Swing State Project

A race that looked like it might be sleepy just got a bit more interesting. Not because of this:

Meanwhile, GOP leaders from the seven counties in the district picked state Assemblywoman Jane Corwin as their nominee during a meeting in Geneseo on Monday night.

Corwin said she was “humbled” by their support and touted her rating as the “the 2nd most conservative member” of the state Assembly by the New York State Conservative Party.

“I know we need to slash federal spending, balance the budget, end the bailouts, take leftover money from the Obama stimulus package to pay down the deficit and support repealing Obamacare,” she said in a statement.

But because of this:

The nomination of the establishment favorite, while celebrated by local Republican officials Monday night, drew an ominous warning from western New York tea party activists who immediately vowed to pursue a third-party candidate. …

The western New York tea party organization reacted swiftly and sharply Monday night immediately after Corwin’s selection had been finalized: “How sad, the GOP leaders stuck their finger high in the air and told the TEA Party to stick it,” said an updated statement posted on the group’s website Monday night. “The[y] have endorsed Corwin, they have now set their own table and invited a third party candidate to challenge them for this Congressional seat.”

Still, the teabaggers always talk a big game, and whether they can actually put up a fight is a big question that, I think, depends on two things. The first is whether the Conservative Party endorses Corwin (they’ve done so in the past), or if they give their line to a teahadist. If the Cons go with Corwin, the malcontents will have to petition their way on to the ballot – not something easily done.

The second is whether a well-funded outside group like the Tea Party Express or the Club for Growth decides to get in. The glory that was the Doug Hoffman-led NY-23 cat fud extravangaza would never have been possible without the CfG; if they or the TPX declines to get involved here, it’s hard to imagine Some Dude making much of an impact. There’s the possibility of finding a richie rich, but one good option, Carl Paladino, has already gotten behind Corwin.

Anyhow, we’ll obviously keep our eyes on this race, especially since Dems might still make a serious push here. Fingers always crossed for cat fud.

P.S. One detail from last November’s elections that had escaped my notice is that the Green Party managed to get more than 50,000 votes in the gubernatorial race. This means they get an automatic ballot line for the next four years, so no more petitioning – the first time this has happened for a new party in New York in quite a while. (The Libertarians came close, with just under 49K votes.) So we could see more third-party challenges bugging Dems from the left in the near future, if the Greens don’t make a habit of cross-endorsing (as the Working Families Party typically does).

UPDATE: So Republican leaders are kissing Conservative Party chair Mike Long’s… ring, and he seems inclined to play ball:

“I’ve had good conversations with Republican leaders in the state and in Washington, D.C.,” said Long. “Provided they pick a conservative Republican, I will work to keep this thing unified. It’s a seat we shouldn’t lose.”

Derail a few elections and suddenly everyone’s your friend! Meanwhile, Liz Benjamin points to another option:

However, the Indys could be convinced to support someone else – particularly if they get a personal ask from Rep. Steve Israel, the new DCCC chairman. The congressman is allies with state Indy Chairman Frank MacKay (they’re both Long Islanders), who would like to help Israel land his first victory in his new leadership role, if at all possible. …

But the DCCC, which apparently has done some polling on this, doesn’t see the point of putting any money into the race unless there’s a strong third party or independent candidate who might split the GOP vote in the Republican-dominated district, providing the Democrat with a potential path to victory.

Would the Independence Party deliberately try to split the vote just to help Israel? I’m skeptical – and this information is coming just from a single anonymous source of Benjamin’s. And as I say above, I don’t think merely having a third-party placeholder would be enough of a difference-maker. I think that candidate would have to have real money.

UPDATE 2: Now this is the kind of third-party candidate I’m talking about. No, not David Bellavia, the Iraq war vet mentioned in this morning’s digest who apparently refused to rule out such a run when he interviewed with party leaders. I’m talking about Crazy Jack Davis, the lunatic jillionaire and three-time failed candidate for this seat. There are conflicting reports. “Sources say” to Liz Benjamin that Davis could mount an independent bid, but the Daily Caller amusingly relates that Davis “said he would try for the Democratic nomination if he did not receive the Republican endorsement.” A sure way to lose both nods! Third party, here he comes?

In recent days, there has been some talk of attempting to recall WI Gov. Scott Walker over his attempts to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. However, by law, Walker could not become the subject of a recall effort until 2012, and it would take over 500,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot. (Wisconsin’s total population is just 5.65 million.)

But the state senate is elected in alternating cycles, and eight Republicans – all of those in even-numbered districts, i.e., who last ran in 2008 – are eligible for recall now. That’s state Sens. Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich and Dan Kapanke. (Of course, Dems elected in 2008 are potentially subject to recall as well.) And it would take about 15-16K signatures apiece for a successful recall petition, according to ThinkProgress.

So here’s a look at the presidential vote breakdown in all 33 Wisconsin state senate districts to help gauge who might be most vulnerable to such an effort. The “Margin” column is the incumbent’s margin of victory in his or her last election. Remember, you can click on each column header to sort the table, so you can see which incumbents had the narrowest victories, or which Republicans sit in the bluest seats, and so forth. (You can find our original spreadsheet here.)

One name which stands out here is Dan Kapanke. He’s in the bluest district held by a Republican, and he won by less than 3% last time he faced voters. If his name sounds familiar, that’s because he waged a pretty high-profile challenge against Dem Rep. Ron Kind (WI-03) last year, losing narrowly. I’m sure Kind has a pretty fat oppo file on Kapanke he’d be willing to share….

Now that it’s 2011, the redistricting games will soon begin in earnest, with more detailed Census data expected in the coming weeks and some states holding spring legislative sessions to deal with drawing new maps. Long ago I planned to do state-by-state rundowns of the redistricting process as soon as 2010 election results and Census reapportionment were clear. Now that time has arrived, and it’s time to look at Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota.

Previous diary on Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas

Previous diary on California, Colorado, and Connecticut

Previous diary on Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii

Previous diary on Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa

Previous diary on Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Maryland

The rest below the fold…

Massachusetts

Districts: 9 (down from 10 in 2002)

Who’s in charge? Democrats

Is that important? Not from a partisan perspective, no

For a state with an all-Democratic delegation being remapped by Democratic lawmakers, there’s been a surprising amount of drama in the Bay State over whose district will be cut. It was hoped that an older member would announce his retirement, allowing a clean elimination without any messy incumbent vs. incumbent primaries. But Financial Services Committee ranking member Barney Frank, long speculated to be the next retiree, announced he will run again, and so far no member of the congressional delegation appears ready to challenge Sen. Scott Brown, though Mike Capuano’s name is still in the running. Should he go for it, his Boston seat will simply be split up between Frank and Stephen Lynch. In any case, all nine districts should remain strongly Democratic-leaning.

Michigan

Districts: 14 (down from 15 in 2002)

Who’s in charge? Republicans

Is that important? Yes

As was the case ten years ago, Republicans will draw the lines in Michigan, but unlike then, they really have no room to make gains, only to eliminate one more Democratic incumbent. In most estimations, that incumbent will be two-termer Gary Peters, the only Democrat (other than Hansen Clarke, whose district is VRA-protected) in the state’s delegation elected after 1982. A likely scenario is that his Oakland County swing district will be combined with Sander Levin’s heavily Democratic Macomb County territory in a safe blue seat. Levin’s liberal record and thirty years of seniority should make him a prohibitive favorite over Peters in the Democratic primary, but I suppose at 81 he will be prime congressional retirement age. Other than that, the GOP cannot afford to get too cute with boundaries — they already hold several marginal seats (the 1st, 7th, and 11th come to mind).

Minnesota

Districts: 8

Who’s in charge? Split (Dem Governor, GOP Legislature)

Is that important? Surely

Democrats are counting their lucky stars that Mark Dayton won the gubernatorial race, as the GOP has long aimed to combine Minneapolis and St. Paul into one heavily Democratic seat and now will presumably not have that opportunity. Ten years ago, a three-way deadlock between Independent Gov. Jesse Ventura, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House forced the courts to step in, but many hope for compromise this time around. Since the state’s high Census participation rate saved it from losing a seat, status quo will probably win the day, with safer seats for Tim Walz, Chip Cravaack, and perhaps Collin Peterson. Ironically, Minnesota just held on to its eighth seat at the expense of fast-growing but lower-participating North Carolina, which was the controversial winner over Utah for the last seat allocated in the 2000 Census.

One less potential open seat for Dems to worry about:

Congressman Joe Courtney said Monday he would not run for U.S. Senate in 2012.

In a statement release Monday morning, Courtney said: “I am truly grateful for the tremendous encouragement and enthusiastic support I have received from leaders across Connecticut as I have considered this question. I look forward to working with all of those who reached out to create a strong future for our state. After careful deliberation, however, I have decided to focus on my work as a Congressman and will decline to enter the race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate.”.

So far, U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy and former Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz have announced they will run for the seat now held by Joseph Lieberman, who is not seeking re-election.

This most immediately seems to be a boon to Murphy, as Courtney cuts a more similar profile to him than Bysiewicz and thus would likely have siphoned off more of Murphy’s vote than Bysie’s.

This is my version of Maryland using Daves Redistricting 2.1.  Looking at the 2010 Census data incorporated into the Application, I see no reason at all why Democrats should not create an 8-0 map.

Actually, I drew a couple versions of a map.  The main part of this diary deals with “Version 1”, an 8-0 map which I believe would have the best chance of being enacted in Maryland.  My alternative “Version 2” is discussed at the end of the diary.

VERSION 1

This map preserves both black majority seats, keeps the districts of all six Democratic incumbents safely Democratic and creates two additional Democratic seats — all without creating a “monstrous” looking map.

Another very important goal for me was to keep as much of each incumbent’s current territory (population-wise) in the new district.  The percentages of current constituents that each district gets to keep are below:

MD-1 – 64.8%

MD-2 – 65.1%

MD-3 – 58.2%

MD-4 – 57.9%

MD-5 – 64.6%

MD-6 – 60.1%

MD-7 – 51.8%

MD-8 – 58.0%

I feel that the set of numbers above is just as important as the partisan numbers for each district.  In many cases, if an incumbent loses too much of his or her existing constituents, they may not like the map even if their district becomes more favorable in terms of party identification.  Thus any map that has a realistic chance of being enacted in Maryland must pay close attention to how a proposed district resembles the existing district.

As you can see from the numbers above, each incumbent save one gets to keep at least 58% of their current constituents.  As for MD-7, Cummings keeps only 52%.  However, that number comes with a caveat — because an additional 13.9% of the proposed MD-7 here comes out of African-American areas in Baltimore City (Cherry Hill, for example) or Baltimore Co. (Randallstown) that are currently part of MD-2 or MD-3.  These added areas are 75% black, so even though Cummings currently doesn’t represent them, there’s no reason these new constituents would not be receptive to being represented by Cummings.

UPDATE: please note that per suggestion from one reader, I have adjusted the map to do a better job at keeping suburban Baltimore communities together; this change had the added benefit of making Cummings keep more of his current MD-7 constituents — now 55.1% (please see comments section for more info.)

The black percentage in the two black majority districts goes down slightly from the current percentages, but the proportion of African-Americans as a percentage of the Democratic primary vote in both districts is very high — by my estimate it’s at least 77% in MD-4 and at least 82% in MD-7 (sic) ! — so these districts should have no trouble in electing an African-American representative.

The districts of all six Democratic incumbents are kept at least 60% Obama and at least 60% Democratic Average 2006-2008.  The two new Democratic districts are made to be 53.7% Obama for MD-1 and 55.6% Obama for MD-6.  Both the new MD-1 and the new MD-6 are at exactly 52.9% Democratic Average 2006-2008.  I feel that is enough of a cushion in both cases.  For MD-1, Kratovil should easily win a 53-54% Democratic district.  Most of the area in the new MD-6 (Frederick area and northern Montgomery Co.) is becoming more and more Democratic every year, as evidenced by the Democrats take-over of State Senate District 3 (Frederick) this past November.  I could have made the new MD-6 a bit more Democratic, but I did not want to endanger Van Hollen or make the lines too convoluted (for example, you could add Carroll Co. to MD-4, like I did in a previous diary and here under “Version 2”, but it just seems like a bridge too far in any map that has a realistic chance of being enacted; in this respect, much of what constitutes drawing a map is quite subjective).  The new MD-6 here should turn blue, unless a very, very moderate Republican is the nominee — which isn’t going to happen these days !  

Partisan numbers for new districts are below:

MD-1 – 53.7 Obama; 52.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-2 – 60.9 Obama; 63.8 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-3 – 60.2 Obama; 60.7 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-4 – 82.5 Obama; 79.1 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-5 – 60.9 Obama; 60.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-6 – 55.6 Obama; 52.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-7 – 73.5 Obama; 69.7 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

MD-8 – 64.7 Obama; 64.9 Democratic Avg. 2006-2008

Where possible, I tried to respect county and community lines while drawing this map (see the fourth map down where city lines and Census-designated community lines in central Maryland are mapped).  

The population deviation for this map is +/- 132 persons, with the caveat that Maryland has a new law now where the prison population may have to be “reassigned” to district of origin.  For demographics below, I noted ethnic/racial group if 5%+ of the population. Please note that all the data below for current and proposed districts is obtained from Daves Redistricting Application.  I drew in the existing districts into the Application to obtain demographic data as it currently stands for each district.  Please note that for partisan data, it appears that the percentages provided in the Application are percentages as a proportion of the two-party vote.

District 1:

Current District Population: 81.0 white, 11.4 black

Proposed District Population: 66.0 white, 24.7 black, 5.2 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 82.8 white, 11.1 black

Proposed District 18+ Population: 68.5 white, 23.8 black

Current District President: 41.5 Obama, 58.5 McCain

Proposed District President: 53.7 Obama, 46.3 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 41.8 Democratic, 58.2 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 52.9 Democratic, 47.1 Republican

District 2:  

Current District Population: 55.2 white, 33.1 black, 5.0 hispanic

Proposed District Population: 62.6 white, 24.9 black, 5.4 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 59.2 white, 30.8 black

Proposed District 18+ Population: 66.5 white, 22.4 black

Current District President: 60.8 Obama, 39.2 McCain

Proposed District President: 60.9 Obama, 39.1 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 63.4 Democratic, 36.6 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 63.8 Democratic, 36.2 Republican

District 3:  

Current District Population: 65.2 white, 20.0 black, 6.8 hispanic, 5.3 asian

Proposed District Population: 60.0 white, 21.9 black, 8.7 asian, 6.1 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 68.2 white, 18.7 black, 6.0 hispanic, 5.2 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 62.9 white, 21.0 black, 8.6 asian, 5.4 hispanic

Current District President: 60.5 Obama, 39.5 McCain

Proposed District President: 60.2 Obama, 39.8 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 62.3 Democratic, 37.7 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 60.7 Democratic, 39.3 Republican

District 4:

Current District Population: 55.7 black, 20.6 white, 14.2 hispanic, 6.9 asian

Proposed District Population: 53.2 black, 24.7 white, 13.0 hispanic, 6.5 asian

Current District 18+ Population: 55.5 black, 22.3 white, 12.9 hispanic, 7.2 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 53.0 black, 26.2 white, 11.9 hispanic, 6.7 asian

Current District President: 86.1 Obama, 13.9 McCain

Proposed District President: 82.5 Obama, 17.5 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 82.6 Democratic, 17.4 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 79.1 Democratic, 20.9 Republican

District 5:

Current District Population: 48.0 white, 36.7 black, 7.9 hispanic

Proposed District Population: 56.4 white, 27.9 black, 9.5 hispanic

Current District 18+ Population: 50.8 white, 35.6 black, 6.9 hispanic

Proposed District 18+ Population: 58.7 white, 27.2 black, 8.4 hispanic

Current District President: 67.0 Obama, 33.0 McCain

Proposed District President: 60.9 Obama, 39.1 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 65.8 Democratic, 34.2 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 60.9 Democratic, 39.1 Republican

District 6:

Current District Population: 85.0 white, 6.4 black

Proposed District Population: 66.4 white, 11.0 hispanic, 10.6 black, 9.2 asian

Current District 18+ Population: 86.8 white, 6.4 black

Proposed District 18+ Population: 69.0 white, 10.0 black, 9.9 hispanic, 9.3 asian

Current District President: 41.3 Obama, 58.7 McCain

Proposed District President: 55.6 Obama, 44.4 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 40.0 Democratic, 60.0 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 52.9 Democratic, 47.1 Republican

District 7:  

Current District Population: 55.7 black, 31.6 white, 6.7 asian

Proposed District Population: 55.0 black, 38.2 white

Current District 18+ Population: 54.6 black, 33.6 white, 6.7 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 54.1 black, 39.9 white

Current District President: 81.8 Obama, 18.2 McCain

Proposed District President: 73.5 Obama, 26.5 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 76.6 Democratic, 23.4 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 69.7 Democratic, 30.3 Republican

District 8:  

Current District Population: 47.5 white, 20.0 hispanic, 16.3 black, 13.3 asian

Proposed District Population: 63.3 white, 13.6 black, 12.6 hispanic, 7.9 asian

Current District 18+ Population: 49.6 white, 18.6 hispanic, 16.1 black, 13.5 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 65.0 white, 13.6 black, 11.5 hispanic, 8.1 asian

Current District President: 76.0 Obama, 24.0 McCain

Proposed District President: 64.7 Obama, 35.3 McCain

Current District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 75.1 Democratic, 24.9 Republican

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 64.9 Democratic, 35.1 Republican

VERSION 2

The map below is my alternative version.  There’s only one difference from Version 1:  Carroll Co. is added to MD-4 while almost everything that’s in Montgomery Co. and part of MD-4 under Version 1 is now added to MD-6.  This exchange between MD-4 and MD-6 produces the following demographic and partisan numbers:

District 4:

Proposed District Population: 50.5 black, 33.1 white, 10.5 hispanic

Proposed District 18+ Population: 50.3 black, 34.5 white, 9.7 hispanic

Proposed District President: 75.7 Obama, 24.3 McCain

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 72.6 Democratic, 27.4 Republican

District 6:

Proposed District Population: 58.0 white, 13.4 hispanic, 13.3 black, 12.1 asian

Proposed District 18+ Population: 60.9 white, 12.5 black, 12.3 asian, 12.2 hispanic

Proposed District President: 62.3 Obama, 37.7 McCain

Proposed District Partisan Avg. 2006-2008: 59.3 Democratic, 40.7 Republican

The “Version 2” map turns MD-6 into something that’s safely Democratic (instead of just a lean/likely Democratic seat under Version 1), but reduces the black percentage in MD-4 — though it remains above 50%.  The reduction in the African-American population in MD-4 may be retrogressive — however, it should be noted that the white population remains a relatively low percentage, and amazingly, according to my estimate, the proportion of African-Americans as a percentage of the Democratic primary vote in MD-4 now goes UP to 84%.  Another problem would be that Edwards would only get to keep 39% of her existing constituents under these revised lines.

Last, but not least, I must add that I absolutely love version 2.1 of Daves Redistricting Application !

 Loading ...

• CT-Sen: Linda McMahon says that she hasn’t “made up my mind yet” but that she is “leaning in [the] direction” of another senate run. As Daniel Kelly, ED of the state Dem party rightly points out, she can swamp the GOP field in the primary with her zillions, but she’d be the same tainted goods in the general as she was last year – and, I would add, this time, she’d be running in a blue state in a presidential year. Good luck, lady!

Meanwhile, another much-lesser-known Republican, state Sen. Scott Frantz, says he won’t “rule out” a senate bid, but that he has “no plans to run.”

• FL-Sen: Obama alert! Barack Himself (and DSCC chair Patty Murray) will host a March 4th fundraiser for Sen. Bill Nelson in Miami Beach, with proceeds to be split between the Nelson campaign and the DSCC. I draw two things from this bit of news. First, if you’re facing a competitive race and want presidential help, it’s a good idea to live in a swing state. Second, it’s nice to see that Nelson isn’t shying away from Obama.

On the GOP side, the St. Petersburg Times has an interesting (and lengthy) profile of likely senate candidate Connie Mack. Mack is a hardcore conservative, but remember – it’s not just about how you vote, it’s about how you belong. And Mack has taken a few stances that put his tribal membership into some doubt, such as “supporting stem cell research, defending WikiLeaks and denouncing Arizona’s tough immigration law as Gestapo-like.” Still, with the possible exception of the Arizona law, these are mostly second-order concerns for teabaggers, and Mack would still probably have to be considered the favorite in any primary.

• ME-Sen: If Olympia Snowe is going to get teabagged, we finally have a potential name that’s a notch of above Some Dude: wealthy real estate developer Eric Cianchette (a cousin of former Republican gubernatorial candidate Peter Cianchette) is reportedly considering the race. But the guy who originally broke the news, Dennis Bailey, says that Cianchette may actually be having second thoughts and considering another race.

• NV-Sen: Ah, the blind quotes are out to get John Ensign. “One Republican lobbyist” says he (and everyone else) is supporting Dean Heller, while “another Republican lobbyist” says he’s pushing John Cornyn to have Ensign fitted for some new Ferragamo cement wingtips. On the flipside, one lobbyist with an actual name, Kenneth Kies (who is supporting Ensign), claims “Cornyn’s been clear that he doesn’t get involved in these things.” I guess when you’re a Republican lobbyist, you are either very good at believing things which aren’t true or at least just saying them out loud.

• FL-Gov: Usually, when the headline is “Criminal Behaves Like Criminal,” it’s not really news. But when that criminal is the sitting governor of Florida, it is. Zillionaire creepster Rick Scott followed through on a campaign promise to sell one of the state’s two planes. The problem is, he used the proceeds from the sale to pay off the lease on the other plane – and, says Republican state Sen. J.D. Alexander, it’s up to the legislature, not the governor, to decide how to appropriate state funds. It’s kind of amazing how frequently Rick Scott has already gotten on the wrong side of his fellow Republicans during his very short tenure. Actually, when I said “kind of amazing,” I meant “totally predictable and expected.” Florida is damn near turning into a cat fud factory.

• AZ-08: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Adam Smith are hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Gabby Giffords on March 15th in DC.

• FL-25: When Republicans vetted Rep. David Rivera, they must have used the same crew of CHUDS and mole-people who blessed Bernie Kerik’s bid for homeland security chief. Now comes word that in just a few short years, Rivera funneled at least $817,000 to a consultant and “close friend,” Esther Nuhfer, through an often-complicated series of arrangements that remind me of a South Florida version of BMW Direct. Ferinstance, Nuhfer’s firm raised an astounding $1 million for Rivera’s state senate campaign (before he switched over to the FL-25 race)… but he burned through $700K by February of last year, and at least a quarter mil of that went to Nuhfer. Also, this.

• IN-02: Jackie Walorski is now saying she’ll decide whether to see a rematch against Joe Donnelly (who himself may not run again) in a “couple of weeks.” She also says she has no interest in running for Senate or Secretary of State.

• NY-26: I doubt this matters much, since there won’t be a primary here, but Kieran Lalor’s conservative Iraq vets PAC is pushing one of their own for the GOP nomination: David Bellavia. Even though Assemblywoman Jane Corwin appears to be the frontrunner, Bellavia will be interviewed by local party leaders.

• OR-01: This is deeply, deeply disturbing. Days before the election last year, David Wu’s staff confronted him and “demanded he enter a hospital for psychiatric treatment.” He refused, and went on to win re-election anyway, but as you know, he faced a staff exodus earlier this year. Read the article for the full (and scary) details – excerpting it won’t do it justice. Wu seriously has got to go – and has to get the help he needs. Blue Oregon has more.

• PA-10: Did someone crack out of turn? Last week, Steve Israel said he didn’t want to talk up potential recruits for 2012 lest they get pre-redistricted into oblivion in 2011. Former Rep. Chris Carney seems like exactly the sort of person who would fall into that category, yet an unnamed source told Politico’s Dave Catanese that Carney was just in Washington to meet with DCCC officials about a potential rematch with Tom Marino. Now the GOP will probably try to find a way to move Carney’s house to the District of Guam.

• Philly Mayor: 2007 candidate and richie rich Tom Knox said he might change his mind and run in the Democratic primary once again, rather than as an independent (which is what he previously claimed he would do). He says he’s waiting on the results of a poll to decide – I like the honesty! He’d face incumbent Michael Nutter in the primary if he chose that route. Also, Milton Street, bother of Nutter’s two-term predecessor John Street, said he’s getting in the game, too.

• Nassau Co. Exec: On the list of doomed Republicans, Nassau Co. Executive Ed Mangano ranks pretty high. He ran his super-wealthy county’s finances into the ground almost immediately after his upset victory over Dem Tom Suozzi in 2009. Just a few weeks ago, the state took control of the county’s finances. Now, Mangano is lashing out against unnamed enemies like sweat-drenched victim of night terrors. He’s running a campaign-style ad in which he attacks “opponents.” Yeah, “opponents.” NWOTSOTB, of course, but he’s got quite a few more years to keep digging this Death Valley-depth hole down to Dead Sea levels.

• NRSC: Like a bunch of mathletes tired of being picked last for everything in gym class, it seems that Republican senators have managed to give just about everyone who wants one some kind of title down at the No Homers NRSC clubhouse. My favorite are “low-dollar chairs” Johnny Isakson and Kelly Ayotte.

A major – and unexpected – bummer for Democrats:

Jonathan Weinzapfel has opted not to seek the Democratic nomination for Indiana governor in 2012 because, he said, the rigors of a statewide campaign are too much right now while his children are young.

The two-term Evansville mayor told the Courier & Press this morning that he wants to remain active in Democratic politics and might eventually run for office again. For now, though, he said, he wants to remain close to his wife and three children.

This comes as a surprise given that last month, Weinzapfel said he wouldn’t seek another term as Evansville mayor, which led us (among others) to think he’d probably make the governor’s race instead. But Weinzapfel didn’t just face the likelihood of a contest against the formidable Mike Pence; he also would have been dogged by what opponents have branded a “secret tax hike” – a “2008 meeting in which Weinzapfel and other local leaders agreed to let a local property tax credit lapse – without telling anyone at the time,” according to the Evansville Courier & Press. Indeed, Weinzapfel had already drawn a primary challenger last year (Vanderburgh County Treasurer Rick Davis) on account of this.

After Weinzapfel’s announcement, former Democratic state House Speaker John Gregg (who served from `98-`02) said he is “taking a very serious look at the race.” Weinzapfel praised Gregg in his own “exit interview” with the C&P, saying “I would be as supportive as I could” of a Gregg candidacy. Weinzapfel has a big warchest left over ($750K), and at just 45, he very likely has a future in Indiana politics.

I tried my hand at redistricting Indiana, since it’s census data was out. I have two maps I created, one is a fair map (at least what the Republican legislature would call fair) and the other is a gerrymander. It’s been said the Gov. Daniels doesn’t want to go too crazy with the map, so we can’t be too sure exactly how aggressive the GOP will get.

IN-2 is modified enough where a Republican can win it and it didn’t take much to achieve that. Joe Donnelly would have probably lost this district in 2010. IN-5 changes a bit and gets more compact, but it’s still solid Republican. IN-9 should be safer GOP by taking on Lawrence and Morgan Counties, while all other districts stay close to the same. Now, onto the gerrymander.

I mistakenly reversed the colors for the 4th and 5th districts, so I thought I’d point that out first. What I have done here is throw Visclosky and Carson together into a vote sink that sucks up the most strongly Democratic voting areas. To make this possible, I had to give Hammond to Rokita, but it wouldn’t pose much of a problem for him, as there is plenty of strong Republican territory still attached. Burton picks up portions of LaPorte and Porter Counties, but still remains safe. IN-7 should have a Republican PVI now, as it takes in out portions of the county and some surrounding counties. IN-6 had minimal changes, while IN-8 and IN-9 are slightly better for Republicans.

I have doubts the GOP will become so aggressive as far as IN-1 goes, but I would not be surprised if something like this were at least attempted by the legislature. I like coming up with egregious gerrymanders, so it was drawn mostly for fun, but it should be kept in mind.