+15 district, though, any Republican opposition in the runoff would be a formality for Chu or Cedillo (although that could wind up prolonging the Chu vs. Chu confusion).

Finally, there are also six statewide ballot measures, Propositions 1A through 1F. A SurveyUSA poll released yesterday indicates that five of the six are headed toward defeat by wide margins; the only one in danger of passing is 1F, which blocks pay raises for legislators when the state budget is running a deficit; ‘yes’ is up 48%-38%. 1A is the nefarious one that especially deserves to go down, creating a TABOR-style spending cap. (1B is an education funding measure that is made irrelevant if 1A fails; 1C allows the sale of state bonds secured by lottery revenues; 1D and 1E re-allocate funds intended for childhood and mental health programs. None are good.)

As if that weren’t enough, there’s also an election in the vacant 26th Senate District, a safe Democratic seat in Los Angeles where Curren Price is expected to win. We’ll put up an open thread with links to returns as it gets closer to poll closing time. In the meantime, if you have predictions, feel free to have at it in the comments.

This is now Episode 12 of my seemingly never-ending redistricting series. (In reality, it has a definite end — after this diary, there are only 9 states I’m planning to address: California, Washington, New Mexico, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and Tennessee. The other 15 states are either at-large states, or are unlikely to see substantive boundary changes.)

Today comes Oklahoma and Wisconsin. I struggled with whether to include Oklahoma at all, since my Oklahoma effort is barely different from the current map. But given the fluid partisan dynamics in Sooner State politics, and the potential issue over how to handle the “conservative Democratic” 2nd District, I thought it might be worth a look. On the other hand, I drew two maps for Wisconsin based on the highly changeable atmosphere in that state’s 2010 elections.

Previous efforts:

Diary 1: Massachusetts and Texas

Diary 2: Michigan and Nevada

Diary 3: Iowa and Ohio

Diary 4: Georgia and New Jersey

Diary 5: Florida and Louisiana

Diary 6: Pennsylvania and Utah

Diary 7: Illinois and South Carolina

Diary 8: Indiana, Missouri, and Oregon

Diary 9: Alabama, Arizona, and Kentucky

Diary 10: Colorado and Minnesota

Diary 11: Mississippi and New York

Hark, to the extended text!

Oklahoma

In a few short years, the legislature has gone from an eye-poppingly enduring history of Democratic reign as of 2004 to full GOP takeover by 2008. The governor’s mansion will be open in 2010 as popular Democratic Gov. Brad Henry is term-limited. Fortunately, the Democrats have two strong candidates to retain that office, but Republicans are still even odds at worst for a pickup. So what would GOP control of redistricting mean in 2011? There is only one Democrat in the delegation, the rebellious Dan Boren of the rural (and Native American-heavy) 2nd District. But my gamble is that, even with Republican control, district lines will only be adjusted, and no real effort will be made to dismantle Boren’s territory.

I can’t say my confidence in this prediction is exceedingly high, but look at the signs: even though Tom Coburn won this heavily evangelical, highly socially conservative district for the Republicans as recently as the late 1990s, the GOP has made no effort to target the seat, even when it was open in 2004 (their sacrificial lamb back then lost to Boren 66-34%, and Boren’s two reelections have both topped 70%). Considering Boren racks up urban New England-like Democratic margins in a district that broke 2-to-1 for McCain, and that Oklahoma redistricting has historically revolved around the preservation of culturally cohesive regions, it would seem a dangerous overreach for the GOP to aim its fire at Boren at the risk of softening up less conservative turf around Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Other than completely breaking the traditional boundaries around Eastern Oklahoma, how would they crack his constituency, anyway? And how much worse would it be for Boren to compete for votes in Tulsa than to compete for them in Little Dixie?

So that’s my gamble. And as a result, the differences between this map and the current one are scarcely visible:

There’s not much to even describe here, except that the Oklahoma City-based 5th is contracting in area as the two most rural districts (especially the 3rd) expand.

Wisconsin

As in neighboring Minnesota, circumstances of state politics pushed me to draw two possible maps for America’s Dairyland. The Democrats currently enjoy a redistricting monopoly here, but a tenuous one, with a narrow 52-47 edge in the Assembly, 18-15 in the Senate, and a controversial governor in Jim Doyle. Given the high possibility/probability that any one of these pillars of state power could flip to the Republicans in 2010 (the most likely loss being the governor’s mansion, Doyle’s approval rating hovering in the 30s), it seemed logical to draw a bipartisan compromise map to accompany a hypothetical Democratic gerrymander. Since it would be an incredible feat for the GOP to pick up all three levers in one election cycle, I thought it unnecessary to draw a Republican gerrymander map.

Democratic gerrymander first: this map creates two or three solid Democratic seats, just one solid Republican seat, and as many as five swing seats, all of which would have voted for Obama. Most importantly, it concentrates GOP areas in the 5th and pits two veteran Republican incumbents, Tom Petri of Fond du Lac and Jim Sensenbrenner of Menomonee Falls, against each other. Petri’s 6th is then opened up for Democratic poaching, as is Paul Ryan’s 1st south of Milwaukee. It’s possible Petri could move north and run for the 6th, but when he retired, this iteration would be a prime pickup opportunity. Meanwhile, all five Democratic incumbents are kept about as solid as they were (Kagen gets a very slight boost, though none are pointedly shored up). In toto, a good year under this map might produce a 7-1 Democratic majority; an average year would result in 6-2, and a bad year might retain the standing 5-3 edge, either with the status quo remaining, or with Kagen’s seat traded for Ryan’s.

District 1 – Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) — with all of Kenosha and Racine Counties along with 36% of Milwaukee County, Ryan would face his first truly difficult race in 2012 under these lines (though many think he’ll bail for a gubernatorial try in 2010), and as an open seat this district would be likely to elect a moderate suburban Democrat.

District 2 – Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison) — made only slightly less Democratic to help Dems in the 1st and 3rd.

District 3 – Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) — still somewhat Dem-leaning, as before. The three Dem seats in small town Wisconsin (Kind, Kagen, and Obey) are all only modest Obama districts, but seem to be a bit stronger for their incumbents.

District 4 – Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) — the other 64% of Milwaukee, plus 24% of GOP-friendly Waukesha County; a strong urban Rust Belt Democratic seat.

District 5 – Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls) vs. Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac) — geography would seem to favor former Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Petri might choose to move north in this scenario, but muddying the waters was clearly my goal. This packs Republican votes as well as can be expected anywhere in Wisconsin.

District 6 (open) — without Petri, this would be a fairly good shot to elect a Democrat, with Obama having performed somewhere in the neighborhood of 51-53%. But much like the current 6th, if Petri ran, it would be on loan to the GOP until his retirement.

District 7 – Dave Obey (D-Wausau) — as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Obey obviously has nothing to worry about, though Democrats have long noted the fairly marginal nature of the 7th. When he does retire, this will still probably be a somewhat Dem-leaning/Obama-friendly rural seat, but a slam dunk? No.

District 8 – Steve Kagen (D-Appleton) — I only had minimal room to strengthen his district, since most rural Wisconsin counties are competitively balanced, but made the necessary trades to up his chances a bit.

Now the bipartisan compromise map: this adhered to clean, simple, aesthetic district lines and made superficial efforts to help incumbents without going out of its way to do so. The reason I didn’t make an aggressive “incumbent protection” map is that the current lines are fairly incumbent-friendly, especially as Democratic strength has increased in the once-Republican 8th. So my primary goal for this scenario was pretty boundaries, with a dash of Petri, Ryan, and Kagen protection thrown in (for Petri, I had no concerns about his ability to be reelected, but rather about the GOP’s chances of holding the open seat). Needless to say, I’d rather see the Democrats retain control, but at least this map appeases my “good government” instincts.

Mason Dixon (PDF) for Ron Sachs Communications (5/14-18, registered voters for general, likely voters for primaries, April 2009 in parens).

Senate primary matchups:

Kendrick Meek (D): 26

Dan Gelber (D): 16

Undecided: 58

Charlie Crist (R): 53

Marco Rubio (R): 18

Undecided: 29

(MoE: ±6%)

Senate general election matchups:

Kendrick Meek (D): 24

Charlie Crist (R): 55

Undecided: 21

Dan Gelber (D): 22

Charlie Crist (R): 57

Undecided: 21

(MoE: ±4%)

Governor primary matchups:

Jeb Bush (R): 64

Bill McCollum (R): 13

Charles Bronson (R): 2

Undecided: 21

Bill McCollum (R): 39

Charles Bronson (R): 12

Undecided: 49

(MoE: ±6%)

Governor general election matchups:

Alex Sink (D): 34 (35)

Bill McCollum (R): 40 (36)

Undecided: 26 (29)

Alex Sink (D): 37

Charles Bronson (R): 29

Undecided: 34

Alex Sink (D): 34

Jeb Bush (R): 50

Undecided: 16

(MoE: ±4%)

The poll sample was 43D, 38R and 19I. I’m including the results of an early April Mason-Dixon poll as a trendline for the Sink-McCollum matchup, even though it was taken for a different client – the question wording was identical, and the sample size very similar.

• AL-07: Former Selma Mayor James Perkins (who was defeated in his attempt to seek a third term in 2008) is jumping into the open seat race here. He is likely to draw support away from Terri Sewell, Artur Davis’s preferred successor, also a Selma native.

• AL-Gov: Speaking of good ol’ Artur, he’s released an internal poll which shows him up 56-26 over Ron Sparks and 54-25 over Sue Bell in the Dem primary. He also purports to lead Republican Bradley Byrne by a 43-38 margin. I’m finding it hard to believe that a congressman has such high name rec (59-6 for Davis among Dems statewide!). But the best checksum: This survey has Obama’s favorables at 58%. Last month, SUSA had them at just 48%. Which do you think is more likely? In other AL-Gov news, state Sen. Roger Bedford (D) says he won’t run.

• IA-Gov: State Auditor David Vaudt, one of only two Republicans holding statewide office in Iowa, has declined to challenge incumbent Gov. Chet Culver next year.

• NC-Sen: Both Reps. Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre are leaving the door open to a Senate bid, with McIntyre sounding more enthused. Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton is “not considering” the race, Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker is “not looking at running,” and state Rep. Grier Martin claims his “decision to decline a chance to run against Elizabeth Dole was also not to run in 2010.”

• NV-Gov: Jim Gibbons’ poll numbers are just horrendous – in a new Mason-Dixon survey for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 54% say they would “definitely vote to replace” him. Gibbons’ campaign manager claims things are lookin’ up, because his boss’s approvals were 25-69 in a January Reno Gazette poll but are an awesome 17-52 in this one.

• NV-Sen: Meanwhile, the same poll finds pretty lousy numbers for Harry Reid as well, but better than Gibbons’. Reid gets 45% “definitely replace,” but his approvals are “only” 38-50. The big difference, of course, is that the GOP doesn’t really have any strong candidates to challenge Reid, while plenty of folks are lining up to take a whack at Gibbons.

• FL-CFO: Checking in with an old friend, it looks like Annette Taddeo is considering a run to replace Alex Sink as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer.

• Redistricting: CQ has a story on five key races that could affect congressional redistricting. Roll Call has published the second half of its two-part series on the same subject (part one here). And finally, the National Conference of State Legislatures is holding the first in a series of training seminars on redistricting in San Francisco, June 11-14.

Public Policy Polling (5/13-17, registered voters):

Brad Henry (D): 40

Tom Coburn (R-inc): 52

Dan Boren (D): 36

Tom Coburn (R-inc): 53

(MoE: ±3.7%)

In a hypothetical race against two of the strongest candidates that Oklahoma Democrats could muster — incumbent Gov. Brad Henry and 2nd CD Rep. Dan Boren — Coburn would be far from imperiled. In any case, neither Henry nor Boren would be likely candidates to make kamikaze runs against the incumbent Coburn, who sports a strong 59% approval rating in the same poll. However, an open seat scenario could be different…

Brad Henry (D): 43

Tom Cole (R): 44

Brad Henry (D): 44

J.C. Watts (R): 45

Dan Boren (D): 40

Tom Cole (R): 42

Dan Boren (D): 41

J.C. Watts (R): 46

While the DSCC is reportedly heavily encouraging Henry to run if Coburn decides to retire at the end of his term, it’s a bit sobering to know that the most well-known and popular Democrat in the state would not begin a Senate campaign with an advantage against a sadsack like Tom Cole.

UPDATE: The National Journal reports that ex-Gov. Frank Keating (R) is interested in running for Coburn’s seat should it become open, according to sources close to Keating. Additionally, Coburn is expected to make an announcement on his 2010 plans “within the next few weeks”.

Three months ago, the NRCC announced its “Patriot Program,” a Frontline-like effort to protect the most vulnerable Republican members of the House. But then, they did nothing – no announcements, no lists, nothing. For three months. Until, finally, today. Here’s the first-round list:

Note that despite the PVIs, the only district on here which Obama did not win was NY-26 (carried by McCain 52-46). There are also some pretty notable absences on this list, such as Mike Castle (DE-AL), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), and Bill Young (FL-10). All of these guys could run for higher office or retire, so maybe the NRCC is tipping its hand here – or just hedging its bets.

UPDATE: On May 21 Republican attorney and former State Senator Chuck Larson of Cedar Rapids said he’s not running for governor either.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver’s approval numbers have declined since the start of the year, but Republicans aren’t exactly beating down the doors to run against him. Earlier this month former Republican Governor Terry Branstad and Vermeer Corporation chief executive Mary Andringa both quashed speculation that they might challenge Culver next year.

Today State Auditor David Vaudt announced that he won’t run for governor either. It’s bad news for Republicans who were hoping to recruit a candidate known for expertise on fiscal matters.

More details and analysis are after the jump.

At a press conference, Vaudt cited Iowa’s budget problems as his reason for not running:

“I know that if I were to run for governor, there would be some that would try to discredit important financial information that I’m providing to Iowans. They would do that by simply questioning the motives, since I would be running for governor.”

The last thing he wants to do, Vaudt said, is diminish his ability to keep Iowans informed about what’s happening with state finances.

Other factors might also have influenced Vaudt’s decision. He’s virtually guaranteed re-election if he stays in his current position, whereas he might have trouble in a Republican gubernatorial primary. Or, perhaps he doesn’t think Culver is particularly vulnerable. Even though Culver is below 50 percent in some polls, he still has time to bounce back. It’s worth remembering that Iowans haven’t turned an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

I doubt Vaudt would have won the Republican nomination for reasons I described here, but he would have been a stronger general-election candidate than Bob Vander Plaats, the only Republican who seems certain to run. Vander Plaats is a Sioux City businessman who was Jim Nussle’s running mate in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Since then, Vander Plaats has served as Iowa chair for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and has argued that Republicans are losing elections in Iowa because they’re not conservative enough.

Vaudt’s decision is a blow to Republicans who are hoping the 2010 race will revolve around economic and fiscal issues. It also removes from the mix one of the most seasoned office-holders from a party that’s had a bad run in Iowa for the last decade.

Hill Research sent me partial results from the poll they took in March about the Iowa governor’s race. They redacted some of the most interesting findings, such as how appealing respondents found various types of candidates (including an “auditor who has kept track of how state money is spent”). Still, I found this result intriguing:

   Do you want an experienced and effective elected official, or an outsider with a fresh perspective and new ideas?

   Strongly want an experienced elected official: 34%

   Want an experienced elected official: 19%

   Fresh perspective: 14%

   Strongly want a fresh perspective: 27%

Vaudt is by far the most experienced statewide official who was considering running for governor. (Former Governor Terry Branstad has no desire to get back in the game.)

Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, the only other Republican currently holding a statewide elected position, is leaning toward running for re-election rather than governor. It makes sense. He would be heavily favored against Francis Thicke, the most likely Democratic candidate for secretary of agriculture. In contrast, I believe Northey would be a long-shot for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, having gone on record supporting a gas tax increase. Besides, the same-sex marriage controversy will probably give an edge to religious conservatives in next year’s primary. Even if Northey won the GOP nomination, I think that with no base of support in eastern Iowa population centers, he would be an underdog against Culver in the general.

One or two Iowa House Republicans seem likely to challenge Culver. Former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants has been thinking about running for governor for a long time. Earlier this month he sent an e-mail to potential supporters saying that since the 2009 legislative session ended,

I’ve put 2,300 miles on my car driving around the state talking to donors and activists about running for Governor.

I’m not making any official announcements or anything like that just yet. I’m taking stock first to see if I can find the support, and if I do, then I’ll let the press know. I have my eyes wide open. Its at least an $8M – $10M endeavor – or $110,000 a week as I like to say… I want to put some money in the bank, and be sure of financial backing before I take a stab at that.

So far it’s been encouraging. I have a series of fundraisers set up, and people who have agreed to help organize and set things up for me. I’ll be on the road this coming week again – back to the east coast of the state.

If he runs, Rants will compete with Vander Plaats for the conservative vote. Rants tried several times last month to bring legislation banning same-sex marriage to a vote on the Iowa House floor.

State Representative Rod Roberts told the Daily Times-Herald of Carroll he is “very seriously considering” a gubernatorial bid. He’s an ordained pastor, but some fellow Republicans claim he can communicate a broader message than abortion and gay marriage. Whether a state legislator from western Iowa can raise enough money and gain enough name recognition to seriously challenge Culver is another question.

Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican blog thinks there is room for another Republican candidate besides Rants and Vander Plaats, but

A candidate from the business community or a candidate that hadn’t previously weighed in on the marriage debate may find the primary more difficult to navigate than it would have been if the [Iowa Supreme] Court’s decision had been different. This may be the reason why, out of nowhere, we have seen some long-time GOP powerbrokers like Dave Roederer and Doug Gross warning Iowa Republicans that the focus cannot be on the issue of gay marriage if we want to win elections. […]

Gross has not been shy about his belief that the fiscal issues create an agenda which will unite the Republican Party. Many, if not most, Republicans probably agree with that. The only problem is that the issue of gay marriage has been thrust to the forefront in Iowa by the Court’s decision. Ignoring the issue or trying to diminish its importance is simply not an option.

With only 397 days until the primary, it is likely that the gubernatorial primary will be between Vander Plaats, Rants, and maybe one other candidate. While it is true that there is plenty of time for candidates to emerge, the clock is ticking. It takes time to organize people and raise the huge amounts of money needed to run statewide campaigns.

Robinson asserts that Roederer and Gross “are probably having difficulty recruiting a candidate of their liking.” Vermeer Corporation chief executive Mary Andringa has already said she’s not running for governor next year.

In theory, today’s announcement from Vaudt could leave an opening for a Republican moderate hoping conservatives will split the primary vote. On the other hand, there aren’t many moderates left in Republican political ranks, and Culver doesn’t look endangered enough to make this race attractive for someone from the business community, in my opinion.

Pleas share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

One consequence of Gov. Jon Huntsman’s sudden decision to accept Barack Obama’s offer of the position of Ambassador to China is that the newly-promoted governor, current Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, will need to face the voters in 2010. Huntsman’s term would have taken him through 2012, but Utah law is such that a replacement Governor newly elevated in a term’s first year faces a special election at the next regularly scheduled general election. (Remember, Huntsman was just re-elected in 2008.)

Herbert seems to be giving every indication that he will not be a placeholder and run for re-election in 2010 (for the remaining two years of the term; if he won, he’d still have to run again in the regularly-scheduled 2012 election if he wanted a full term). However, history may not be on his side. Lt. Gov. Olene Walker took over as Utah Governor in 2003 after Mike Leavitt became the Bush-era EPA Administrator, but because of Utah’s weird nominating procedures (previously discussed here), she didn’t even make it into the primary for her 2004 re-election, finishing third at the convention. (The top two finishers at the nominating convention advance to the primary, unless one candidate receives more than 60% at the convention, in which case he or she moves straight to the general.)

Herbert does not sound as out-of-step with activist base that dominates the nominating conventions as the somewhat moderate Walker, so he may still survive. He may still face some top-shelf competition, starting with AG Mark Shurtleff, last seen screwing up the announcement of his Senate primary candidacy against Bob Bennett via Twitter. Although Shurtleff is rumored be “Senate or bust,” he may be tempted to run against the less-known Herbert rather than longtime institution Bennett. (Another Bennett challenger, Tim Bridgewater, may be also interested in swapping races.)

There’s also the possibility that a decent Democrat might be more attracted to a chaotic, off-year gubernatorial election. That probably wouldn’t include Rep. Jim Matheson (who’d still have to give up his seat in 2010 to run), but it could include Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon or Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, who could run without giving up their current seats. While Swing State Project is skeptical of any Democrats’ chances in this race (it is, after all, Utah), there is enough fluidity here, especially on the GOP side, for us to add this as a “Race to Watch” to our 2010 Gubernatorial Race Ratings.

UPDATE (James): The Salt Lake Tribune touched bases with both Corroon and Jim Matheson, and they both are refusing to rule anything out:

A run for governor “is certainly not something I was planning for,” said Corroon, who “would never say never.” He says his “intent” is to finish his second term as Salt Lake County mayor.

Matheson says he will weigh his options. “In politics you always look at your opportunities,” he said, “and that’s what I always do.”

With Roy Cooper out of the running for the Democratic nomination against GOP non-entity Richard Burr, CNN reports that the DSCC is putting out feelers to four potential candidates — including one who previously passed on the race:

Still, the DSCC – which is otherwise staying mum on the recruitment process – is taking four Democratic candidates seriously at the moment, according to a committee source.

Their top candidates are, in no particular order: Rep. Heath Shuler, the former NFL quarterback and second term congressman from western North Carolina’s 11th district; Rep. Bob Etheridge from the Raleigh-area second district; former state Treasurer Richard Moore, who lost in the state’s Democratic gubernatorial primary last year; and Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton.

Shuler, who declined to run for this race back in March, has been receiving encouragement to reconsider the race from Dem groups in DC and North Carolina, according to a spokesperson.

Aside from Shuler, who brings a unique strength in western NC to a hypothetical race, the DSCC appears to looking at candidates with a statewide track record first, and they have a lot to choose from here. Dalton, a former state senator, won the Lt. Governor’s race by a five-point margin in 2008, while Etheridge served for two terms as NC’s Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1988-1996. (Additionally, Etheridge’s Raleigh-area district, which Obama carried last fall, would be an easier hold for Democrats than Shuler’s or Mike McIntyre’s seats.) However, Etheridge is getting a bit long in the tooth for someone looking to join the Senate — he’ll be 69 years old by election day in 2010.

For more details on the long list of potential nominees, the Winston-Salem Journal has a brief rundown on the DSCC’s top four choices and many other possible recruits.

(H/T: Political Wire)