Swing State Project

You may recall that right before the general election in November, I put together benchmarks that selected statewide candidates would need to hit, on a county-by-county basis, in order to get over 50% in closely-fought states. I wanted to go back and see how well this measure worked; Georgia seemed like an apt place to start, not just because it was very close at both the presidential and senatorial levels, but also because a bit of troubleshooting is in order to see what happened with the steep dropoff in the senate runoff. Let’s start with the original table, which contains the 2008 benchmarks (and the 2004 Kerry/Bush numbers, on which they were based:

County	% of 2004 statewide vote	What we need to break 50% statewide	2004 Pres.
Statewide	100.0	50/49	41/58
Fulton	10.2	68/31	59/40
Cobb	8.5	46/53	37/62
DeKalb	8.4	82/18	73/27
Gwinnett	7.4	42/57	33/66
Chatham	2.8	59/41	50/50
Clayton	2.4	79/20	70/29
Cherokee	2.2	29/70	20/79
Richmond	2.1	66/34	57/43
Henry	1.9	42/58	33/67
Muscogee	1.9	60/39	51/48
Bibb	1.7	60/40	51/49
Forsyth	1.7	25/74	16/83
Fayette	1.6	37/62	28/71
Hall	1.5	30/69	21/78
Columbia	1.4	33/66	24/75
Houston	1.4	42/57	33/66
Coweta	1.3	34/65	25/74
Douglas	1.3	47/52	38/61
Paulding	1.2	32/67	23/76
Clarke	1.1	67/31	58/40
Carroll	1.1	38/61	29/70
Dougherty	1.0	68/32	59/41

Now let’s take a look at the 2008 numbers, including both the senate general election and runoff. (I’ve also included the white percentage of each county, as a means of seeing if a higher non-white electorate meant a higher drop-off in the runoff. But, as an indication of how polarized Georgia is, notice how well the white percentage in each county correlates with the Republican share of the vote in that county.)

County	% of 2008 general statewide vote	2008 Pres.	2008 Senate General	% of 2008 runoff statewide vote	2008 Senate Runoff	2007 white %
Statewide	100.0	47/52	47/50	100.0	43/57	62.0
Fulton	10.3	67/32	63/33	10.4	60/40	48.5
Cobb	8.0	48/54	42/53	8.6	36/64	63.4
DeKalb	8.2	79/20	76/21	8.7	74/26	33.9
Gwinnett	7.4	44/54	43/53	7.8	36/64	61.0
Chatham	2.8	57/42	55/42	2.7	52/48	54.9
Clayton	2.5	83/17	81/17	2.4	80/20	24.8
Cherokee	2.4	24/75	24/71	2.4	18/82	83.9
Richmond	2.0	66/34	64/34	1.9	59/41	43.4
Henry	2.2	46/53	46/51	2.2	42/58	61.5
Muscogee	1.9	60/40	60/38	1.6	57/43	47.6
Bibb	1.7	59/41	57/42	1.7	53/47	46.2
Forsyth	1.9	20/78	20/75	2.0	15/85	80.4
Fayette	1.5	34/65	34/62	1.8	31/69	73.5
Hall	1.5	24/75	26/68	1.6	20/80	86.9
Columbia	1.4	28/71	28/69	1.4	24/76	78.8
Houston	1.4	40/60	40/57	1.4	35/65	66.3
Coweta	1.4	29/70	30/66	1.4	25/75	77.4
Douglas	1.4	51/49	50/46	1.4	44/56	62.2
Paulding	1.4	30/69	32/64	1.3	26/74	81.8
Clarke	1.2	65/34	61/35	1.1	62/38	67.5
Carroll	1.1	33/66	35/60	1.1	30/70	n/a
Dougherty	1.0	67/32	64/34	1.0	64/36	33.3

Let’s start with how Obama and Martin (in the general) fared against the benchmarks that I set for them. On the whole, their actual percentages seemed to lag the benchmarks by about 2-3%, which is apt, as they both finished around 47%, 3% shy of a majority. There were only a few counties where they exceeded their benchmarks, and these are also the counties that are undergoing the most demographic change (in a way that’s favorable to the Democrats). Cobb and Gwinnett Counties are two of the four large counties in the Atlanta metro area, and are traditionally very conservative (they were Newt Gingrich’s turf back when he was in the House). But with Obama getting up to 48% in Cobb County and 44% in Gwinnett, they’re approaching swing county territory. (Cobb County is seeing growth in middle-class African-Americans and Gwinnett County is becoming an entry point for many Latino and Asian immigrants.)

More analysis over the flip…

Slightly further from the core of Atlanta are Clayton, Henry, and Douglas Counties, and these counties are being transformed even more rapidly by a rapid influx of African-American exurbanites. Clayton County’s white percentage, 24.8% in 2007, is down from 34.9% in 2000. Douglas County’s white percentage is 62.2%, down from 75.9 in 2000, and Henry County’s white percentage is 61.5%, down all the way from 80.1% in 2000… and that is matched by the double-digit swings in their voting patterns since 2004, and the way they exceeded their benchmarks (in fact, by 7% in Douglas County).

This is balanced by the mostly white and right-wing exurban counties at the northern fringes of the Atlanta area (Cherokee, Forsyth, and Hall Counties). Here, Obama and Martin trailed their benchmarks by the largest margins (by 5 or 6%).

The whitest counties (Hall, Coweta, Paulding) were the only counties where Martin (in the general) actually outperformed Obama, further suggestive of the racial polarization of the vote. By contrast, Martin tended to underperform Obama the most in heavily African-American counties (down 3% in DeKalb, 4% in Fulton, 3% in Dougherty). Interestingly, Martin also way underperformed Obama (by 4%) in Clarke County, not heavily black but home of Athens and the Univ. of Georgia. To me, this suggests that the underperformance has less to do with Obama/Chambliss ticket-splitting than with undervotes (i.e. casual or sporadic voters, probably disproportionately young and/or black, voting for Obama and not voting downballot). There were nearly 180,000 undervotes statewide between the two races (3.93 million total in the presidential, vs. 3.75 million in the senate race).

Now let’s turn to the dropoff in Martin’s performance between the general and the runoff. My initial assumption (and that of many other observers) was that Martin suffered for a lack of African-American turnout in the runoff, without the draw of Obama at the top of the ticket. That’s probably still true, but it’s a little more complicated than that. I’d expect the heavily black counties (DeKalb and Clayton) to have formed a smaller percentage of the statewide vote in the runoff than in the general, but that didn’t happen; in fact, DeKalb County’s share of the vote went up a lot, from 8.2% in the general to 8.7% in the runoff. The percentages of the vote didn’t change much, either. Martin only gave up 2% in DeKalb and 1% in Clayton, while the lone counties where Martin actually performed better in the runoff than the general were Dougherty (mostly-black Albany, downstate) and, again, Clarke (Athens/UGA).

Instead, the big dropoffs seemed to happen in the in the suburbs and exurbs, where Martin’s runoff numbers tended to revert back to very close to the 2004 Kerry/Bush numbers. For instance, out in wingnut land, Martin slipped from 20% to 15% in Forsyth County, 24% to 18% in Cherokee County, and 26% to 20% in Hall County. More alarmingly, the same rate of slippage happened in the more favorable suburban counties, like Cobb County (42% to 36%), Gwinnett County (43% to 36%), and Douglas County (50% to 44%). Interestingly, the percentages of the statewide vote in these counties, as with DeKalb County, went up too (8.0% to 8.6% in Cobb and 7.4% to 7.8% in Gwinnett), suggesting that the reliable Republicans who haven’t white-flighted it out of these counties yet continued to vote reliably in the runoff, while participation by other voters in these counties fell off dramatically.

To me, these numbers suggest some miscalculation at the organizing level… perhaps a focus on turning out every possible vote in reliable Democratic constituencies (DeKalb, Clayton, and Clarke Counties), while allowing other counties to slip through the cracks that people still aren’t used to thinking of as potentially Democratic counties (Cobb, Gwinnett, Douglas), as apparently many young and/or black infrequent voters in these rapidly-changing counties didn’t make it to the polls in the runoff. Not that these missing votes really mattered much in the end — Martin needed to not just match his general election numbers in the runoff but beat them by another 3% — but it’s food for thought on where to go trolling for those last few votes to try and get over the top in Georgia.

Some bad news:

State Sen. Steve Stivers (R) leads Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy (D) by about 400 votes out of about 259,555 ballots counted so far in Ohio’s 15th Congressional district.

But that number is likely to change starting Saturday, when officials will begin counting 26,000 provisional ballots from Franklin County. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon that Franklin County could not count an additional 1,000 provisional ballots without voter names and signatures on the envelopes – a ruling that allowed election officials to proceed with counting the remaining 26,000 provisional ballots in what was one of the closest House races in the country.

Kilroy still has a good shot at picking this one up (see DavidNYC’s analysis for more), and counting is now resuming on the additional ballots (why they had to be shelved during the legal fracas is something I don’t have an answer for):

Franklin County Board of Elections spokesman Ben Piscitelli said officials hope to finish counting the provisional ballots on Saturday and certify the election on Sunday.

And then, of course, comes the probable recount (automatic if the difference is less than 0.5%), which could begin as soon as December 12th and take an estimated five days. So if Franklin County certifies their totals on Sunday, as planned, we’re probably going to have to wait until around the 17th to get a definitive winner.

By popular demand.

(Reminder: the LA-04 delayed general election is tomorrow.)

Tim Pawlenty may or may not run for a glorious third term as the top dog in Minnesota. Who would you like to see run against him (or against his successor)?

Cross posted at ElectionInspection.wordpress.com

John McCain, fresh off his loss of the 2008 presidential race was looking forward to going home, resting and recuperating with a nice easy senate race ahead of him.  But it appears all is not well in Arizona for McCain and things may not turn out all that easy for him.

There has bee na lot of speculation that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano may get involved in the Senate race here in the state but that specualtion has begun to die down with word that she will be in President-elect Obama’s cabinet.  It was then assumed that Democrats would not be able to mount a credible challenge to McCain, but it may not be McCain we have to face.  

 

It appears that some Republicans, even some in the power structure of the state party, want John McCain to go away.  They are advocating for a primary challenge and it is possible that not only could they get that challenge, but that the challenge may come from a big name.  According to the national review, Former Congressman and current conservative talk radio show host J.D. Hayworth is getting some pressure put on him to run in the race.  Rob Haney, the former district 11 chairman has been putting the pressure on and Hayworth has apparently been getting calls into his show urging him to run.  

I personally could not envision a better scenario as I think  Hayworth would be much easier to defeat than McCain and that even a Jim Pederson type of candidate could win in this case.  If you live in the state of Arizona, you should really consider calling in to Hayworth’s radio show and tell him all abouthow he should run for the senate against McCain.  With a little luck, the Club for Growth will help him out and give us a chance to win in 2 states instead of one.  

Governor General Michaëlle Jean granted a request from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament.  This means that the Conservatives will avoid next week’s no-confidence motion, which would have tossed Harper out of power.  Gov. Gen. Jean could also have denied the request, and then either seated the Coalition government or called a new election after the no-confidence motion passed next Monday.

The Liberal and New Democratic Parties had agreed to form a coalition following the woeful budget submitted by the Conservatives last week.  This coalition, backed by the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois, has a majority of seats in the House of Commons.  However, Stpehen Harper has apparently taken his ball and went home, and Canada will be without a functioning Parliament for the next two months in the middle of a global economic meltdown.

Leaders of the coalition are confident that the two months off will do nothing to give Mr. Harper the confidence of the Parliament unless major changes are made.  Leader of the Coalition and Would-Be Prime Minister Stéphane Dion said “warm sentiments are not enough. His behaviour must change.”  NDP leader Jack Layton was more militant, saying “[confidence in the government] isn’t going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda.”  Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe is attempting to incite a backlash in Québec, declaring that “the Conservative leader denigrated the votes of all Quebecers.”

Parliament will reconvene on January 26, where, if the Coalition leaders’ predictions are correct, Harper will lose his Prime Ministership.

I’m quite a bit upset about this.  First of all, it sets an awful precedent for the future.  Saying that a Prime Minister can prorogue Parliament anytime he wants to avoid a no-confidence motion is dangerous.  I also fail to see what will change–either Harper submits a similar proposal and loses his government or he adopts one favourable to the Coalition, neither of which are good scenarios for the Conservatives.

I’m very curious to see how Harper’s attacks on the Bloc affect Monday’s Provincial Election in Québec.  The Bloc is clearly trying to incite a backlash, and it appears it may be working.  The Partí Québécois is hoping to make huge gains, as Québec Pride is raised from the constant bashing of the Bloc.

Needless to say, it’ll be a pretty interesting election in Québec next Monday, and a pretty interesting couple of months in Canada.

Fortynine Senate Republicans entered the 2008 elections and 41 or 42 will be left.  The result seems to have triggered a mini-boomlet of retirements from the class of 2010: Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Chuck Grassley, and George Voinovich.  Kay Bailey Hutchison may also be adding herself to this list.

The combination has had a profound effect on the political composition of the remaining Republicans.  Sure, the three most noderate Republican Senators are still there in the persons of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter but the ground behing them has moved a lot.  Ten of the next twelve Republicans (based on Progressive Punch scores from the 2007/2008 session) are either gone or have announced their retirements.  By contrast, only four of the bottom thirtyfour will be gone and one, Larry Craig, was replaced by a similarly conservative Republican.

The list of the departed or departing includes Gordon Smith (43.85), Norm Coleman (possibly, 33.42), George Voinovich (31.37), Ted Stevens (26.63), Chuck Hagel (23.84), John Warner (23.31), Pete Domenici ((22.62), Chuck Grassley ((16.27), John Sununu (15.95), and Mel Martinez (15.32).  Overall, the ten from 2008 had an average Progressive Punch score of 21.18 while those staying for the next session average a paltry 12.63.  Retirements and defeats will continue to drive that number even lower.

By comparison, 13 new Republicans were elected to the House in 2006.  The 13 had a combined Progressive Punch average of 4.58.  Three of the 13 were defeated for re-election either in a primary (David Davis) or the general election (Bill Sali, Tim Walberg).  Twenty new Republicans were elected to the House and two were elected to the Senate in 2008.  The new blood is pretty likely more conservative than the members who are replaced.

The once dominant Republican House class of 1994 has been reduced to 15 members.  Two of them, Todd Tiahrt and Tom Latham, are likely candidates for the Senate vacancies just announced.  John Shadegg and possibly Frank LoBiondo are targets for 2010 House races.  The times, they are a-changin’.  

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan is term-limited out of the governor’s mansion in 2010. Who should run in her place? And who will step forward for the GOP?

Rasmussen (12/2, likely voters)

Chris Matthews (D): 43

Arlen Specter (R-inc): 46

(MoE: ±4.5%)

That object looming in Arlen Specter’s rearview mirror may in fact be as large as it appears… it’s Tweety’s giant head. The bluening of Pennsylvania seems to be continuing unabated, as Rasmussen’s first look at the 2010 senate race in Pennsylvania sees 28-year veteran Specter looking surprisingly weak against Matthews, a figure many would describe as ‘polarizing.’ Specter has an overall 60% favorability in the poll, but as much as Democrats seem willing to respect him (he gets a 48% favorable among Democrats, while only a 70% favorable among Republicans), they still seem to be in a 2006-08 mindset where they’d just rather vote for a Dem.

The 68 78-year-old Specter can’t be looking forward to a double gauntlet of Pat Toomey in the primary and now this. (Speaking of which, maybe Rasmussen should try polling the Specter vs. Toomey matchup.) For that matter, maybe Rasmussen should try polling some other Democrats (starting with Allyson Schwartz), in case the Chris Matthews noise turns out to be bluster.

Politico reports today that, on the one hand, Matthews is discussing the possibility of leaving MSNBC and relocating to Pennsylvania to focus on the race. But on the other hand, NBC insiders think it’s a ploy to renegotiate his contract, which expires in 2009. Right now, a renegotiation is not anticipated to be as rich as his current $5 million per year (and which will leave him lagging way behind fellow pundit Keith Olbermann)… threatening to run for Senate instead of jumping to another network is kind of a new wrinkle in the usual pattern, though.

UPDATE by Diego Infierno: Joe Sestak has withdrawn his name from consideration.

Get ready for a Texas-sized primary battle: it’s been long threatened, but now Kay Bailey Hutchison has launched a committee to explore a run for governor in 2010. (And, of course, by the time you’re officially “exploring” (i.e. starting to raise funds), you’re actually pretty damn well committed to seeing it through.) As an added edge for Hutchison, as a federal official she’s still able to raise money during the Texas legislative session, while Perry (a state official) cannot.

This creates the prospect for more interesting internecine warfare between Republicans (with Perry expected to line up social conservative support and Hutchison carrying the flag for the Chamber of Commerce types and what otherwise passes for moderates in Texas). But even more significantly, if KBH becomes governor, that leaves an open senate seat. (Unless Texas law has changed recently, the seat would be subject to short-term appointment followed by a special election… that’s how KBH became senator in the first place, beating the hapless Bob Krueger in a 1993 special election, who had been appointed by Ann Richards to replace Lloyd Bentsen, who retired to become Clinton’s Treasury Secretary.)

Houston mayor Bill White, the Dems’ best hope in Texas, is probably also watching carefully, hoping to jump into whatever race Hutchison(almost undisputedly Texas’s most popular politican) doesn’t jump into. If KBH becomes governor, White may actually have a shot in a special election for an open Senate seat against a generic R.