The latest:
http://ww2.startribune.com/new…
With 13% of precincts reporting, and 8% of the vote recounted, Norm Coleman is now ahead by 195 votes–a net gain of 20 for Al Franken. Norm Coleman’s camp is challenging more ballots: 105 vs. 89 from Franken’s camp.
Note that challenged ballots are set aside and not included in the recount totals.
Somewhat encouraging, don’t you think?
GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who will turn 77 in 2010, is getting a bit long in the tooth. It wouldn’t be surprising to see him retire rather than seek another term. If he does, who do you like to run for his seat? Despite Iowa’s bright shade of blue in recent years, I’m not sure that we’d be able to recruit anyone of note without a vacancy here.
And while were at it, are there any Republicans with a deathwish who want to take on Governor Chet Culver? 5th CD Rep. Steve King, perhaps?
(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)
Update (11/22): Inspired by this post, kite took a look at Senator-Elect Jeanne Shaheen’s numbers in the first district. Turns out Carol Shea-Porter got higher vote totals than Shaheen in 52 out of 79 NH-01 towns. End Update
Carol Shea-Porter delivered a memorable line on election night, directly addressing the “fluke” meme we on Blue Hampshire have been pushing against for two years:
“How did that happen? It must have been a fluke. You didn’t mean to elect me to Congress,” she said to her exuberant supporters. “Well, the voters have spoken, and it turns out you did mean to send me to Congress.”
I’ve been spending the some time looking at two cycles worth of election returns in the Granite State (chiefly from these two sources at the SoS). This is some of what I’ve found, with the reader caveat that I’m not a statistician or political scientist – just curious enough about Carol’s second win to poke my head under the hood to see what I can see about its nature.
My starting point was this: Shea-Porter reached a little over 51% of the vote in 2006, and a little under 52% this year. On the surface, it looked like not much had changed.
(more below the fold…)
But the devil is in the details. This was a general election, not a mid-term. Carol had to earn the support of a whole lot more voters this time around – 176,461 now compared to 100,691 in ’06, to be exact. Moreover, there was a libertarian candidate in the race this cycle who, while not competitive to win, garnered enough of a vote percentage easily to turn this close race into plurality win instead of a majority one if it were truly a toss-up. Yet Congresswoman Shea-Porter actually gained a higher majority this time than the last, albeit narrowly, while Jeb Bradley fell a full three points down from 49% in ’06 to 46% two weeks ago.
So, what changed in two years? First off, let’s have some fun and take a look at the towns and wards that switched winners from ’06 to ’08. The mighty Jeb flipped two whole towns – Hart’s Location (29 votes cast) and Freedom (less than 900 votes cast).
The Congresswoman, on the other hand, flipped the following 2006 Bradley wins to her corner:
Barnstead
Laconia Ward 2
Laconia Ward 3
Laconia Ward 4 (was a tie in 2006)
Manchester Ward 6
Manchester Ward 8
Milton
North Hampton(over 1000 total votes cast for each)
By far the most impressive swings from Jeb to Carol in terms of percentage points were in the voter-rich wards of Laconia and Manchester, as you will see below.
After the flips, I figured the best way to gauge the major shifts in the race would be to calculate all the town and ward percentages for Shea-Porter for both 2006 and 2008, subtract the former from the latter, and then take a look at those areas that were either a three percent or above gain or loss for her. I chose three as the cutoff number, figuring that anything less than that would be harder to argue against statistical noise, even in a well populated town.
First, the towns and wards where Carol Shea-Porter lost 3 or more percentage points from her 2006 totals, plus the added data of the ’08 vote percentage for her, and the sum of the total votes cast in 2008. I included that last figure so the percentages would have more context – big swings either way in sparsely populated rural towns, e.g., are likely to be less meaningful as an indicator of anything than the same swings in the larger city wards. Finally, the color of “’08 CSP %” indicates who won that town or ward (blue for Shea-Porter, red for Bradley):
* Flipped to Bradley in 2008.
Town/Ward ’08 CSP % ’06-’08 +/-% Diff. Total Votes Cast South Hampton 50.00% -12.58% 502 Hart’s Location* 44.83% -9.72% 29 Effingham 50.00% -5.14% 818 Deerfield 44.37% -5.13% 2542 Portsmouth Wd.2 73.19% -4.89% 502 Eaton 61.07% -4.83% 280 Tamworth 55.65% -4.77% 1567 Northwood 49.76% -4.49% 2339 Albany 57.82% -3.63% 422 Ossipee 45.04% -3.41% 2136 Portsmouth Wd.5 69.02% -3.39% 2877 Brentwood 45.71% -3.03% 2179
Next, the towns and wards where Carol Shea-Porter exceeded her 2006 totals by three percent or more:
* Flipped to Shea-Porter in 2008.
Town/Ward ’08 CSP % ’06-’08 +/-% Diff. Total Votes Cast Laconia Wd.2* 56.39% +8.82% 1213 Manchester Wd.11 59.26% +7.27% 2776 Somersworth Wd.1 61.04% +6.61% 1286 Laconia Wd.3* 52.88% +6.33% 1163 Laconia Wd.4* 55.32% +5.32% 1184 Manchester Wd.9 56.51% +4.46% 3911 Manchester Wd.3 62.68% +4.22% 2886 Manchester Wd.8* 50.07% +4.10% 4729 Manchester Wd.7 56.12% +3.96% 3571 Somersworth Wd.5 65.01% +3.85% 761 Manchester Wd.4 57.89% +3.64% 3173 Rochester Wd.6 60.90% +3.64% 1949 Manchester Wd.10 54.90% +3.54% 3905 Center Harbor 46.87% +3.27% 719 Milton* 52.45% +3.13% 2227
So, what broad observations can we come to based on the differences between the 2006 and 2008 Bradley – Shea-Porter races?
* Jeb’s successes were small in number, and unstrategic. Looking at the first chart, you can throw away right off the bat the Portsmouth wards, Eaton, and Albany. They went from big landslides and wins for Carol to slightly less so. Moreover, a fair number of the others are sparsely populated and therefore less critical toward winning elections.
* Bradely, nonetheless, did score some areas that, if I were part of Team CSP, I would want to target for her next race: Effingham, Deerfield, Tamworth, Northwood, Ossipee, and Brentwood.
* The lion’s share of the larger gains made by Carol Shea-Porter from 2006 to 2008, whether resulting by design or not, were exactly where you would most want to have them to build a healthy win margin. A look at voter-dense Manchester says it all. Carol gained in eleven out of twelve of Manchester’s wards, in seven of them significantly so, and even stole two from Jeb’s 2006 totals. Wow!
* I don’t know what’s in Milton’s water but I want some of it.
* The breakout surprise of all this data? Without a doubt – Laconia. Three flipped wards, and major gains made all around. Whoa! Could this have anything to do with Shea-Porter’s campaign manager, Pia Carusone, having once been an area organizer in Laconia for the Dean campaign?
* Look at the total votes cast in the second table. Carol won a greater share of support from more densely populated areas of the state. That is an enviable position to be in for someone who was supposed to be in the fight of her life. In fact, I’ll go one further. These kinds of ward to ward vote gains in voter rich zones, and in the less blue of the two districts, make me wonder whether Carol might be in one of the strongest structural positions of our incredible field of Democrats to run for even higher office.
Adding: please add what you know on the ground in your community that will help flesh out further how these numbers played out town by town. I also plan at a later date to overlay these numbers with Obama’s and Shaheen’s to see what that might tell us too.
Quinnipiac (11/13-17, registered voters):
Jon Corzine (D-inc): 42
Christopher Christie (R): 36
(MoE: ±2.2%)
Oh no!!! Look how close the New Jersey governor’s race is! I sure hope the Republican Governors’ Association doesn’t pour millions and millions of dollars into this race in order to push their super-strong candidate over the finish line! [/wink]
In all seriousness, Chris Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, would be a good recruit for the Republicans (he isn’t an announced candidate, but is widely mentioned as the leading GOP contender); Christie has made a name for himself in local media by cutting a swath through corrupt Jersey politicians from both sides of the aisle. Coupled with mediocre favorables for Corzine (43 approve/46 disapprove in the same sample, with 51% saying he does not deserve to be re-elected), this might give Democrats some pause… except in the context of how verbose New Jerseyites are in expressing their contempt for their elected officials, and the rate at which New Jersey Democratic officeholders tend to overperform their early polls, those numbers put Corzine on track toward a convincing victory next year.
It’s truly over:
Convicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) conceded his race to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) Wednesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after the Associated Press declared the Democrat the winner.
“Given the number of ballots that remain to be counted, it is apparent the election has been decided and Mayor Begich has been elected,” Stevens said in a statement.
Begich led Stevens by 3,724 votes in the most recent count, completed Tuesday evening. Alaska election law would have allowed Stevens to request a recount at his own expense, but his campaign confirmed that he will not do so.
In other news, SSP has obtained footage from Ted Stevens’s 85th birthday celebration last night:
Rasmussen (11/18, likely voters):
Jim Martin (D): 46
Saxby Chambliss (R-inc): 50
(MoE: ±4%)
So far, both publicly-released runoff period polls (R2K being the other) have showed little movement since November 4th. Chambliss still retains a slight lead, but as Nate Silver says, likely voter models are tough to set for special-type elections, and it’s difficult to make assumptions about turnout. Incredibly, 88% of Georgian voters say they are “certain” to vote in this runoff, which is a bit hard to believe considering that voter turnout was over 20 points lower on November 4th. In this race, so much will come down to getting out the vote, making the outcome difficult to predict.
I’m told that another pollster is about to go into the field here tomorrow, so we should have some more poll results to pick apart in a few days.
And so, the Deathwatch concludes:
Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole has withdrawn from the race to remain chairman of the Republicans’ campaign arm in the House, according to numerous GOP aides, allowing Texas Rep. Pete Sessions to fill the post.
We’ll miss having you to kick around, Tommy!
We already know Chris Van Hollen is staying on for another term at the DCCC. But who will head up the counterpart committee, the DSCC?
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) says he will remain Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman at least until the outstanding 2008 Senate races are resolved, but still is keeping coy about whether he ultimately intends to pass the gavel to Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) in January.
Schumer, chased down after a closed-door session with Senate Democrats to determine next year’s leadership lineup, at first declined to comment about his future. But when pressed, the two-time DSCC chairman said he would stay on at the campaign committee post for at least a few more weeks. Three Senate races remain in doubt, including Minnesota, Alaska and Georgia.
“I’m staying in to handle the three more races, and then we’ll decide what to do,” Schumer said.
A reporter had to chase down Schumer? That might be a first – this is a guy who would walk across 100 miles of broken glass barefoot to do a show on a 10-watt radio station out of Elmira. Anyhow, that’s why I like Chuck E. Cheese Schumer, and why I would hope he’d stick around for one more term at the DS.
However, if Menendez is the heir apparent, then it’s either now or wait until 2014 – I don’t think Menendez could or should run the committee while seeking re-election, especially since New Jersey is seldom easy. Still, Menendez is only 54, which is very young for the Senate (he’s among the most junior twenty members). If his destiny is to lead the DSCC, he’ll have ample opportunity to do so before long.
Some early reads from Siena College (PDF) (11/10-13, registered voters, Oct. in parens):
David Paterson (D-inc): 49 (51)
Rudy Giuliani: 43 (40)
Undecided: 8 (9)
(MoE: ±3.9%)
Siena has actually been testing this matchup since July, and the numbers have stayed fairly constant, though this is the smallest margin yet seen. I personally think Paterson would beat Rudy, and probably handily at that, but I’d actually be a bit surprised if Rudy ran in the first place. I think he’d have the exact same sort of “doesn’t play well with others” problem that Spitzer had with the legislature, only worse. (Though maybe he’s not smart enough to realize that.)
But he’s put in such crappy efforts in his last two campaigns (for president and for senate in 2000) that I don’t think he has the fire in the belly for this one. And if he does for some reason want to run for president again in 2012, then this seat just isn’t an option for him, win or lose.
Siena also tested AG Andrew Cuomo against Rudy (July in parens):
Andrew Cuomo (D): 44 (47)
Rudy Giuliani: 46 (42)
Undecided: 10 (11)
(MoE: ±3.9%)
The odds of this scenario coming to pass are very slim. I very much doubt Cuomo would challenge a sitting governor in a primary, and it’s even less likely that he’d win. And even if both of those events somehow came to pass, he’d have less than two months to run a general election campaign, thanks to NY’s notoriously late primary. Anyhow, his numbers aren’t very good against Paterson (July in parens):
Paterson: 53 (51)
Cuomo: 25 (21)
Undecided: 22 (28)
As it happens, Cuomo’s favorability rating has soared lately, to an impressive 61-19 (it was 48-29 when he first took office). It looks like he’s inheriting the good part of Spitzer’s mantle in his crusade against the chiselers and wastrels at AIG. Paterson, however, is also doing extremely well: He’s at 64-19. But with looming budget cuts, these gaudy numbers could be vulnerable.
I still think a primary challenge by Cuomo – or, in fact, anyone else, like Hillary Clinton – is not in the cards for a variety of reasons. But Paterson might be able to avoid even the hint of a threat if Clinton takes the Secretary of State job and he in turn appoints Cuomo to her seat. We’ll see soon enough!
(Hat-tip: Political Wire.)
In the diaries, Tyler Oakley brought the word that John McCain was restarting his leadership PAC, apparently a sign that he’ll run for another term in 2010. According to Roll Call, McCain is telling his allies that he will indeed run again:
After much speculation that his failed presidential bid would be his last campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has decided to run for re-election to his Senate seat in 2010.
McCain, 72, announced the decision during a meeting Tuesday evening with top ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), advisers Rick Davis, Charlie Black, Carla Eudy and other aides. The meeting, according to a knowledgeable source, took place off the Hill in a private office. […]
Though not at Tuesday’s meeting, one source close to McCain said that running for re-election “is his intention.”
“He’s ready to get back,” this source said. “He likes the game. He likes the deals.”
He still has time to change his mind, of course.