Swing State Project

We had a pretty good night on election night in the Northeast. We cleaned house. We nailed 1 GOP Senator, 6 House of Reps Districts, 1 State Senate and held on to all of the State Senates, State Houses, US House Reps and US Senators we had coming into this cycle.

That the Northeast is rapidly realigning towards team Blue is undeniable!

But the work my friends has merely begun. Forget the bunkum about us being irretrievably on defense in 2010 come below the fold to see who should be in our sights in 2010 as we stay on offense in the Northeast……..

Just to avoid any debate, (and because I got it wrong last time I tried this) the US Census defines the Northeast region as including 9 states as follows: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. And aggregating across all 9 states the lay of the land looks like this:

States that voted for Obama: 9/9

Governors: 6/9

US Senators: 14/18 (Counting Sanders and Leiberman as Dems)

House Districts: 68/83

State Senates: 8/9

State Houses: 9/9

Where I think a race is a safe Democratic hold I won’t be saying much about it such as all of our Northeast US Senators and US House races on the ballot in 2010.

Going state by state then:

Connecticut

Gubernatorial – GOP Gov Jodi Rell is quite popular and will likely be looking for a 3rd term. OTOH the Dem bench is VERY deep and a top tier challenger should be able to be found. Problem is who would want to take on such a popular pol?

US Senate – Both Dems (Hey Lieberman isn’t up for re-election in 2010 Dodd is.)

US House – ALL OURS BABY! – Keep an eye on CT-04

State Senate – zzzzzzzzzzz

State House – zzzzzzzzzzz

Maine

Gubernatorial – Dem John Baldacci probably won’t run again which on balance makes this gubernatorial chamber an easier hold for us than otherwise. The only possible exception to this is if either of the GOP US Senators run – a highly unlikely thing to happen.

US Senate – Both Repubs! Not on ballot in 2010

US House – ALL OURS BABY!

State Senate – We actually added to our margin here in 2008 moving it from 18/17 to 20/15 and yep they are all up again in 2010. A chamber to watch but we should be ok in this increasingly reliable state.

State House – zzzzzzzzzz

Massachusetts – aka nothing to see here move right along!

Gubernatorial – zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

US Senate – Both Dems zzzzzzzzzzzz

US House – ALL OURS BABY! zzzzzzzzzzzzz

State Senate – zzzzzzzzzzzzz

State House – zzzzzzzzzzzzz

New Hampshire

Gubernatorial – If Dem Gov Lynch runs he will win. If, as I hope, Lynch runs for the Senate then look for 2nd CD Rep Hodes to run and win for team Blue instead. My how New Hampshire has quickly shifted to us.

US Senate – 1 Dem 1 Rep and the Rep is on the ballot – Judd Gregg. Gregg has a target on his back already and I expect either Gov Lynch or Rep Hodes to run and for this one to be a barn burner.

US House – ALL OURS BABY! – Keep an eye on NH-01

State Senate – No change in 2008 really locks in our 2006 gains.

State House – Nothing really to see here we held onto almost all of our 2006 gains, dropping from 231 to 225 out of 400 we will hang onto this one in 2010 IMHO.

New Jersey

Gubernatorial – On ballot in 2009 (Go Corzine). Any Dem would be favoured to win this one as NJ residents hate all their pols they just hate Democrats less than Republicans.

US Senate – Both Dems

US House –

NJ-02 – If State Senator Jeff Van Drew finally steps up and runs this race becomes very competitive. Hopefully he won’t wait until 2012. If State Sen Jim Whelan runs it could also get competitive in this district that I suspect Obama won and that Bush won by less than 1% in 2004. Will have a Cook Dem PVI.

NJ-04 – Gore carried this district and I think Obama only just fell short so a good candidate here is a must to get it on the radar instead of the second tier candidates we have run thus far.

NJ-05 – Gee I hope 2008 Dem candidate Dennis Shulman runs again in 2010. Holding a GOP incumbent to 56% in this reasonably strong GOP district is a fair effort. Otherwise this one won’t be on the radar in 2010.

NJ-07 – I don’t know what happened here this year but a top tier candidate who is NOT Linda Stender is required. This district is winnable particulalrly with a freshman GOP incumbent. I think Obama carried it also.

NJ-11 – The safest GOP district in NJ and a rarity in the Northeast, (outside Pennsylvania,) a generically safe GOP district. Short of a fantastic candidate this one won’t be on the radar.

Keep an eye on NJ-03.

State Senate – Up in 2011

State House – Up in 2009 zzzzzzzzzz

New York

Gubernatorial – zzzzzzzzzzz – Name one GOPper who could be elected statewide? – exactly.

US Senate – Both Dems. Despite Hillary’s appointment as SOS this one will be held by whichever Dem is appointed IMHO.

US House –

NY-03 – Pete King is genuinely popular in his district and we should be hoping that the rumours of him making a gubernatorial run turn out to be true. Otherwise we really do need a top tier candidate here – paging Tom Suozzi – but that is unlikely unless the seat is Open.

NY-23 – I expect McHugh to retire in 2010; call it a hunch. If so we will easily find a top tier candidate here otherwise McHugh is perceived as unbeatable.

NY-26 – Democrats in this District just got it wrong in the Primary and we need a top tier candidate against a freshman incumbent who only got 55% first time at bat.

Keep an eye on Dem incumbents in NY-24, NY-25 and NY-29.

State Senate – Yep we have just won control of this chamber for the first time in like 3 million years. It should be 32/30 or maybe 33/29 with one race still undecided. With them all up again in 2010 we need to look for GOP State Senators who are in heavily Democratic areas of NYC and unlikely to run again as they are now free of the influence of Joe Bruni (R-thug) who kept a number of GOP Senators in place long after they wanted to retire.

I think the following are potentially competitive races as open, specials or vulnerable incumbents in 2010:

NY SS-06 – GOP incumbent won with 51.5% of the vote in 2008.

NY SS-11 – Race still undecided if Repub incumbent wins it will be by less than 1000 votes.

NY SS-22 – GOP incumbent in heart of blue NYC.

NY SS-42 – GOP incumbent rumoured to be retiring mid-term.

NY SS-44 – GOP incumbent rumoured to be retiring mid-term.

NY SS-56 – GOP incumbent won with 52.2% of the vote.

NY SS-61 – GOP incumbent won with 53.5% of the vote.

Not to mention that an additional 4 or 5 GOP State Senators will be older than 70 in 2010.

State House – zzzzzzzzzzz

Pennsylvania

Gubernatorial – This one might get complicated. Dem Gov Ed Rendell is term limited and Dem Lt Gov Catherine Baker Knoll has just sadly passed away thus making State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati the new Lt Gov and he is a Republican. Deep bench on our side including Senator Bob Casey? It goes without saying that the Repubs will have a top tier candidate also. This race makes me nervous as Pennsylvania is less reliably blue than any other state in the North East.

US Senate – 1 of ours (Casey), 1 of theirs (Specter) who is up in 2010. It has been suggested to me that Specter coud be approached to switch which would be fine by me but failing that we have a deep bench and this is a must win if we are to continue the blueing of the Northeast. Specter may yet decide to retire in which case we really are in the box seat for this race.

US House –

PA-05 – This central Pennsylvania district will not be on the radar unless we have an ultra conservative candidate. One of 4 super safe districts in the state for the Republicans.

PA-06 – As probably the single biggest recruiting miss of 2008 this one is infuriating. Gerlach was held to 52% by a 3rd tier candidate and Obama won every county that this district covers. It is also one of only 5 won by Kerry that is occupied by a GOP House Rep. Probably the highest priority house race for the DCCC on offense in the Northeast (open seats notwithstanding).

PA-09 – One of 4 super safe districts in the state for the Republicans. This central Pennsylvania district will not be on the radar unless we have an ultra conservative candidate. Yep just like PA-05.

PA-15 – Like PA-06 Obama carried every county in this one and yep it is also one of only 5 won by Kerry that is occupied by a GOP House Rep. Disappointing 41% for 2008 Dem candidate means we need a top tier challenger here ASAP.

PA-16 – Another super safe district for the GOP. Like the 5th and 9th unlikely to be a priority.

PA-18 – In theory could be vaguely competitive in 2010 (Bush only got 54% here in 2004) but unlikely given the low hanging fruit in the 6th and 15th.

PA-19 – Another super safe district for the GOP. Like the 5th, 6th and 16th unlikely to be a priority in 2010.

Watch Dem incumbents in PA-03 and PA-11.

State Senate – The only State chamber still controlled by the GOP in the Northeast. We actually went backwards there this year dropping from 21/28/1 to 20/29/1. And with only half of the State Senate up every two years this one is a hard one to flip in 2010. However the following should probably be targetted IMHO, particularly if they are open races:

PA SS-06 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 53.4% in 2006.

PA SS-10 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 51.5% in 2006.

PA SS-12 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SS-16 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 54.2% in 2006.

PA SS-20 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SS-24 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SS-26 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 52.2% in 2006.

PA SS-44 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SS-50 – Incumbent got 53.5% in 2006.

Now I am not suggesting that every State Senate race here will be competitive in 2010 as I understand that Blue counties can have Red parts, but if the Red parts of NYC can be turned then Red parts of Blue counties in PA can be turned also.

State House – In 2008 we managed to increase our margin of control from 102/101 to 104/99; still far too close for comfort. Vulnerable Repubs include:

PA SH-4 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-13 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-15 – Incumbent got 51.5% in 2008.

PA SH-18 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-26 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-28 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-29 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-30 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-31 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-44 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-57 – Incumbent got 51.6% in 2008.

PA SH-61 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-70 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-75 – Incumbent got 53.3% in 2008.

PA SH-102 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-104 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-105 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-106 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-128 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 51.8% in 2008.

PA SH-129 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-131 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-134 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-138 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-142 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 51.7% in 2008.

PA SH-146 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 53.3% in 2008.

PA SH-150 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-152 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-155 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-157 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-158 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-160 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-162 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-163 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-164 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-165 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-167 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-168 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-169 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-170 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-172 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-176 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-177 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-178 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-183 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama.

PA SH-187 – Wholly contained in Counties carried by Obama, incumbent got 52.3% in 2008.

Now I am not suggesting that every State House race here will be competitive in 2010 as I understand that Blue counties can have Red parts, particularly given that State House districts are so small, but if the Red parts of NYC can be turned then Red parts of Blue counties in PA can be turned also. Yep the same thinking that applies to the PA State Senate.

Rhode Island

Gubernatorial – GOP Gov Don Carcieri is term limited! With a bench a mile deep we should be a lock to pick this one up as the GOP bench is almost non existent.

US Senate – Both Dems

US House – ALL OURS BABY!

State Senate – zzzzzzzzzzz

State House – zzzzzzzzzzz

Vermont

Gubernatorial – If GOP Gov Jim Douglas runs he wins I think. However if he runs for the Senate then we should win here EXCEPT for one nasty wrinkle. In Vermont the Progrssive Party frequently run in statewide races which not only splits the left of centre vote but often allows Republicans to get elected. Surely an accomodation must be able to be found to allow us to have a decent shot at this one in 2010. OTOH GOP Lt Gov Brian Dubie is almost the only statewide candidate that the GOP could present and he could make a race of it.

US Senate – Both Dems

US House – ALL OURS BABY!

State Senate – zzzzzzzzzzzz

State House – zzzzzzzzzzzz

What do you think?

For the sake of ending whatever remnants there are to “Franken’s goose is cooked” chatter there may be, I’m giving a simple run-down of the math here.  The numbers I am taking are sourced from the Star Tribune’s results page found here: http://ww2.startribune.com/new…

Every challenged ballot is like taking that vote out of the total count, which is why Coleman and Franken’s numbers have both gone down as the counting has progressed.  Looking at the totals, there are almost 6,000 total challenges, (3,070 challenges by the Coleman campaign, 2,882 challenges by the Franken campaign for a total of 5,952).  Meanwhile, Franken and Coleman have lost only a total of 4,871 votes.  (Coleman has lost 2,373 votes and Franken has lost 2,498 votes).  

Doing the math, 5,952 challenges – total votes lost 4,871 means that, with four counties outstanding, (Wright, Winona, Scott, Rock) and parts of three other counties outstanding, (7% of Ramsey County, 7% of Hennepin County, and 40% of Dodge County) we have found 1,081 votes that were missed by machines.  It is completely impossible to determine who these votes go to, because the results are hidden, for the most part behind challenges.  The only new votes we can determine are in counties where there is actually a net positive for a candidate.  Of these 1,081 new votes, at least 16 votes have gone to Coleman and at least 24 votes have gone to Franken.  

The rest of the new votes are hidden behind challenges.  In fact, the 1,081 number may be high, because Coleman and Franken can challenge ballots that are expected to go for Barkley or others.  We can go county to county.  The largest source of new votes comes from:

~60 votes from Anoka County

~280 votes from Hennepin County

~150 votes from Ramsey County

These new votes will probably make less of a difference than the panel ruling on challenged ballots.  

Star Tribune has picture of nearly 600 challenged ballots asking for you to rule on them.  I don’t know if you need to log in first or what, because the pictures are not working on my computer.  http://senaterecount.startribu…

As of right now for 6,000 challenges, Franken needs to win 216 more than Coleman.  That’s 3,108 to 2,892.  AKA 51.8% to 48.2%.  However, for every challenge that gets thrown out, the percentage Franken needs to win challenges edges up.  

Public Policy Polling (11/29-30, likely voters, 11/22-23 in parens)

Jim Martin (D): 46 (46)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 53 (52)

Undecided: 1 (2)

(MoE: ±2.7%)

Tom Jensen says:

Chambliss is up 71-28 on Jim Martin with whites. For Martin to win the runoff with that performance, the electorate would have to be 34% African American. Given that it was only 30% for the general election with Barack Obama at the top of the ballot and that early voting was less than 23% black, that does not seem particularly likely.

Not looking good. The other survey, from Insider Advantage, isn’t looking much better (11/30, likely voters, 11/23 in parens):

Jim Martin (D): 46 (47)

Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 50 (50)

Undecided: 4 (3)

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Matt Towery of IA offers some succor:

The race could be a 10-point blowout for Chambliss, or under the right circumstances, a very tight contest. This is like trying to forecast snow in Georgia – almost impossible.

I’m not sanguine. Nine polls by five different pollsters have all given Chambliss the lead. Could they all be wrong, Alaska-style? Sure, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Florida CFO Alex Sink won’t run against GOP Sen. Mel Martinez:

Florida’s chief financial officer, Alex Sink, has decided to run for a second term as CFO and forego a run against Martinez. She made the decision over the Thanksgiving weekend.

This is too bad — Sink was probably our best bet to torpedo the hopelessly mediocre Martinez. It looks like she has her eye on the Governor’s mansion when Crist is term-limited out of office in 2014.

Whoever runs in her place will likely be someone without statewide name recognition (e.g. Ron Klein), which will make this a bit tougher, but still doable with a good campaign. I wonder who Bob Menendez is calling tonight.

Nate Silver is handicapping the 2010 U.S. Senate races at Fivethirtyeight.com and had this to say about Iowa’s seat, held by five-term incumbent Chuck Grassley:

Grassley will be 77 in 2010 and could retire, in which case the race probably leans Democrat. Absent a retirement, a kamikaze mission by someone like Tom Vilsack against the popular incumbent is unlikely to succeed.

Over at Iowa Independent, Chase Martyn begs to differ:

Grassley has not had a truly difficult race in some time.  […]

In 2004, Art Small […] received no institutional support from the Democratic party, which essentially conceded the race before it began.

In 2010, the picture is very different.  While Grassley’s approval rating remains high, almost everything else has changed.

Democrats have begun to truly dominate Iowa’s political scene. […]

What happens if former Gov. Tom Vilsack jumps into the race for Senate?

Fending off Vilsack’s challenge, Grassley could face deficits in both fundraising and name identification for the first time in decades. […]

Far from a ‘kamikaze mission,’ as Silver calls it, the emerging conventional wisdom around here is that Vilsack would have a real chance against Grassley in 2010.

Perhaps “kamikaze mission” is too strong a phrase, but we need to acknowledge that Tom Vilsack or any other Democrat would be a serious underdog against Grassley. Yes, Iowa now has far more registered Democrats than Republicans (about 106,000 more, last I heard), but Grassley has always benefited from a strong crossover vote.

Grassley will face substantial pressure not to retire in 2010, in part because several other Republican-held Senate seats are likely to be vulnerable. Furthermore, Iowa Republicans hoping to unseat Governor Chet Culver would love to be able to focus their spending on that campaign, rather than divide their resources between the gubernatorial race and defending an open Senate seat.

As I see it, four factors could push Grassley toward retirement:

1. A health problem (God forbid).

2. An unpleasant 2009 in the Senate minority. Grassley loves his job and has gotten along well with Montana Senator Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. But what if the enlarged and emboldened Democratic majority doesn’t need to cut as many deals with Grassley as Baucus has done in the past?

3. Deteriorating relations between Grassley and the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party of Iowa. For background on this tension, click here or click here.

4. A top-tier Democratic challenger who can raise a lot of money and has free time to campaign.

And that brings me to the paradox in the title of this post. Clearly Grassley’s retirement would give Democrats the best chance (some might say only chance) to win this seat. However, Grassley is more likely to retire if Tom Vilsack or another major-league Democrat jumps in now, instead of waiting a year or longer to see whether the incumbent will decide to step down for some other reason.

Challenging Grassley means embarking on long and exhausting uphill battle. But putting Grassley on notice soon that Democrats will not give him a pass is one of the few things we could do to improve the odds that he will retire.

Hoo boy. This would be nice:

Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), whom Specter defeated by less than two percentage points in 2004, said he hasn’t ruled out a 2010 rematch, but has no timetable for a decision.

Toomey, the president of the conservative Club for Growth, insisted Specter faces more hurdles than he did four years ago.

“He’s significantly more vulnerable now than he was in 2004,” Toomey said in an interview.

He argued that Specter’s core constituency in the GOP, which he called “liberal and moderate Republicans,” have since left the party and will be unable to vote in Pennsylvania’s closed Republican primary. That will make it more difficult for Specter to prevail against a conservative opponent, Toomey said.

Go for it, Pat!

In what can only be described as something that is a long time coming, longtime Oregon conservative activist (and complete A-hole) Bill Sizemore was jailed today after being found in contempt of court for the fourth time.  The specific incident this time was Sizemore’s failure to file federal and state reporting forms required for organizations he controls to maintain their tax exempt status.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/sh…

This story stems from this article: Bill Sizemore jailed for contempt of court

Key Quote:

The dramatic moment just after Wilson finished a more than two-hour recitation of her findings in the case. Two Multnomah County deputies who had been in the back of the courtroom approached Sizemore, who was sitting at a table facing the judge, handcuffed his hands behind his back and led him from the courtroom.

This was in response to a lawsuit filed by Sizemore’s longstanding enemies, and one of, if not the, most powerful unions in the state, the Oregon Education Association among at least one other teacher’s union.

Sizemore has honestly had this a long time coming.  Below is a brief history of Sizemore’s OR political activity.

1990-Don McIntyre (one of Sizemore’s precursors) proposes and helps pass Measure 5 (Similar to the infamous Prop 13 in CA), sharply limiting property taxes and hindering state government ever since.

1994-Sizemore passes Measure 8, later overturned, which would have required public employees to pay part of their salaries.

1996-Sizemore passes Measure 47, a follow-up to Measure 5, which later requires the legislature to propose and pass Measure 50 as Measure 47 proves to be constitutionally unworkable.

1998-Sizemore wins the Republican nomination for OR Governor and loses badly to incumbent John Kitzhaber (D).

2000-The Oregon Education Association and AFT-Oregon file a racketeering lawsuit against Sizemore.  The accusations center around submission of false or fraudulent signatures and submission of false tax reports to hide Sizemore’s use of political campaign funds for his personal expenses.  In 2002 a jury found against Sizemore in the amount of $2.5M, which has had yet to pay a dime of.

2002-Oregon voters pass Measure 26, banning payment per signature for initiative petitions, a measure directly aimed to stop the sort of about perpetrated by Sizemore.  Opponents have tried via the courts, thankfully unsuccessfully, to overturn it repeatedly.

2003-The court orders dissolution of Sizemore’s Oregon Taxpayers Union-Education Fund for the violations described above.

2004, 2006 and 2008-Sizemore proposes a series of initiatives, all of which fail.

2008-Oregon voters pass Measure 56, overturning the “double majority” requirement at the center of Sizemore’s Measure 5/47/50 victories in the 1990s but leaving the property tax limitations themselves intact.

Most recently this story came out, which I previously reported on and so will repeat my thoughts from then:



Sizemore admits to personal use of funds:

Story here: Oregon anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore admits personal use of funds

Anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore is known for many things, such as running a series of insane ballot measures every two years.  However, one thing he would prefer not to be remembered for is his mis-use of funds donated to nonprofit organizations under his control, which partially led to a judgment against him several years back for racketeering.  Under the terms of an injunction resulting from that lawsuit, such usage of funds was not allowed.  Despite this, it was revealed that Sizemore “wrote checks from the foundation account for $660,326, almost all of it for his own benefit. Sizemore also charged another $88,176 to a foundation debit card at Wells Fargo.”  Included in his purchases was a car for his wife, braces for his daughter, a time-share in Mexico and my personal favorite, 15 1-ounce gold pieces.  It seems that perhaps the real reason Sizemore doesn’t like paying taxes is that the pesky government insists he follow the law.

Let me know what you think.