Swing State Project

Doc’s Political Parlor unearthed this Anzalone Liszt Research polling memo conducted for Democrat Joshua Segall (11/16-20, likely voters), who is running in Alabama’s 3rd District (PVI: R+4.1):

Joshua Segall (D): 26

Mike Rogers (R-inc): 54

(MoE: ±4.9%)

That’s a tough climb for any challenger, even one starting out with 14% name recognition like Segall.  

On the generic ballot, Republicans have a three point lead on Democrats: 41% to 38%.  On the informed ballot between Rogers and Segall, the incumbent’s lead shrinks to 48% to 41% after biographical information is given about both candidates.

But most interesting to me is this statistic — by a margin of 63% to 27%, voters want withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2008.  Now that’s a potent issue for Segall to put to his advantage if he runs a smart campaign.

The question of the Senate race in Kentucky is coming down to the question not of, do we want to replace Mitch McConnell, but who will be best to replace Mitch McConnell in the fall. I am one Democrat that would never entertain the thought of not only voting for McConnell but indeed NOT VOTING AGAIMST HIM. You can bet this is one Democrat that will be voting for our nominee.  

That being said this is one Democrat that that wants to vote for what he fights for. In this election year I just see no reason why Democrats can’t stand up and fight as Democrats without shame. It works when it is tried.

Now, I admit at the beginning of this process, I didn’t know who Greg Fischer was. I originally supported Greg Stumbo, former A.G. of Kentucky to run against McConnell. He made a trip to talk to the DSCC and never came back. Well, not as a candidate for Senate at least.

Then I went to automatic second choice Andrew Horne. His fate is more widely publicized and known than Greg Stumbo’s, but were basically the same. I went through a month when I didn’t know who I would vote for in that race, and I will admit lost interest in it to a certain degree. I like Kenneth Stepp a lot, but realized the problems he would have. He is a great Democrat though. I talked to the Cassaro campaign, and will admit those are some class folks who did respond over there. I just didn’t feel their views matched up with mine.

I began to think that I would have to vote for Bruce Lunsford, holding my nose and hoping that he voted my fight at least 50% of the time if he won. McConnell is after-all 0%. At least it would be an improvement.

But then in support of Heather Ryan I went to an event in Benton to meet with the DEC there. Greg Fischer showed up at the same meeting. After it was over he came up and wished Heather luck in her fall election. He said how he really hoped he would be on that ticket to. He asked my name, and for my support and I flat out told him there were a few things I was concerned about. He took the time to talk to me about his views on healthcare as I told him that I was recently stricken with Type 1 Diabetes.

Greg Fischer won my vote that day. Although he never said anything about the Presidential race, his views and statements seemed to have an Edwards Populist ring to them. From healthcare, to Fair Trade, to a sensible exit from Iraq, to fighting Corporate Greed, fighting for workers, all down the line, he shared my views, and wanted to fight for them. He would be an excellent Senator for a new Democratic President.

Now, I hate to trash Democrats, but I am never going to be anyone’s robot. (Not insinuating anyone is.) I can speak out on even my party and it’s candidates if I feel they are wrong. That is my right and I will do so. There are many things that can be used against Bruce Lunsford, but this one is foremost to me:

Do I even have to comment on that? Add to that his past contributions to Republicans up to and INCLUDING Mitch McConnell!!!, leads me to believe that he will not fight for me, and will turn coat more times than not. I mean, the whole time I was fighting uphill fights for Democratic candidates in several races Bruce Lunsford fought against me. I don’t dislike the man personally, but that is just the truth of reality.

Reality is I support Greg Fischer in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate. His truth is my truth, as summed up here:

Help Greg Fischer win here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/wk…

Best wishes fellow Democrats!!

Ever since Brian Bilbray beat Democrat Francine Busby in that lousy summer ’06 special election, most Democrats have thrown up their hands when it comes to winning California’s 50th Congressional District.  But a new poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (4/24-27, likely voters) for Democratic challenger Nick Leibham suggests that the ground may be shifting in the right direction in this R+4.6 district.  First, the head-to-head:

Nick Leibham (D): 34

Brian Bilbray (R-inc): 52

(MoE: ±4.9%)

That’s about where you’d expect this race to be at this point.  But looking deeper into the numbers, Democrats have a 43%-39% generic congressional ballot preference advantage here, and a 47%-40% generic presidential advantage.  And after a positive bio is read of both Leibham and Bilbray, the gap closes to 49% Bilbray, 46% Leibham.

Bilbray’s re-elects aren’t stellar either, with only 42% of voters saying that they will vote to re-elect him, while 39% say that they’ll cast their ballots for someone else.

This is not to say that this race is likely to end up on the competitive board, but it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on — especially since Leibham’s war chest is a respectable 53% of Bilbray’s cash-on-hand.

NC-Sen (D) by SurveyUSA (5/2-4, likely and actual voters, 4/29 in parens):

Kay Hagan (D): 43 (38)

Jim Neal (D): 18 (17)

Others: 13 (10)

Other/Undecided: 27 (35)

(MoE: ± 3.5%)

NC-Gov (D):

Beverly Purdue (D): 52 (45)

Richard Moore (D): 33 (36)

Dennis Nielsen: 2 (2)

Other/Undecided: 13 (16)

(MoE: ± 3.5%)

NC-Gov (R):

Pat McCrory (R): 38 (36)

Fred Smith (R): 32 (32)

Bob Orr (R): 9 (7)

Bill Graham (R): 8 (5)

Undecided: 12 (20)

(MoE: ± 4.9%)

Hagan and Perdue are poised to deliver blow-outs.  McCrory vs. Smith is the only race in doubt here.

The DCCC has just posted another round of expenditures in Mississippi today, totaling $97,250.  

The expenditures include a $63,000 media buy against Greg Davis, $30,000 on direct mail, and $4000 on field organizing for Travis Childers.

So far, the DCCC has spent a whopping $1,389,318 in this district to the NRCC’s $982,600.

As we move the campaign from Democratic primary to general election mode, I am going to make some changes to the weekly progress report.  Over the last few months I’ve used this weekly report give updates on the events we’ve participated in over the past week.   I’ll continue to keep you informed on where we’re at and what we’re doing but I’m going to provide comment on issues of interest to the citizens of the 5th district.   We’ll also keep you updated on what is going on inside the campaign.

Truckers Converge on Washington – Fuel Prices Are Hurting Everyone:   Last week, truckers converged on Washington to protest the high price of diesel fuel and to show members of Congress the negative effects on the transportation industry that is so vital to our nation’s economy.   In response to the trucker’s rally, Congressman John Peterson issued a press release stating the following: “For the past year and four months, the House Democrat leadership has done absolutely nothing to reduce the price at the pump. Their unwillingness to address the energy crisis at it’s roots “supply and demand” will only further enhance the economic burden on every man, woman, and child in America.  The protest today, by blue collar, working class truckers, further emphasizes how out of touch the Democrat-controlled Congress is with the American people.”.

I have to take issue with Congressman Peterson’s statement placing blame on the policies of the Democratic Congress over the past 16 months.   In fact, this crisis has been building in the 6 years prior while the Republican Party had total control of the White House and Congress and no meaningful legislation was offered to avert the impending crisis.   Additionally, it must be recognized that the instability of the Middle East, brought on by President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, is a factor in OPEC’s ongoing policy to drive oil prices to record highs.  

It should also be noted that President Bush has done little to influence OPEC policies either.   I can remember in the 90’s when OPEC would begin to drive up the price per barrel of oil, President Bill Clinton would immediately order a release of strategic oil reserves to put more oil on the market which would stabilize oil prices.

Frankly, blame must lie on both sides of the aisle in Washington.   Back in the 1970’s, our nation received a wake up call but leaders in Washington ignored it for the last 30 plus years.  While other nations invested in alternative fuels and worked to decrease their dependence on oil from the Middle East, government leaders in the United States continued to allow the powerful petroleum industry to dictate our energy policies.  

Now, we are at a critical point again.   Families are struggling to afford gas and heating oil.  Truckers are feeling the pinch of higher diesel fuel prices which will be passed on in higher prices to the consumers.   Everyone is hurting, except who?  Who is making record profits?  The same powerful petroleum industry that our government leaders allowed to dictate our energy policy for the last 30 plus years!   And, does anyone really believe the solution is to allow the petroleum industry access to traditional oil reserves.   No, we need to move away from “Big Oil” controlling our energy policy and move towards renewable and alternative fuel technologies.  The wake up call has returned, the alarm clock is ringing and we better not hit the snooze button again.

I’ve made it clear from the start of this campaign that I’m not running against Congressman Peterson.   He has been very helpful and supportive to Clearfield County and our county commissioners have built a very positive relationship with him throughout his service as our congressman.   The point I’m making is the oil crisis we are facing is truly a threat to our economy, our national security and our way of life.   There is no time for partisan finger pointing.  Congressman Peterson is correct in this regard.  We need our leaders in Washington to address this issue NOW.   Congress needs to forget it is an election year and get to work on plausible solutions in a bipartisan manner because the people they claim to represent are suffering.  They can’t wait for January 2009, they need help now.  

Campaign Organization Changes:  Over the next few weeks, we will be announcing some important changes and additions to the McCracken for Congress campaign committee.  The changes will put organization in place throughout the 5th Congressional District.  We know going forward, the race will be tough and we need to work to earn votes in every county in the district.   It will be important to have organized campaign teams in every county to work at the local and county level to spread our message.  It will also help to have people we can count on at the local level who know their communities and will help me learn more about the issues important the people they know.

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

From the Memphis Commercial Appeal:

Vice President Dick Cheney will stump for Republican Greg Davis at a Southaven rally next Monday, one day before the special election to fill the seat once held by Roger Wicker, the White House confirmed this morning.

Cheney is expected to attend one campaign event, spokesman Jamie Hennigan said. Details of where and when the event will take place were not available so far in advance of the date, he said.

The vote-rich suburb of Southaven, Davis’ base, is one of the strongest counties in Mississippi for the GOP, so if they’re going to roll out Cheney’s pasty ass in order to ramp up turnout, that would be the most logical place to do it.

It looks like the GOP is going to pull out all the stops in order to prevent another loss here.

UPDATE: Davis also has a particularly disgusting new ad out hitting Childers on Obama.  If you want to fight back, please consider doing so on the Swing State Project’s Actblue page for Travis Childers.

Special election: 5/13.

(H/T: 6DofA)

The newest Granite State Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center (4/25-30, likely voters) is out.  Let’s take a look at the numbers.

The Senate race (February in parens):

Jeanne Shaheen (D): 52 (54)

John Sununu (R-inc): 40 (37)

Undecided: 7 (7)

(MoE: ±4.4%)

NH-01:

Carol Shea-Porter (D-inc): 39

Jeb Bradley (R): 45

Undecided: 13

Carol Shea-Porter (D-inc): 43

John Stephen (R): 35

Undecided: 20

(MoE: ±6%)

NH-02:

Paul Hodes (D-inc): 51

Bob Clegg (R): 24

Undecided: 23

Paul Hodes (D-inc): 52

Jennifer Horn (R): 25

Undecided: 22

(MoE: ±6%)

The margin of error may be quite high, and while the GSP has not always had the greatest track record, the results do confirm that Shea-Porter is in a much tougher spot than Hodes is.

(Excellent work.  From the diaries – promoted by James L.)

You may recall I did a few diaries last month where I explored the relationship between representatives’ voting records and the lean of their districts (see here and here). One other question I had wanted to work into my discussion was the role of the various ideological Congressional caucuses.

There are pretty clear differences between the voting records of members of the different caucuses, but does membership in particular caucuses correlate with a particular kind of district? And is any particular caucus generally ‘out-of-whack,’ where the members as a whole tend to overperform or underperform their districts? In particular, I was wondering about the Blue Dogs, who tend to get the lion’s share of the abuse from the left blogosphere. It’s well understood they’re the most conservative members of the House Democrats… but are they also the most underperforming?

For those who aren’t familiar with the caucuses, there are three major ideological caucuses for the House Democrats: the Progressive Caucus, which comprises many of the House’s most liberal members (and, generally, those from the most urban districts), the New Democrat Coalition, which, although it’s a lineal descendent of the Democratic Leadership Council, tends to represent the ideological midpoint of the Democratic caucus, and the Blue Dog Coalition, representing the most conservative Democratic House members (and, not coincidentally, most of the ones from the most rural districts). Also within the Democratic party are the Congressional Black Caucus, which has significant overlap with the Progressive Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which tends to range across the Democratic spectrum. Likewise, although it receives less attention, there is a similar schism on the Republican side, between the Main Street Partnership, comprised generally of more moderate representatives in suburban districts, and the more conservative Republican Study Committee.

Here’s an instance where a picture is worth a thousand words: this chart has a box for each representative (grouped in rows of 10), arranged from most liberal voting record at top to most conservative at bottom, color-coded according to caucus membership. (For record, I’m using Progressive Punch Chips are Down scores, circa March 2008.) As you can see, there’s a pretty clear stepping downward from Progressive to NDC to Blue Dogs to Main Street to RSC. (You’ll notice a lot of squares where there are two, or in one case three, colors jammed in there. A number of people are members of multiple caucuses.)

Notice that this chart is a pretty good match for the following one, which arranges each representative from most Democratic-leaning district (as measured by PVI) at top, to most Republican-leaning district at bottom. In other words, in general, you can see the same basic clustering of Progressive (and CBC) members at top, NDC members below that, and a whole lot of RSC at the bottom. The swing-district middle is a bit more muddled here, split largely between Blue Dogs and Main Streeters with a lot of odds and ends.

While these two graphs show that, in general, there’s a pretty good correlation between voting record, district lean, and caucus membership, they aren’t connected and thus don’t show individual outliers who are either underperforming or overperforming their district leans. For that, let’s turn to a scatterplot that was originally put together by plf515 (from this diary). The vertical axis is how liberal the representative is (here measured by National Journal composite scores from 2007); the horizontal axis is the district lean. I’ve added the same caucus-based color-coding as the previous two graphs. (Note that this graph only covers Democrats.)

The diagonal line represents essentially the center of gravity for all the points on the graph. Dots close to the line represent those for whom voting record and district lean are a predictable fit. The further away from the line a dot is, the more of an outlier the representative is. Above the line, the far-away dots are representatives who are voting more liberally than one would expect based on the district (overperforming the district), while the dots far below the line are representatives who are underperforming the district lean with their voting records.

As you can see, the outliers aren’t consistent with any one caucus or any particular type of voting record: there are some Congressional Black Caucus members who are lagging their extremely Democratic districts (Bill Jefferson in LA-02, as well as Artur Davis in AL-07 and Kendrick Meek in FL-17, two of the four members of both the CBC and the NDC), and there are some Blue Dogs whose conservative records are low even in relation to their moderate or conservative districts (Jim Marshall in GA-08, Dan Boren in OK-02, John Barrow in GA-12, and Jim Cooper in TN-05). (The other two marked outliers are Jose Serrano, of the Progressive and Congressional Hispanic Caucuses, but located in the nation’s most Democratic district… and the purple one is, of course, Dan Lipinski of IL-03, who is unaffiliated although voting like a Blue Dog in a D+10 district.)

More generally, looking at the placement of the dots, they seem to follow the same general pattern: more Progressives and CBC members at the liberal ends of the spectrum, more Blue Dogs at the conservative end, a cluster of NDC members near the very middle. Looking at them in relation to the diagonal line, though, you can see some differences in where they are, relative to the overall center of gravity. The mass of the Blue Dogs tend to cluster below the diagonal line; eyeballed as a whole, they’re underperforming, albeit slightly. The same goes with the Congressional Black Caucus, which clusters below the diagonal line at the other end of the graph, where they tend to occupy the most Democratic districts in the country and are liberal but don’t necessarily have the most liberal voting records to match.

Clustered above the diagonal line tend to be the Progressives — or I should say the “Progressives only,” since many of the Progressive/CBC double-dippers tend to fall below the line — who tend to fall in the D+5 to D+20 range but also in the uppermost tier of liberal voting records. (The Massachusetts delegation alone seems to make up a sizable portion of this clump, along with a few stalwarts like Maurice Hinchey in NY-26 and Tammy Baldwin in WI-02.)

So… as the charts show, caucus membership corresponds pretty well with both voting record and district lean, although, naturally, there are lots of individual deviations. Here are some more data on the caucuses:

All Blue Dogs (49)

20 from South, 7 from Northeast, 12 from Midwest, 10 from West

Median PVI: R+3

PVI Range: D+13 (Baca) to R+17 (Matheson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 86.43

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 95.65 (Loretta Sanchez) to 68.22 (Barrow)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 57.87

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 83.52 (Mike Thompson) to 29.82 (Marshall)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 76.06

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 93.76 (Arcuri) to 60.39 (Cramer)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 54.1

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 77.8 (Loretta Sanchez) to 43.5 (Marshall)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 40 (81.6%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 34 (69.4%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 14 (28.6%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 9 (18.4%)

Bad Votes on SCHIP override: 1 (2.0%)

Median Rural % of District: 39

Rural % of District Range: 69 (Michaud) to 0.0 (Harman and Loretta Sanchez)

Blue Dogs Only (24)

12 from South, 2 from Northeast, 8 from Midwest, 2 from West

Median PVI: R+4.5

PVI Range: D+10 (Mike Thompson) to R+17 (Matheson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 85.43

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 94.07 (Mike Thompson) to 72.99 (Marshall)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 53.96

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 83.52 (Mike Thompson) to 29.82 (Marshall)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 72.84

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 88.95 (Charlie Wilson) to 60.39 (Cramer)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 51.8

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 75.8 (Mike Thompson) to 43.5 (Marshall)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 21 (87.5%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 18 (75%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 10 (41.7%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 8 (33.3%)

Bad Votes on SCHIP override: 1 (4.2%)

Median Rural % of District: 45.25

Rural % of District Range: 69 (Michaud) to 11.3 (Cooper)

Blue Dogs + NDC (20)

7 from South, 5 from Northeast, 4 from Midwest, 4 from West

Median PVI: R+2.5

PVI Range: D+12 (Schiff) to R+15 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 86.01

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 95.65 (Loretta Sanchez) to 68.22 (Barrow)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 53.37

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 81.4 (Loretta Sanchez) to 31.61 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 80.18

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 93.76 (Arcuri) to 64.94 (McIntyre)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 55.9

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 77.8 (Loretta Sanchez) to 45.8 (Barrow)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 14 (70%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 9 (45%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 4 (20%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (5%)

Median Rural % of District: 16.6

Rural % of District Range: 55.4 (Carney) to 0 (Harman and Loretta Sanchez)

[Note: There are also one Blue Dog/CBC member (Sanford Bishop), four Blue Dogs/CHC members (Cardoza, Costa, Baca, and Salazar), and one Blue Dog/New Dem/CBC member (David Scott).]

All New Democrats (59)

17 from South, 17 from Northeast, 8 from Midwest, 17 from West

Median PVI: D+5

PVI Range: D+38 (Greg Meeks) to R+15 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 93.52

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 98.29 (Capps) to 68.22 (Barrow)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 73.94

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 93.26 (Capps) to 31.61 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 85.42

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 94.75 (Courtney) to 64.94 (McIntyre)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 67.5

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 94 (Capps) to 45.8 (Barrow)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 29 (49.2%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 16 (27.1%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 6 (10.2%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (1.7%)

Median Rural % of District: 6.8

Rural % of District Range: 56.9 (Kind) to 0 (6-way tie)

New Democrats Only (33)

6 from South, 11 from Northeast, 4 from Midwest, 12 from West

Median PVI: D+7

PVI Range: D+28 (Crowley) to R+4 (Mitchell)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 93.99

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 98.29 (Capps) to 75.03 (Altmire)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 75.84

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 93.26 (Capps) to 38.2 (Altmire)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 87.72

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 94.75 (Courtney) to 75.03 (Altmire)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 70

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 94 (Capps) to 51.3 (Altmire)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 13 (39.4%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 5 (15.2%)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (3.0%)

Median Rural % of District: 5

Rural % of District Range: 56.9 (Kind) to 0 (4-way tie)

[Note: There are also three New Dem/CBC members (Artur Davis, Kendrick Meek, and Greg Meeks), two New Dem/CHC members (Gonzalez and Cuellar), and one New Dem/Progressive (Tom Udall).]

All Progressives (68)

9 from South, 21 from Northeast, 17 from Midwest, 21 from West

Median PVI: D+20

PVI Range: D+43 (Serrano) to R+1 (John Hall)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.24

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.26 (Baldwin) to 92.18 (Kucinich)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 89.11

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 97.19 (Baldwin) to 74.72 (Hare)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 94.82

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.49 (Ellison) to 83.74 (Kaptur)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 84.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (6-way tie) to 66.3 (Kucinich)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 1 (1.5%)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 3 (4.4%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (1.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.65

Rural % of District Range: 61.8 (Welch) to 0 (25-way tie)

Progressive Only (33)

2 from South, 14 from Northeast, 6 from Midwest, 11 from West

Median PVI: D+15

PVI Range: D+36 (Robert Brady) to R+1 (John Hall)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.23

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.26 (Baldwin) to 92.18 (Kucinich)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 89.14

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 97.19 (Baldwin) to 74.72 (Hare)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 94.98

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.03 (Hirono) to 83.74 (Kaptur)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 84.5

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Schakowsky, McGovern, and Baldwin) to 66.3 (Kucinich)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (3.0%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (3.0%)

Median Rural % of District: 4.4

Rural % of District Range: 61.8 (Welch) to 0 (5-way tie)

Progressive + CBC (26)

7 from South, 5 from Northeast, 10 from Midwest, 4 from West

Median PVI: D+30

PVI Range: D+43 (Rangel) to D+10 (Bennie Thompson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.26

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.03 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 93.97 (Eddie Bernice Johnson)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 89.52

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.07 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 77.38 (Corrine Brown)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 96.23

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.49 (Ellison) to 87.51 (Corrine Brown)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 84.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Conyers and Gwen Moore) to 67.7 (Corrine Brown)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 1 (3.8%)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (3.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.05

Rural % of District Range: 37.2 (Bennie Thompson) to 0 (14-way tie)

Progressive + CHC (8)

2 from Northeast, 1 from Midwest, 5 from West

Median PVI: D+23.5

PVI Range: D+43 (Serrano) to D+10 (Grijalva)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.73

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.14 (Linda Sanchez) to 95.66 (Gutierrez)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 90.43

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.61 (Linda Sanchez) to 80.98 (Gutierrez)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 94.59

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.23 (Grijalva) to 91.13 (Gutierrez)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 89.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Linda Sanchez) to 75.3 (Pastor)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (12.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 0

Rural % of District Range: 16.4 (Grijalva) to 0 (6-way tie)

All CBC (39)

17 from South, 8 from Northeast, 10 from Midwest, 4 from West

Median PVI: D+27

PVI Range: D+43 (Rangel) to D+2 (Sanford Bishop)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 96.75

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.03 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 91.77 (Artur Davis)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 87.01

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.07 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 65.17 (Artur Davis)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 92.11

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.49 (Ellison) to 74.36 (Sanford Bishop)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 83.05

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (3-way tie) to 61.3 (Artur Davis)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 5 (12.8%)

Bad votes on FISA: 1 (1.3%)

Bad votes on ENDA: 3 (7.7%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.1

Rural % of District Range: 52.3 (Butterfield) to 0 (17-way tie)

CBC only (8)

6 from South, 2 from Northeast

Median PVI: D+24.5

PVI Range: D+41 (Towns) to D+9 (Butterfield)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 96.48

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 97.57 (Alcee Hastings) to 95.14 (Jefferson)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 85.76

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 89.53 (Alcee Hastings) to 80.35 (Jefferson)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 89.52

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 92.19 (Al Green) to 86.54 (Jefferson)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 85

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 89.2 (Alcee Hastings) to 73 (Jefferson)

Bad votes on Iraq supplemental: 2 (25%)

‘Bad’ votes on ENDA: 1 (12.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 2.1

Rural % of District Range: 52.3 (Butterfield) to 0 (Towns)

All CHC (21)

6 from South, 3 from Northeast, 1 from Midwest, 11 from West

Median PVI: D+13

PVI Range: D+43 (Serrano) to R+6 (Salazar)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 95.66

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.14 (Linda Sanchez) to 85.24 (Cuellar)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 80.98

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.61 (Linda Sanchez) to 50.56 (Cuellar)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 87.38

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.23 (Grijalva) to 70.05 (Ortiz)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 76.7

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Linda Sanchez) to 50.5 (Cuellar)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 10 (47.6%)

Bad votes on FISA: 4 (19.0%)

‘Bad’ votes on ENDA: 1 (4.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.5

Rural % of District Range: 39 (Salazar) to 0 (9-way tie)

CHC only (7)

4 from South, 1 from Northeast, 2 from West

Median PVI: D+9

PVI Range: D+23 (Roybal-Allard and Sires) to R+4 (Rodriguez)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 92.65

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 97.26 (Napolitano) to 90.48 (Ortiz)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 71.91

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 88.7 (Roybal-Allard) to 64.63 (Ortiz)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 84.68

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 95.38 (Sires) to 70.05 (Ortiz)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 65

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 92.2 (Roybal-Allard) to 58.5 (Ortiz)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 4 (57.1%)

Bad votes on FISA: 1 (14.3%)

Median Rural % of District: 1.7

Rural % of District Range: 23.6 (Rodriguez) to 0 (3-way tie)

Unaffiliated Democrats (63)

10 from South, 25 from Northeast, 17 from Midwest, 11 from West

Median PVI: D+9

PVI Range: D+36 (Pelosi) to R+18 (Chet Edwards)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 95.39

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 98.91 (Pelosi) to 85.66 (Boyda)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 80.9

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.43 (Pelosi) to 55.93 (Boyda)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 88.56

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.54 (Tsongas) to 63.46 (Skelton)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 74.85

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 93.3 (Delahunt) to 53.7 (Chet Edwards)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 23 (36.5%)

Bad votes on FISA: 3 (4.8%)

Bad votes on ENDA: 5 (7.9%)

Bad votes on Stem cells: 6 (9.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 7.8

Rural % of District Range: 66.6 (Stupak) to 0 (8-way tie)

All MSP (37)

5 from South, 10 from Northeast, 15 from Midwest, 7 from West

Median PVI: R+4

PVI Range: D+6 (Castle) to R+14 (Granger)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 20.07

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 39.71 (Gilchrest) to 4.57 (Camp)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 6.74

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 25.29 (Gilchrest) to 1.14 (Calvert)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 14.18

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 31.41 (Shays) to 4.64 (Granger)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 39.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 48.3 (Gilchrest) to 20.2 (Calvert)

Good votes on FISA: 1 (2.7%)

Good votes on ENDA: 20 (54.1%)

Good votes on Min. wage: 28 (75.7%)

Good votes on Stem cells: 24 (64.9%)

Good votes on SCHIP override: 21 (56.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 21

Rural % of District Range: 58.6 (Camp) to 0.4 (Kirk)

All RSC (109)

56 from South, 5 from Northeast, 22 from Midwest, 26 from West

Median PVI: R+11

PVI Range: R+1 (Chabot) to R+26 (Cannon)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 4.18

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 24.75 (Tim Murphy) to 0.62 (Lamborn and Jordan)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 1.32

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 11.86 (Mario Diaz-Balart) to 0 (15-way tie)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 3.8

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 23.96 (Alexander) to 0.62 (Lamborn and Jordan)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 17.05

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 39.5 (Mario Diaz-Balart) to 6.7 (7-way tie)

Good votes on ENDA: 3 (2.8%)

Good votes on Min. wage: 20 (18.3%)

Good votes on Stem cells: 6 (5.5%)

Good votes on SCHIP override: 5 (4.6%)

Median Rural % of District: 25.5

Rural % of District Range: 73.5 (Aderholt) to 0 (Royce and Roskam)

[Note: There are two RSC/MSP members: Dave Camp and Mike Turner.]

Unaffiliated Republicans (54)

22 from South, 9 from Northeast, 15 from Midwest, 8 from West

Median PVI: R+8

PVI Range: D+3 (Saxton) to R+23 (Deal)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 9.14

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 36.43 (Chris Smith) to 0.77 (Boehner)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 2.83

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 16.38 (Walter Jones) to 0 (7-way tie)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 6.76

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 24.5 (Paul) to 2.71 (Boehner)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 25.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 44.5 (Chris Smith) to 6.7 (Boehner)

Good votes on Iraq Supplemental: 2 (3.7%)

Good votes on FISA: 1 (1.9%)

Good votes on ENDA: 11 (20.4%)

Good votes on Min. wage: 32 (59.3%)

Good votes on Stem cells: 7 (13.0%)

Good votes on SCHIP override: 15 (27.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 29.8

Rural % of District Range: 78.7 (Harold Rogers) to 0 (Bill Young and Fosella)

[Note: The Iraq Supplemental vote referenced is HR 2206 Roll Call 425. The FISA vote is S 1927 Roll Call 836. These were the Iraq and FISA votes where party discipline broke down the most; however, there have been a large number of Iraq Supplemental and FISA votes, and a bad vote on one of these by a representative does not mean a consistently bad position. Some ENDA votes have ‘bad’ in quotes to reflect that a handful of very liberal representatives voted against ENDA, presumably, from the left for being inadequate. The Region categories follow the basic 4 Census Bureau regions, with the exception of me counting Maryland and Delaware as Northeast states.]

SurveyUSA (5/2-4, likely and actual voters, 4/25-27 in parens):

Jim Schellinger (D): 41 (36)

Jill Long Thompson (D): 43 (48)

(MoE: ±3.8%)

I still suspect that JLT has the slight edge here, but this one seems up in the air.  We’ll be following the returns as they come in tomorrow night.