Swing State Project

Obama beat McCain 61%-37% in California, performing 7% better than Kerry in his 54%-44% win over Bush. Here are the county-by-county percentages for Kerry and Obama and the difference between those percentages. Counties that flipped from Bush to Obama are bolded.

County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff
Alameda	75.2%	78.8%	3.6%		Kings	33.8%	42.1%	8.3%		Placer	36.3%	43.4%	7.1%		Shasta	31.4%	36.0%	4.6%
Alpine	53.3%	61.0%	7.7%		Lake	53.2%	58.2%	5.0%		Plumas	36.9%	42.8%	5.9%		Sierra	33.2%	37.4%	4.2%
Amador	36.6%	41.6%	5.0%		Lassen	27.6%	31.5%	3.9%		Riverside	41.1%	50.3%	9.2%		Siskiyou	37.8%	43.3%	5.5%
Butte	44.2%	49.9%	5.7%		Los Angeles	63.2%	69.2%	6.0%		Sacramento	49.6%	58.5%	8.9%		Solano	57.2%	63.5%	6.3%
Calaveras	37.1%	42.2%	5.1%		Madera	34.8%	42.4%	7.6%		San Benito	52.7%	60.5%	7.8%		Sonoma	67.2%	73.7%	6.5%
Colusa	31.6%	40.0%	8.4%		Marin	73.3%	78.0%	4.7%		San Bernardino	43.6%	52.1%	8.5%		Stanislaus	40.4%	49.9%	9.5%
Contra Costa	62.3%	68.0%	5.7%		Mariposa	37.6%	42.5%	4.9%		San Diego	46.4%	54.2%	7.8%		Sutter	31.9%	40.8%	8.9%
Del Norte	41.4%	45.4%	4.0%		Mendocino	63.5%	69.6%	6.1%		San Francisco	83.1%	84.2%	1.1%		Tehama	32.1%	36.7%	4.6%
El Dorado	37.4%	43.7%	6.3%		Merced	42.3%	53.4%	11.1%		San Joaquin	45.9%	54.5%	8.6%		Trinity	42.8%	50.8%	8.0%
Fresno	41.7%	50.3%	8.6%		Modoc	25.8%	29.8%	4.0%		San Luis Obispo	45.6%	51.4%	5.8%		Tulare	32.9%	41.5%	8.6%
Glenn	31.7%	37.8%	6.1%		Mono	49.3%	55.6%	6.3%		San Mateo	69.5%	73.5%	4.0%		Tuolumne	38.6%	42.5%	3.9%
Humboldt	57.7%	62.3%	4.6%		Monterey	60.4%	68.2%	7.8%		Santa Barbara	53.2%	60.4%	7.2%		Ventura	47.6%	55.3%	7.7%
Imperial	52.5%	62.3%	9.8%		Napa	59.5%	65.2%	5.7%		Santa Clara	64.0%	69.5%	5.5%		Yolo	59.4%	67.1%	7.7%
Inyo	38.9%	43.9%	5.0%		Nevada	45.0%	51.5%	6.5%		Santa Cruz	73.0%	77.5%	4.5%		Yuba	31.6%	41.5%	9.9%
Kern	32.6%	40.2%	7.6%		Orange	39.0%	47.7%	8.7%

As you can see, a lot of the counties that showed the most improvement from 2004, including a lot of those that flipped, are in the areas of the state that experienced the fastest growth this decade. This is good news for us heading into the 2010 elections, because a lot of congressional and state legislative seats in these areas are ripe for the picking. This is also good news for redistricting, as the rapid growth of Democratic numbers gives the Democrats more room overall and allows for further gains by them.

You can also see that the counties in the multi-county Democratic stronghold of the Bay Area showed smaller Democratic growth numbers. This does not exactly mean that the region is trending Republican; rather, it has just pretty much maxed out its Democratic numbers. So just relying on our old strongholds in the Bay Area and L.A. County only takes us so far, and I am pleased to see the improvements in the fast-growing counties, which allow us to expand our playing field greatly.

Check below the flip for the juicy details on the numbers by districts.

The districts are colored by the party of their current occupants. Republican-held districts that voted for Obama are bolded.

Congressional District

District	Kerry	Obama	Diff		District	Kerry	Obama	Diff		District	Kerry	Obama	Diff		District	Kerry	Obama	Diff
CA-01	59.7%	65.6%	5.9%		CA-15	62.9%	68.4%	5.5%		CA-28	71.0%	76.2%	5.2%		CA-41	36.9%	43.7%	6.8%
CA-02	36.6%	42.7%	6.1%		CA-16	63.4%	69.6%	6.2%		CA-29	61.2%	67.6%	6.4%		CA-42	36.9%	44.9%	8.1%
CA-03	40.8%	49.2%	8.4%		CA-17	65.6%	72.1%	6.5%		CA-30	66.1%	70.4%	4.3%		CA-43	58.1%	68.0%	9.9%
CA-04	37.4%	43.9%	6.5%		CA-18	49.3%	59.2%	9.9%		CA-31	76.9%	79.9%	3.0%		CA-44	39.9%	49.5%	9.6%
CA-05	61.1%	69.5%	8.4%		CA-19	37.9%	46.0%	8.1%		CA-32	62.3%	68.2%	5.9%		CA-45	43.1%	51.5%	8.4%
CA-06	70.3%	76.0%	5.7%		CA-20	50.6%	59.6%	9.0%		CA-33	82.8%	86.8%	4.0%		CA-46	41.6%	47.9%	6.3%
CA-07	67.1%	71.7%	4.6%		CA-21	33.7%	42.1%	8.4%		CA-34	68.8%	74.7%	5.9%		CA-47	48.6%	60.1%	11.5%
CA-08	84.2%	85.4%	1.2%		CA-22	31.0%	38.3%	7.3%		CA-35	79.0%	84.4%	5.4%		CA-48	40.4%	49.3%	8.9%
CA-09	85.9%	88.1%	2.2%		CA-23	58.3%	65.5%	7.2%		CA-36	59.0%	64.4%	5.4%		CA-49	36.5%	45.1%	8.6%
CA-10	58.5%	64.9%	6.4%		CA-24	43.1%	50.5%	7.4%		CA-37	73.5%	79.6%	6.1%		CA-50	43.9%	51.3%	7.4%
CA-11	45.3%	53.8%	8.5%		CA-25	39.9%	49.4%	9.5%		CA-38	65.3%	71.3%	6.0%		CA-51	53.4%	63.1%	9.7%
CA-12	71.5%	74.3%	2.8%		CA-26	43.7%	51.0%	7.3%		CA-39	58.5%	65.5%	7.0%		CA-52	37.7%	45.0%	7.3%
CA-13	70.9%	74.4%	3.5%		CA-27	59.3%	66.1%	6.8%		CA-40	38.4%	46.6%	8.2%		CA-53	61.2%	68.2%	7.0%
CA-14	68.3%	73.0%	4.7%

Board of Equalization

District	Kerry	Obama	Diff
BOE-1	67.2%	72.1%	4.9%
BOE-2	42.7%	50.9%	8.2%
BOE-3	42.4%	50.6%	8.2%
BOE-4	65.6%	71.5%	5.9%

State Senate

County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff
SD-01	38.6%	45.8%	7.2%		SD-11	68.3%	73.3%	5.0%		SD-21	63.2%	69.2%	6.0%		SD-31	41.6%	49.7%	8.1%
SD-02	63.3%	68.7%	5.4%		SD-12	47.7%	57.9%	10.2%		SD-22	74.1%	78.3%	4.2%		SD-32	58.9%	68.4%	9.5%
SD-03	77.8%	81.6%	3.8%		SD-13	67.4%	72.2%	4.8%		SD-23	65.0%	70.0%	5.0%		SD-33	36.3%	45.2%	8.9%
SD-04	36.9%	43.0%	6.1%		SD-14	34.8%	42.5%	7.7%		SD-24	64.4%	69.6%	5.2%		SD-34	46.6%	57.3%	10.7%
SD-05	53.7%	62.3%	8.6%		SD-15	52.5%	59.1%	6.6%		SD-25	72.3%	78.7%	6.4%		SD-35	40.3%	47.9%	7.6%
SD-06	55.6%	64.3%	8.7%		SD-16	49.5%	58.9%	9.4%		SD-26	81.6%	85.8%	4.2%		SD-36	34.5%	42.1%	7.6%
SD-07	60.9%	66.7%	5.8%		SD-17	39.9%	48.7%	8.8%		SD-27	59.5%	66.1%	6.6%		SD-37	41.2%	50.3%	9.1%
SD-08	73.9%	75.8%	1.9%		SD-18	30.2%	37.5%	7.3%		SD-28	61.6%	67.2%	5.6%		SD-38	40.3%	48.3%	8.0%
SD-09	81.1%	84.0%	2.9%		SD-19	48.4%	55.6%	7.2%		SD-29	41.8%	48.9%	7.1%		SD-39	57.6%	64.8%	7.2%
SD-10	67.3%	71.4%	4.1%		SD-20	65.4%	72.5%	7.1%		SD-30	62.3%	68.7%	6.4%		SD-40	52.9%	62.1%	9.2%

State Assembly

County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff		County	Kerry	Obama	Diff
AD-01	60.1%	65.5%	5.4%		AD-21	66.6%	72.0%	5.4%		AD-41	62.3%	67.8%	5.5%		AD-61	54.4%	63.2%	8.8%
AD-02	32.3%	38.0%	5.7%		AD-22	67.3%	72.1%	4.8%		AD-42	72.0%	75.5%	3.5%		AD-62	61.8%	71.3%	9.5%
AD-03	41.8%	48.0%	6.2%		AD-23	66.2%	71.5%	5.3%		AD-43	63.9%	70.3%	6.4%		AD-63	42.6%	51.1%	8.5%
AD-04	38.1%	45.2%	7.1%		AD-24	62.1%	68.0%	5.9%		AD-44	60.8%	67.2%	6.4%		AD-64	41.2%	50.0%	8.8%
AD-05	42.3%	51.1%	8.8%		AD-25	38.0%	44.9%	6.9%		AD-45	78.5%	80.6%	2.1%		AD-65	39.0%	47.0%	8.0%
AD-06	71.0%	76.2%	5.2%		AD-26	41.8%	50.7%	8.9%		AD-46	80.6%	83.9%	3.3%		AD-66	34.4%	43.7%	9.3%
AD-07	65.1%	70.7%	5.6%		AD-27	66.7%	71.8%	5.1%		AD-47	80.7%	85.3%	4.6%		AD-67	39.6%	46.1%	6.5%
AD-08	55.6%	63.3%	7.7%		AD-28	59.8%	68.3%	8.5%		AD-48	86.0%	89.1%	3.1%		AD-68	38.4%	47.4%	9.0%
AD-09	66.0%	73.4%	7.4%		AD-29	36.3%	44.4%	8.1%		AD-49	61.2%	65.3%	4.1%		AD-69	52.7%	64.4%	11.7%
AD-10	42.5%	51.1%	8.6%		AD-30	42.2%	51.1%	8.9%		AD-50	70.6%	76.9%	6.3%		AD-70	42.0%	50.9%	8.9%
AD-11	64.3%	69.7%	5.4%		AD-31	52.8%	62.2%	9.4%		AD-51	75.5%	81.4%	5.9%		AD-71	34.4%	44.6%	10.2%
AD-12	79.1%	79.0%	-0.1%		AD-32	28.7%	35.8%	7.1%		AD-52	86.1%	90.8%	4.7%		AD-72	38.3%	47.3%	9.0%
AD-13	85.6%	87.5%	1.9%		AD-33	43.1%	49.5%	6.4%		AD-53	56.9%	62.4%	5.5%		AD-73	38.5%	46.5%	8.0%
AD-14	80.6%	83.8%	3.2%		AD-34	32.6%	40.6%	8.0%		AD-54	56.6%	61.9%	5.3%		AD-74	42.4%	50.2%	7.8%
AD-15	49.6%	57.6%	8.0%		AD-35	59.7%	66.9%	7.2%		AD-55	63.0%	69.4%	6.4%		AD-75	43.2%	51.3%	8.1%
AD-16	85.6%	87.9%	2.3%		AD-36	38.4%	49.3%	10.9%		AD-56	55.1%	62.1%	7.0%		AD-76	59.6%	66.2%	6.6%
AD-17	49.7%	59.5%	9.8%		AD-37	43.8%	51.0%	7.2%		AD-57	58.8%	66.2%	7.4%		AD-77	35.8%	42.7%	6.9%
AD-18	69.7%	73.8%	4.1%		AD-38	43.6%	51.4%	7.8%		AD-58	60.8%	66.4%	5.6%		AD-78	51.2%	60.2%	9.0%
AD-19	69.3%	72.9%	3.6%		AD-39	69.9%	76.4%	6.5%		AD-59	39.6%	46.6%	7.0%		AD-79	56.0%	65.0%	9.0%
AD-20	65.9%	70.3%	4.4%		AD-40	60.3%	66.9%	6.6%		AD-60	38.4%	45.8%	7.4%		AD-80	51.6%	59.6%	8.0%

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/20…

Moore told the Associated Press that he plans to announce his decision June 1. That’s when he could start raising money for the Republican primary in June 2010.

“Right now I’m very inclined to enter. I feel there is a need, and I feel I’m well qualified for the position,” he said.

Moore, 62, garnered just 33 percent of the GOP primary vote when he ran against Gov. Bob Riley in 2006. But Riley can’t run again in 2010.

-He may very well become the gov as Alabama is very red.:(

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Before anyone gets too excited, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Grassley vulnerable. His approval rating is around 71 percent (if you believe Survey USA) or 66 percent (if you believe Selzer and Associates). Either way, he is outside the danger zone for an incumbent.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should leave Grassley unchallenged. Having a credible candidate at the top of the ballot in 2010 will increase the number of straight-ticket Democratic voters. So far Bob Krause is planning to jump in this race. More power to him or any other Democrat who is willing to make the case against Grassley. We should be realistic, though, and understand that unless something extraordinary happens, we are not going to defeat this five-term incumbent.

So why am I hoping a right-winger will take on Grassley in the Republican primary? Here’s what I think would happen.

1. A conservative taking potshots at Grassley would intensify the struggle between GOP moderates and “goofballs” just when Iowa Republicans are trying to present a united front against Democratic governance. GOP chairman Strawn claimed this weekend that Democratic tax reform proposals had unified his party, but if Grassley faces a challenger, expect social issues to dominate next spring’s media coverage of Republicans.

2. Although some delusional folks seem to think Grassley could lose a low-turnout primary, Grassley would crush any challenger from the right. That has the potential to demoralize religious GOP activists and their cheerleaders, such as the popular talk radio personality Steve Deace. (Deace already has plenty of grievances against Grassley.)

3. Every prominent Iowa Republican will have to take a position on the Senate primary, if there is one. I assume almost everyone will back Grassley, which would offend part of the GOP base. But if, say, Strawn or Congressman Steve King surprised me by staying neutral in the primary, that would demonstrate how much power extremists have within the Republican Party. Most people intuitively understand that you don’t try to replace a U.S. senator from your own party who has a lot of seniority.

A Senate primary could become a distracting sideshow for Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not clear yet how many Republicans will run against Governor Chet Culver, but almost all of the likely candidates would endorse Grassley over a right-winger. I would expect even Bob Vander Plaats to support Grassley, although he could surprise me. Vander Plaats believes Iowa Republican have been losing elections because they’ve become too moderate.

Watching the Republican establishment line up behind Grassley will remind social conservative activists that the party likes to use their support but doesn’t take their concerns seriously. These people will hold their noses and vote Republican next November, but they may not donate their time and money when Strawn and the gubernatorial nominee need their help to improve the GOP’s early voting operation.

My hunch is that no challenger to Grassley will emerge, because even the angriest conservatives must understand that they have little to gain from this course. Then again, we’re talking about people who believe the little-known, inexperienced Salier would have done better against Tom Harkin in 2002 than four-term Congressman Greg Ganske. Maybe some Republican is just crazy enough to run against Grassley next year.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos (4/6-8, registered voters):

Brian Moran (D): 24

Terry McAuliffe (D): 19

Creigh Deeds (D): 16

(MoE: ±5%)

Brian Moran (D): 36

Bob McDonnell (R): 37

Terry McAuliffe (D): 33

Bob McDonnell (R): 40

Creigh Deeds (D): 31

Bob McDonnell (R): 38

(MoE: ±4%)

Research 2000 polls the Virginia governor’s race for the first time, finding that ex-Delegate Brian Moran has a small advantage in the primary over former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe. A recent PPP poll had Moran and McAuliffe tied, but gave Moran the momentum (McAuliffe had previously led), and found McAuliffe with higher negatives. That’s mirrored here: Moran’s favorables are 36/33 while McAuliffe is the only candidate in net negative territory at 35/36.

Moran fares slightly better in the general than the other Dems because of his solid base in northern Virginia (he used to represent Alexandria), winning NoVa against Bob McDonnell 49-21. McDonnell wins the rest of the state 43-31, though, and sports impressive favorables of 48/31. Once the Dem primary is over and the winner can aim his fire at McDonnell instead of the other Dems, though, maybe his negatives can get driven up. McDonnell’s support for the GOP-led House of Delegates’ decision to reject federal stimulus money for unemployment benefits provides a good opening.

* MD-HD-30: Progressive blogger and founder of Think Progress Judd Legum is running for a seat in Maryland’s House of Delegates. MD has an unusual system whereby the top three finishers in each party’s primary all face each other in the general election, and the top three from that pool all become delegates for that district. The 30th HD went for Obama 52-48, but a few years ago, an out-of-step, conservative Republican snuck through in the third slot by just a handful of votes. Judd (whose blog is here) is taking on this malefactor. We wish him the very best of luck! (D)

* NY-20: The see-sawing continues: at the end of counting yesterday, the semi-official BoE tally had Scott Murphy up by 8 votes. The four counties that hadn’t returned full results for paper ballots, though, were four of the pivotal ones: Saratoga (Tedisco’s base), and Washington, Warren, and Essex (Murphy’s base). The Albany Times-Union puts Murphy’s lead at 34, including some additional numbers from Essex. The Hill, as of this hour, is reporting a 46 vote lead for Murphy as more absentees seem to start trickling in.

* SC-Gov: Rep. Gresham Barrett, one of the House’s most forgettable members, posted surprisingly strong fundraising numbers in his quest to become South Carolina governor: $371,000 in the first quarter, with more than $1 million CoH. He faces a crowded field, most prominently AG Henry McMaster, who raised $287K.

* CA-32: Here’s a strange twist in the CA-32 special election: another Chu has filed to run. Betty Tom Chu, a city councilor and former mayor in Monterey Park, jumped in as a Republican. (She used to be registered as a Democrat and holds nonpartisan office.) There are rumors of bad blood between the two Chus, but this may not necessarily be a dirty trick to sabotage Judy Chu. Although it’s an all-in-one-field primary (where the top vote-getter from each party advances), Betty Chu will have an R next to her name, helping somewhat to differentiate her from Judy Chu. The real confusion may be in the general, which could therefore be Chu vs. Chu.

Before I analyzed OHIO, I first did an intensive analysis of INDIANA, which you can find at Google Docs, in three parts:

Part I

Part II

Part III

Excel Document with all raw data.

If you don’t have a gmail account, you probably don’t have access to the excel document, you can get it from me over email by writing to me here

Rationale: Obama, who took the Hoosier state by a +1.03% margin, was the first democratic candidate to win this state since 1964. This means that two complete generations of citizens from Indiana had voted in the majority for the republican presidential candidate until 2008.

A number of myths and angry retorts have gone around (mostly from the GOP and the extreme right) about what happened in INDIANA since election day, so I decided to do an exact analysis to get to the facts and to dispel myth and rumour. The results of this analysis are quite amazing.

Over all-

John McCain beat Obama 62% to 34% compare that to Bush beating Kerry by 71% to 26%. Obama did 8% better than Kerry. I think in the long run Utah will go blue as it is one of the fastest growing states with a growing number of hispanics.

The percent that Obama improved on Kerry in each county-

Box Elder County-5%

Beaver County-3%

Cache County-9%

Carbon County-4%

Daggett County-8%

Davis County-8%

Duchesne County-3%

Emery County-4%

Garfield County-7%

Grand County-6%

Iron County-5%

Juab County-2%

Kane County -8%

Millard County-3%

Morgan County-5%

Piute County-2%

Rich County-4%

Salt Lake County-11%

San Juan County-8%

Sanpete County-4%

Sevier County-5%

Summit County-11%

Tooele County-8%

Uintah County-1%

Utah County-6%

Wasatch County-9%

Washington County-4%

Wayne County-5%

Weber County-8%

If Utah keeps on this track we should see a blue Utah one day(lets hope).

Our friends at the Cook Political Report have released an updated Partisan Voting Index that now includes the results of the 2008 presidential election. They’ve also made a small change in the formula used to calculate PVIs, and I think it’ll be instantly recognizable to SSPers:

To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5. (Emphasis added.)

As we discussed at length, the old PVI formula compared district-level results for the past two presidential elections to nationwide results for only the most recent election. This choice sparked plenty of debate, and some folks even suggested we use our own “SVI” that would compare 2004 to 2004 and 2008 to 2008.

Fortunately, the debate has been resolved. As you can discern from the description above (the key part is in bold), Cook has decided to revise its methodology along the lines proposed by people here. Charlie Cook (an SSP reader, as is House editor David Wasserman) told me he wanted something that was “totally apples and apples,” and I agree with the choice. Ultimately, this means that the new PVIs will be about two points bluer than under the old system – e.g., a district that would have been R+10 will now come in at R+8.

You can find the new PVIs by partisan rank in this PDF, as well as by member name and by state/district. There’s also a giant-size map and a cool chart showing trends in the PVI over the last decade. (As you’d expect, the number of “competitive” districts, at least on the presidential level, has been shrinking.) Have fun!