Skip to main content

Daily Kos Elections Live Digest banner
Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.
Pres-by-CD: Another day, another 18 districts. Today, we cover the remaining districts in California and Illinois, as well as all of Maryland.

California (CA-01 through CA-05, CA-16, CA-21, CA-22)

Illinois (IL-13, IL-16, and IL-18)

Maryland (statewide)

Reps. Gary Miller and Jeff Denham get another friend in the club of California Republicans representing Obama districts: incoming freshman Rep. David Valadao, whose CA-21 gave Obama 54.6 percent of the vote. (Dem nominee John Hernandez lagged Obama by more than 10 points.) The results that people have sent in have allowed us to finish our calculations before the Secretary of State has even formally certified the election. Accordingly, we're not closing the books on this one entirely yet; we'll revisit on Friday, when the state certifies, to ensure that our totals cross-check against the certified ones.

My colleague David Jarman described the Madiganmander in Illinois as "precise", and indeed it is. In addition to the 57-58 percent Obama districts designed to be Dem pickups upstate, the swingy IL-13 was, well, swingy: the 900-vote margin between Obama and Romney is the closest one we've calculated to date.

Finally, in Maryland, the Democratic gerrymander not only held up nicely, but was also buoyed by the slight swing towards Obama across the state. Obama saw only a slight drop-off in the designed-pickup 6th, but Dem John Delaney beat incumbent Roscoe Bartlett anyway (by a not-close 20 points). Maryland, like North Carolina, also has an early-vote allocation problem; as with NC, we'll update should we get more detailed information.

As a bonus, we also ran some quick numbers on how Question 6 (which affirmed marriage equality in the state) performed across the districts: 'Yes' (for marriage equality) was blown out in MD-01 (losing by 14) and lost narrowly in MD-04 and MD-05 (by about 400 votes in the former, 4 points in the latter). The good guys won narrowly in 3 other districts: MD-02 (by a point), MD-06 (by 5 points), MD-07 (by 8 points), and utterly romped in MD-03 (Yes +18) and as expected, MD-08 (Yes +25). (jeffmd)

10:08 AM PT: IL-02: It was an idea that seemed very apparently unwise from a branding perspective (in much the same way that we didn't see Jeb Bush run for president in 2008). And Sandi Jackson -- Chicago alderwoman, but more significantly, wife of recently-resigned Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. -- seems to have realized that, confirming that she won't be a candidate in the special election to replace her husband. (She also says she won't be resigning as alderwoman unless "something catastrophic" happens.)

10:28 AM PT: MI-Gov: The Michigan gubernatorial race took on much greater significance yesterday, with Republican incumbent Rick Snyder's signing of rushed-through right-to-work legislation. Before this, it seemed like the usually non-controversial Snyder was one of the less vulnerable members of the gubernatorial class of 2010, but he may have vaulted himself up the list, in this very union-centric state.

With that in mind, the Detroit Free Press took a look at their picks for the six likeliest Democratic contenders. Their top two are names you already probably know: state Senate minority leader Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Gary Peters (they put Whitmer at the top of the list, for whatever that's worth). Lansing mayor Virg Bernero is also on the list, though he seems like kind of a non-starter after faring poorly against Snyder in 2010. Rounding out the list are ex-Rep. Mark Schauer (who's been running the Blue Green Alliance of environmentalists and unionists), Denise Ilitch (random rich person and Univ. of Michigan regent, whom you might remember briefly testing the MI-Gov waters in 2010), and a name I hadn't heard before, Macomb Co. Executive Mark Hackel (who seems like he'd be on the right flank of the Dem field).

Also, there's the open question of whether the right-to-work legislation can be overturned via more direct means (merely electing a Democrat governor alone wouldn't do it; it would also require electing a Democratic state legislature, using the currently gerrymandered map). One solution that labor is already pushing is challenging the law through the courts on open meeting law grounds, seeing as how the bill was accomplished without public hearings.

Failing that, Michigan does have the initiative process (a $1 million appropriation was attached to make it "referendum-proof," but it could still be challenged by an initiative originating with the voters). It'd require 285,000 signatures, a fairly high bar, but one that union canvassers ought to be able to meet. Hopefully they'll learn from Wisconsin's experience and avoid the temptation of recalls, though; patience seems a better approach when the Gov. and entire legislature are up in 2014 anyway.

10:41 AM PT: KY-Sen '16: Public Policy Polling cleared the decks of all the miscellany from their Kentucky poll; one number that is especially eye-catching is that current Dem. Gov Steve Beshear actually tops Rand Paul, 46-44, in a hypothetical 2016 matchup. Termed-out Beshear -- the state's most popular politician, with a 51/34 approval -- will be looking for a new job in 2015, or more likely thinking about retirement; he's already ruled out a Senate run in 2014. Ashley Judd, who was surprisingly viable against Mitch McConnell, fares about the same against Paul, down 47-44.

Also noteworthy: Hillary Clinton fares well here in 2016, indicative that the Clintons still maintain some unique appeal in Appalachia that other Dems don't; she leads Paul by 5 and Marco Rubio by 8. (PPP also has some North Carolina miscellany, not much worth reporting from that other than that Pat McCrory enters office with 53/25 favorables while Bev Perdue leaves with 35/52 approvals.)

11:05 AM PT: Special elections: Can you believe we're already having our first legislative special elections of the cycle? Here's Johnny Longtorso with last night's results (from two GOP-held seats that the Dems weren't expected to pick up):

Alabama HD-30 - This one ended up being surprisingly close. Republican Mack Butler defeated Democrat Beth McGlaughn by a 53-47 margin. This district isn't one that just flipped to the Republicans in 2010, either -- the previous incumbent had been in office since 1994.

Iowa SD-22 - Nothing to see here. Republican Charles Schneider defeated Democrat Desmund Adams 57-43 to hold the seat for his party.

11:13 AM PT: DCCC: The DCCC is hitting 21 House Republicans over the fiscal "cliff" negotiations with radio ads and web videos. We don't usually get up and dance every time the DCCC blasts out another press release about their latest round of web videos, but this is moderately interesting since it's early in the cycle and this gives some insight into where they think they might be playing offense in two years' time. (Here's a sample of the web video, targeting Gary Miller in CA-31.)

In addition to CA-31, they're also doing web videos in FL-10, IA-03, MN-02, NY-19, and WA-03, while doing radio in AR-01, AR-02, CA-10, CA-25, FL-02, LA-04, MN-03, NE-02, NV-03, NY-23, OH-06, PA-08, SD-AL, VA-10, and WV-01. (OK, so LA-04? Maybe they're hoping that becomes an open seat if John Fleming runs for Senate.)

11:24 AM PT: Trendspotting: Our Dreaminonempty is out with a piece looking at the very slow but definitely perceptible trend in the Democrats' direction at the presidential level over the last three decades, accompanied by some historical evidence reminding us that a trend is a trend up until, well, it isn't a trend anymore.

11:33 AM PT: Dark money: It's only going to apply at the state level (and not, say, U.S. House races in New York), but New York's Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, is pushing new rules that would shake up the dark money system, going well beyond anything happening at the federal level. Tax-exempt "charitable" groups doing business in New York would have to disclose what percentage of their spending goes to political activities, and any group spending more than $10,000 on elections in New York would need to disclose the name of any donor giving $100 or more. (This is all at the regulatory level, rather than being legislation that would have to survive the state's Republican-quasi-controlled Senate.)

11:40 AM PT: IL-Gov: Joe Walsh continuing to run his mouth, despite getting badly beaten for re-election, is not in itself newsworthy. If it involves a run for higher office, though, I suppose it's at least worth a mention. At his final town meeting over the weekend, he refused to rule out a run for something else, and specifically said, "This Republican Party needs a Scott Walker to run for governor, and I haven't seen or heard that candidate."

11:56 AM PT: Ads: We've already seen some anecdotal evidence of this, like that analysis of the Omaha media market a few weeks ago. But now we're seeing it on a more-thorough, national scale: a full analysis of ad spending by the Obama and Romney campaigns finds that the Obama campaign spent less overall on advertising and yet managed to air more ads and have more visibility in key markets, thanks to a focus on finding the most efficient ad slots. Especially worth seeing, the Washinton Post's story comes with a cool graphic showing the week-by-week tide of pro-Romney vs. anti-Romney ads sloshing back and forth.

12:06 PM PT: SC-Sen, SC-Sen-B: Rep. Mick Mulvaney got taken down a peg or three when he wasn't included on Nikki Haley's "short list" of Senate replacements (despite his previous expression of confidence); now he's saying that he'd be fully behind fellow House members Tim Scott or Trey Gowdy for the job (both of whom were on the short list). As for one of the other picks, though, he didn't rule out challenging them in the a special election primary in 2014 -- especially Jenny Sanford, about whom he said "I'm not really sure why she's on the list." Maybe more significantly, he also took himself out of contention for a GOP primary challenge to Lindsey Graham in the regularly-scheduled election; last week, state Sen. Tom Davis, who'd been treated as the likeliest primary challenger to Graham, said that he "probably wouldn't" run but that he hoped that Mulvaney would take on Graham.

12:11 PM PT: On the Democratic side, one other potential Illinois gubernatorial candidate has bubbled up too. It's John Atkinson, a wealthy insurance exec who could self-fund; he's floating his name for a primary challenge to unpopular incumbent governor Pat Quinn. If Atkinson's name sounds vaguely familiar, he'd been planning to primary Dan Lipiniski in IL-03 from the left in 2012, up until redistricting saved Lipinski (by placing Atkinson's house in the 11th, and giving Lipinski a swingier, more-suburban district better suited for his conservaDem leanings).

12:22 PM PT: Census: If there are any Republican strategists going around with pants still unsoiled after reading this year's exit polls and county-level results, well, that should change, after reading the Census Bureau's newest population projections. They're projecting that the U.S. will no longer have a non-Hispanic white majority by the year 2043, and by 2060, minorities will comprise 57% of the population. The non-Hispanic white population is expected to peak in 2024 and start falling (not just on a percentage basis but in terms of raw numbers), falling from 199 million in 2024 to 179 million in 2060. (The country's total population is expected to be a whopping 420 million in 2060.)

2:32 PM PT: NY-Gov: Popular culture would have you believe that New Yorkers hate everyone and everything, but they're apparently a bunch of shiny happy people right now, according to Quinnipiac's new poll of approvals-only. They like Barack Obama (62/35), they like Charles Schumer (63/23), they really like Kirsten Gillibrand (61/18), and they looooove Andrew Cuomo (74/13). While they don't exactly like the legislature (35/46), they do approve of the coalition in charge of the Senate, which they favor at 48% to 31% for Democratic control and 17% for Republican control.


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How dare you start off a live digest with (8+ / 0-)

    excellent content, telling us about the precision of the "Madiganmander'. Doggone it, you're giving people in the DKE demographic something to aspire to after their baconmanders with their breakfasts.

    Worse yet, you're making me forget whatever empty diary joke I had in mind this morning.

    I hope; therefore, I can live.

    by tietack on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:38:36 AM PST

  •  PVIs (6+ / 0-)

    CA-1 R+10 flat
    CA-2 D+19 to D+20
    CA-3 D+1 to D+3
    CA-4 R+10 flat
    CA-5 D+18 to D+19
    CA-16 D+2 to D+7 (big move)
    CA-21 R+3 to D+2
    CA-22 R+12 to R+10

    IL-13 D+1 to R+0
    IL-16 R+4 flat
    IL-18 R+10 to R+11

    MD-1 R+14 flat
    MD-2 D+7 to D+10
    MD-3 D+7 to D+9
    MD-4 D+23 to D+26
    MD-5 D+11 to D+14
    MD-6 D+2 to D+4
    MD-7 D+23 to D+24
    MD-8 D+10 to D+11

    https://docs.google.com/...

    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

    by wwmiv on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:43:27 AM PST

    •  I'm putting MD as tentative (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      due to the early vote issue.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:44:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Overall, the MD early vote (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBraden, MichaelNY

        was more Democratic than the election day vote, a pattern seen in many other states, so Obama's margin in several districts may be a bit higher with it added in.  But we're at the mercy of county and state election boards to allocate them by congressional district, and I don't know if they will ultimately put out the results with early votes broken down as such.  For now, though, the district totals are somewhat incomplete (my own vote is among those not included.)

        Some counties are entirely within one CD so that their early votes could be added to the district totals, but most voters live in counties that are split so it's not worth attempting unless the election boards release early votes by district.  And voters can go to any early voting center in their county, regardless of what district the vote site is in (there are from one to five early vote sites in each county.)

        37, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

        by Mike in MD on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:34:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  these totals already include EVs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wwmiv

          The county and statewide totals match to those presented by the SBE.

          As we discussed in yesterday's update, early votes are allocated formulaically. For example, Delaney's district is only 52.4 Obama without EVs from Frederick and MoCo. My point is that if we were to get better info, we would update, but knowing what we do right now, these are our best estimates.

          Editor, Daily Kos Elections. IL-07.

          by jeffmd on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:01:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Alaska does this in tabulating early votes as well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Early, absentee, and questioned ballots are basically counted as separate precincts.

          Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

          by SaoMagnifico on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:13:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  CA-16... higher turnout in Orez year but still bad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      CA-04 cast about 288k total votes for Congress.
      CA-16 cast less than 140k total.

      In 2010, Costa's district similarly had horrible particpation relative to its population.

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:52:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwmiv, JBraden, MichaelNY

    Valadeo had been discussed a lot last night, but it looks like the Obama numbers are a bit higher than was reported even then.  Based upon two-party vote alone, he's nestled between Capp's and Garamendi's districts respectively, very close to safe D status.  The fourth-biggest shift towards Obama of any republican seat nationwide (only the two Cuban South Florida seats and Alaska had a bigger shift).  By 2016 this seat should be around D+4 to D+5 (using Cook 12/16 PVI), and safely ours.  

    IL-13 came in a bit better than I expected.  There was bigger slippage than IL-12, but given Obama was decimated in many downstate seats, I was worried it would be worse.  I agree it's still a competitive choice

    It's also good to see that MD-06 shifted a bit to the left in 2012.  I have it being just outside of the range now Republicans could carry even in a wave election.  I'm presuming continued minority migration into the district made the difference.  

  •  okay I have to leave in a minute (4+ / 0-)

    for my exam, but I wanted to post a little something.

    I was very disappointed in the Democratic performance in Deschutes County this year.  The Republican freshman in the Bend state house district got 56.5% of the vote against the Democrat, and Democrats generally didn't do any better than 46% in the county.

    However, the trend in the Bend state house district appears to continue.

    In 2004 only I have it at D+2, for 2008 only at D+5, and at 2012 only it was still D+4.  The PVI moves up a point.  Now if only we can recruit a candidate who can take advantage of that!

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:55:14 AM PST

  •  Final(?) fundraising tallies for POTUS race...... (9+ / 0-)

    Linky here:  http://go.bloomberg.com/...

    OFA ended up raising $733M, just a hair shy of the $748M or $749M they raised in 2007-08.

    Romney raised $479M.

    The media still really likes to conflate campaign dollars with national party and even other non-party support group dollars.  That's poor journalism.  As we learned this year, there are huge legal and practical differences between what a campaign can do compared to everyone else.  Campaign dollars are unique and should be reported as such.

    I'm expecting that campaigns going forward will easily raise what Romney raised, and I bet the nominees in 2016 will have something in the ballpark of what he is, unless one or both parties has someone who can clear the field and stockpile money from the primaries onward.  I think that's virtually impossible on the Republican side, and even on our side I doubt Hillary or Biden clears the field to where they don't have to spend big in primaries.

    I'm especially hoping for the GOP to have a long, drawn-out fight, but that will require a bunch of top dogs to jump in and stay in past New Hampshire.  I think it could happen, the prize is too big.

    44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

    by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:27:46 AM PST

    •  On our side, the field might actually clear early. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's recall that it until fairly late in the primary season, or at least much later than it normally happens, there was a lot of back and forth with delegate wins. Had either Clinton or Obama, but especially Clinton, won each of the first four, it might have been over pretty damn quick. There are no unique racial angles to 2016 right now, and unless something surprising happens, there won't be any at all. So if someone wins big right away, they will be the nominee. Surely, they will need to spend, but unless I've missed something, a primary that isn't drawn out will be cheaper, perhaps far cheaper, than 2008's primary season was for us.

      I happen to think you are spot on for the Republicans, if only because I expect at least one Santorum or Paul-like hold out from the nutty part of the base just not giving up.

       

      I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

      by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:43:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  CA-16 (0+ / 0-)

    After almost losing his 60% Obama district in 2010, Blue Dog Jim Costa badly dissapointed again by underperforming Obama by more than 4 points this time.

    Time for a primary challenge by someone more progressive?

    The most dangerous worldview is the worldview of those who never viewed the world - Alexander von Humboldt

    by germanliberal on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:31:19 AM PST

  •  CA-21 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV, MichaelNY

    Valadao outperformed Romney by about 16 points in an open seat!

    Could this really have happened just due to the ineptness of Joe Hernandez or was he an extraordinary candidate in his own right?

    If the letter is true it could be difficult to beat him after he gets incumbency.

    The most dangerous worldview is the worldview of those who never viewed the world - Alexander von Humboldt

    by germanliberal on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:44:41 AM PST

  •  Walker now opposes ending same-day registration? (6+ / 0-)

    Hopefully good news in Wisconsin, where Scott Walker says he won't sign legislation ending same-day registration, since the Government Accountability Board (the one Scott Fitzgerald wants to turn into a board of political appointees instead of retired judges) says it would cost $5.2 million to implement:

    "There is no way I'm signing a bill that costs that kind of money," Walker told reporters.

    Walker cited a report by the state's Government Accountability Board that concluded it would cost $5.2 million, and would do nothing to end the administrative work of clerks around the state.

    Walker says ending same-day registration too costly

    First thought was that this is another case of him saying he won't until actually given the bill and then signing it anyway, like Rick Snyder.  More likely, if the GOP legislature came up with a bill to end/restrict same-day registration that cost far less, I think he signs that.  (Though I don't know how a less expensive version would be any operationally different than just getting their voter ID bill from the last session to finally become law if the lawsuits & injunctions run out of steam.)  Also, living in this state, there has been the odd time that Walker will really say 'no' to a Republican legislative proposal and the proposal gets more moderate, so I have a bit of hope that same-day registration will survive in the end.

  •  DCCC already targeted Gary Miller (11+ / 0-)

    26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:59:02 AM PST

  •  Hey Sawolf, (0+ / 0-)

    Wendell Mayes apparently finds your post yesterday "Incredibly rude", but in the end finds that political scientists tend to overblow urban packing as an argument in general.

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:30:30 AM PST

    •  Not sure who that is exactly, (0+ / 0-)

      But it seems that Monkey Cage wasn't the only person who finds your comments unsavory, which I find kind of funny, there were much worse things to say.

      Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

      by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:34:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ... ... ... ... ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, sawolf, MichaelNY

      Yes, that was me. And no, I was not telling sawolf that his post was rude. I was telling Monkey Cage that their response was rude. If you'd look at the direct at the thread and which post I was responding to you'd know that.

      And, by the way, I almost feel compelled to HR your comment because you directly outed me which is against DK policy. The usual policy for this action is for the user to be reprimanded and possibly deleted, but I'd be against that in this case. However, because I'm Facebook friends (and quite honestly actual friends) with many here it isn't as if it isn't known who I am.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:11:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, if anyone wants to delete the above comment (0+ / 0-)

      And the ensuing thread, I won't be offended, in fact, I'd actually prefer it.

      Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

      by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:48:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also: (0+ / 0-)

        http://themonkeycage.org/...

        I left a very lengthy comment responding to them in detail.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:53:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just read that blog post (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          And your comment is a very good one.  It's a little funny how often that off the cuff comment by sawolf keeps getting repeated.  Their main pushback against the maps in SA's diary include a paper published that used an automated system to draw up maps from 2000 presidential precinct data.  Not sure how well that simulation takes into effect COI and other fair district rules, but I'm willing to guess it didn't.  

          Overall, maybe this is just pointless bickering.  nobody's mind has been changed during this discourse, and I while I will have a BA in Political Science in May when I graduate, I am by no means a political scientist and won't try to disprove their line of thinking by publishing a paper on the matter.  I'd be interested to see how this discussion develops, but for the most part, I'm probably going to tap out.

          Side note, just want to let everyone know how much power I wield, I provoked the Monkey cage to write a blog post.  Bow down before me peasants!

          Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

          by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:10:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordpet8, sawolf, BeloitDem, Daman09

            This topic is just starting to piss me off. It's a huge travesty that they're quoting sa out of context as and insinuating that everything said there was in that character type.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:12:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So here's the response I left them: (5+ / 0-)
              Since you have decided to take my comment out of context and used my somewhat poor word choice to condescendingly criticize my position without actually defend yours, I feel that I need to take the time to defend myself here if you're going to talk past me.

              First, when I said "suck it" I didn't mean it to be as if I were using profanity, but rather along the lines of "take that."  Perhaps this is due to my generation (college age) not finding the phrase that offensive, but regardless my intent was certainly not to denigrate you personally.

              Second, my WHOLE point was that your article here: http://themonkeycage.org/... makes a claim that is NOT supported by the evidence you presented.  That was it.  Period.

              I then went on to show why you need to provide maps in defense of your position, whether you think that gerrymandering didn't ultimately change the outcome or if you did, because simply using the old 2007-2011 maps is inherently biased.  I'm not saying my maps were perfect and have never claimed to, but there's just no way to prove that gerrymandering didn't change the outcome without hard evidence.

              I find it very offensive that you would bring up my objection only to point out the ONE instance of mildly offensive language and instead then try to castigate my position as pretending that districting doesn't concentrate Democrats or doesn't matter.  Whether it does or not wasn't relevant to the point I was making, it was that Democrats STILL would have carried the house despite of it, but thanks to gerrymandering they didn't.  If you had read the diary I posted on DailyKos you would see that the distribution of seats still skewed somewhat Republican even under the non-partisan scenario, but that it was a surmountable obstacle for Democrats whereas the actual gerrymandered districts weren't.

              As your own post asserts, we're clearly in a very gray area when it comes to counterfactual scenarios, but we do have commissions like the type California uses where as political scientists we could construct maps that are generally realistic and even use a few sets to construct a confidence interval.  Your original post made no such attempt and THAT is what I was criticizing it for.

              So again, I'll leave it to you to show me what set of maps following a California or Iowa-style NON-partisan commission would have allowed Republicans to win 218 or more seats last month, or even the seats you think they would have retained under the old maps.  But don't bring up my comment and then proceed to talk past me as it is quite rude.

              NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

              by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:28:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I could see this being the flash point of a war (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                Political Scientists vs. Political Cartographers.  

                Very good comment by the way, I wonder if they will respond.  Are there any notable Political Scientist who finds favor with our view point on the matter?

                Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

                by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:24:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Sides responded, I'd be interested to hear your (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                take on his comment.  From what I gather (very quickly skimming it, as I am in class and we are going over our final review right now), but it seems he agrees currents maps are GOP, which has been established before, but still doesn't concede that dems could have a path to majority with fair maps.

                Essentially: Yes, maps have current maps have GOP Bias, but so would fair district maps due to urban packing. Doesn't think dems would have won in 2012 w/ fair maps regardless, because what defines a fair maps is not concrete.

                My take is, well yeah, any maps that aren't a Dem gerrymander to disburse urban votes will result in pro GOP bias, but that doesn't mean the GOP bias couldn't have been overcome w/ 2012 election results.  He kind of skirts by the idea that there are solid definitions for a fair district, and you explicitly pointed to the CA model.

                Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

                by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:56:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My response (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Daman09

                  Check out my response to Sides' comment. I think that it will warrant a response from him.

                  23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                  by wwmiv on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:15:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  that's kind of assuming that every state would (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Skaje, MichaelNY, bumiputera

                  do the same thing for "fair" maps, which is to draw a clean Republican map.  That is to say, a natural map would be a Republican map.  I think it's our job to demonstrate as many different, and appealing, and fairish maps as we can that would on the whole benefit Democrats a bit more than Republicans, and that's what I try to do with my maps.  Democratic maps can be fair, and clean.  It's not as simple as saying "derp, put the whole city in one district," but it can be done, and is often quite easy.

                  ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                  by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:35:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  KY-Pres (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Clinton leads Rand Paul by 5, Rubio by 8.

    Damn, That would be pretty awesome, and would boost our senate candidate against Paul in 2016 as well.  Here's hoping she actually decides to run.

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:50:12 AM PST

    •  Would be great (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY

      But that requires her approvals to stay impossibly high.  However, this shows us the right Democrat can theoretically win in Kentucky.  And Hillary and Schweitzer are the only two who I'd call the "right Democrat"

      19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:59:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it doesn't show that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chachy, MichaelNY

        I guess if you take a very broad meaning of "theoretically", maybe.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:02:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The theory would be (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

          A popular high-profile candidate defeating a potential opponent with low-name recognition in a state that favors the other party. Recall there were polls in early 2008 finding McCain leading Obama in several blue states. It didn't hold then and probably won't here but this poll isn't predicting anything of the sort. Purely a snapshot in time.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:33:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Very good comparison. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            If anything, that's a bit mild, since in early 2008, it was a Presidential election year, and Obama was an active and famous Presidential candidate, while McCain was also an active partisan figure.  

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:24:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ok, it is a Presidential election year. (0+ / 0-)

            You know what I mean--the year of the election the poll is about!

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:28:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          If Beshear and somehow won the nomination, I'm fairly confident he would win his home state, Possibly a dem from Neighboring TN could win KY as well in a presidential election.

          Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

          by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:42:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Problem is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            Beshear likely couldn't win the nomination without moving left, which might hurt him back home, thought he'd still get a boost I suspect.

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:51:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No that's not true at all (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Christopher Walker

              Why couldn't he win a Senate nomination as-is, when he won the Governor's nomination as-is?  And that was a hotly contested primary in 2007......and by the way, he was the progressive favorite then, against Bruce Lunsford.  So he actually has existing cred with the left.

              Rank-and-file Democrats are smarter than Republicans, our people are much more realistic about electability, and also care very much about it.  And rank-and-file Democrats also ideologically cover much broader territory, liberals don't completely dominate our primaries the way conservatives dominate GOP primaries.

              So no, Beshear doesn't have to move left at all, not anymore than Joe Manchin did in WV.

              I'd feel real good about Beshear's chances of knocking off Rand Paul in 2016.  And moreso since Rand is thinking about running for President, taking the torch from his dad.  That would be a potentially fatal distraction by itself, as it proved to be in past years for Chris Dodd and, going way back, for Bob Dornan, and more recently almost proved to be for Michelle Bachmann.  We should be licking our chops at a shot at Paul's seat in 2016, we have a surprisingly strong bench there and I bet they'll be eyeing that seat.

              44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:28:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, Senate? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DCCyclone, MichaelNY

                I meant for President--since Daman09 said "win his home state" and so on.  No, for Senate, I imagine Beshear probably wouldn't have to move left, although he might have to make a Manchin-esque show of independence.  

                27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:54:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Actually it directly shows that (0+ / 0-)

          You probably should read the poll

          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

          by tommypaine on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:55:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I was being pretty broad (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt, skibum59, MichaelNY

          Just that Kentucky is not 100% impossible for us the way Alabama or Mississippi are, short of another 1984.  Prior to this poll, I thought it really might be at that point.  But it's apparently still winnable under incredible circumstances with the right candidate.  Which isn't saying much, but still.

          19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
          politicohen.com
          Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
          UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

          by jncca on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:12:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            I wouldn't have thought KY was that impossible, though, since I doubt Democrats will sweep even local/state offices in Alabama or Mississippi anytime soon.  (I wonder if KY Dems are uniquely helped by their odd-numbered-year elections?  I assume that part of the point of such things, especially in Virginia, was to drive down turnout, especially when Virginia was ruled by the Byrd machine, but I don't really know the history--that's just an assumption.)

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:28:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It might be easier to win MS than KY. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:18:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no way (5+ / 0-)

              MS has tons of White evangelicals.  They're immovable.

              39.4% of MS is White evangelicals; the number is 33.4% for Kentucky.  That's already a gap, but on top of that, there is racial polarization that doesn't exist in Kentucky (regardless whether the nominee is Black or White), and finally Kentucky has far more registered Democrats.

              19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
              politicohen.com
              Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
              UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

              by jncca on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:45:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Sometimes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt

          I wonder if I'm reading DKE or DataLounge w/ all the rude replies.

          •  Heh. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            I'd never heard of DataLounge.  I like jncca and hope I wasn't too rude; I'm just a) having a bad day and b) a bit of a stickler about words like "show" and "prove".

            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

            by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:23:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I could see Rubio having real issues in KY/WV. (6+ / 0-)
      •  well, it makes it look at least like she'd (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordpet8, skibum59, MichaelNY

        perform better than Obama, and that could help us have our best showing in a senate race since... 2004?

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:54:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wasn't that always assumed though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          I'd guess that there aren't many Democrats that wouldn't perform better than a black man in Kentucky

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

          by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:49:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Against Paul, that could actually hold up (8+ / 0-)

      I don't buy it that Hillary would actually win Kentucky, or even keep it in tossup status through the summer of the election year, against anyone but Paul.

      But she could beat Paul.

      His win last time was a bit deceptive, the state's conservative bent and the strong anti-Democratic wave carried him over the top.

      But voters, in Kentucky and elsewhere, are going to treat Paul's crazy extreme libertarianism as a bigger strike against him in a Presidential than in a Senate race.  People are less willing to look past things in a Presidential vote that they would look past for a downballot office, especially a legislative one with no executive power.

      Indeed, in the crazy situation of Rand Paul being the GOP nominee, I'd say Hillary and probably a few other Dems could enjoy a 40-state rout.

      But against Rubio or any other garden variety 21st-century wingnut, I don't see Hillary or any other Dem holding up in Kentucky.

      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:06:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are probably right, (0+ / 0-)

        but you do have to wonder if a Clinton campaign would even bother to contest the state.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:21:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wouldn't they if it was clear she was winning? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          She'd want to expand the map and states that supported Bill more than they did Obama should be first on the list to help rebuild the national party's popularity in those states.

          Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee and maybe a state like Oklahoma (neighboring Arkansas and all) should be first on the Hilary expansion list if she's guaranteed to win. I'm not saying she'd win any of these states but rebuilding the national party in these states might help down the road whether in state elections, US House, or just in keeping down Republican Super Majorities.

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

          by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:55:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think it's that simple. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            Or rather, I think it's something you almost need to want to do regardless of what initial polling says. That's where Obama's team and Clinton's hypothetical 2016 might differ. (Gotta love the qualifiers here, no?) In the end, it's a huge difference. After all, Kentucky at the presidential level has a huge Republican lean. Even if Clinton looked very solid at the beginning, do you think she would win easily in the state? I don't, at least not unless she were approaching a 1984-style blowout. To have a chance of winning, she'd need to put a lot of resources into the state fairly early on.

            Your second paragraph is interesting. I mean, are we likely to face a situation like 2008, when it seems fairly certain, but still kind of far from guaranteed, that our side will win? And if so, what's the coalition? Is it a 2004-style coalition, running purely through the Midwest, or does it go into the Southwest and New South? Huge, huge difference, I think, something close to the latter gives us more options. Were she facing a situation like that, I could see her deciding to contest a handful of states that only someone with her background might.

            Of course, there's the question of resource use.

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:16:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oklahoma? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Audrid, sawolf

            I mean, I generally agree with your thinking, but Oklahoma is about as likely to go Democratic for President in 2016 as it is to snow 6 inches tomorrow in Singapore.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:35:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Good question, but I bet they would against... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          ...Rand Paul.

          If he was really the GOP nominee, polling would move sharply to where battlegrounds would become safe Dem, and Hillary and her team could safely contest a slew of normally unwinnable states.  So yes I think they'd charge hard in Kentucky, because I think polling like this would hold there against Paul.

          You can't underestimate how damaging a bad nominee can be.  Romney proved "bad," but not jaw-droppingly bad like the other GOP wannabes he beat.  Rand Paul would be a clown candidate much as everyone Romney beat.  For Rand to be the nominee would be an epic GOP disaster.

          Of course he almost certainly has no path to the nomination.  He probably would need the primaries and caucuses to go much more strongly toward proportional allocation of delegates, so that he could convert lower finishes into delegates in a divided field......which is the other thing he would need, a divided field that doesn't whittle down much through the contests.  Neither of these things is at all likely.  And even if this happened, the GOP establishment would work hard at roadblocking Paul any way they could from actually becoming the nominee.

          44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:34:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  At that point, what state wouldn't Democrats (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone, MichaelNY

            try to flip?

            In the scenario you describe, basically all states Obama won this year would become, at worst, Lean D. That's 26, not counting DC. Out of the remaining 24 states, only North Carolina (which, given Obama's performance in 2008 and 2012, would easily be a target) Georgia, and Texas are big and expensive. After that, Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina are probably like Minnesota or Wisconsin--not dirt cheap, but not all that expensive, particularly when you consider that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other expensive states are locks. The rest are small and dirt cheap to campaign in, and if we are faced with a good candidate in Clinton, a horrible candidate on their side in Paul, a decent if not great cycle, and good fund raising, perhaps we might truly get a national campaign.

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:51:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And you would be more likely to win against King! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bjssp, MichaelNY
              •  You can laugh at this as much as you want (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Audrid, MichaelNY

                for how arrogant it might sound, but if were a candidate in 2016 (or, I guess, in 2014, although that is highly unlikely) and managed to poll competitively, I think a visit from either Bill Clinton or President Obama wouldn't be all that far fetched. I say this because King's new district is far more non-white than it used to be. At the risk of sounding crude, having President Obama drape his arm around my shoulder, giving me his personal stamp of approval, might just be the motivation some might need to turn out in a midterm election when they would otherwise stay home.

                I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

                by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:00:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I reckon we're going to see a lot of this: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, jncca, MichaelNY

      Clinton, with a vast name recognition advantage and artificially high approvals, thanks to being Secretary of State, as well as early near-unanimous support among democrats, is going to poll very strongly against republicans all over the place.

      I wonder if this will influence a) Clinton's decision on whether or not to run; b) various republicans' decisions on whether or not to run; c) the psychology of expectations about the 2016 election in general.

      •  I think it might help get her in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        if she thinks it's guaranteed she'd win (if I was her I'd really, really hate running again to lose in the general).

        I don't think it'll scare any republicans away though since by 2014 Hilary's approvals should start dropping, especially if she's gearing up to run.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

        by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:58:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Colorado the tipping point state (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt, BeloitDem, KingTag, MichaelNY

    CO and PA both certify results.

    CO winning margin = 5.37%
    PA winning margin = 5.38%

    (Wasserman mistakenly has it reversed, apparantly forgetting how we decide elections...)

    Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

    by tommypaine on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:26:57 AM PST

    •  Just as Nate Silver predicted. (0+ / 0-)

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:37:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nate predicted Ohio (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY
        •  Indeed. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca, lordpet8, redrelic17, MichaelNY

          I was kidding.  Nate had Ohio with a bullet.

          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

          by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:47:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  but he wound up (0+ / 0-)

            shooting himself in the foot with it. :-)

          •  He had it at 50% chance (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sawolf, jncca, Xenocrypt, kman23, MichaelNY

            Of being the tipping point state. It was first place by a ways, but not prohibitive. If you're not wrong half the time with numbers like that, you're misrepresenting your statistics.

            •  Problem with the whole "probability" framework (9+ / 0-)

              is that we have no real way of checking that.  There's only one election, and Nate's track record in other elections isn't the issue.  So we don't know if Nate got the tipping point probability right or wrong.  But he did get the tipping point state wrong, and Colorado and Pennsylvania weren't even second and third on his list--they were fifth and seventh.  

              And it's not just what his model said.  He actively propagated the narrative of "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio":

              But if Ohio is almost a must-win for Mr. Romney, the same case could be argued for Mr. Obama. Were he to lose Ohio, Mr. Obama would then need to carry either Virginia or Colorado — along with holding Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada.

              In other words, Mr. Obama would need to carry at least one of the states where he is now tied in the forecast rather than leading. Thus, Mr. Obama’s narrow lead in Ohio accounts for the bulk of his overall advantage in the forecast right now. Were Ohio decreed to Mr. Romney by fiat, Mr. Obama’s chances of winning would decline to 57 percent from 70 percent in the forecast.

              Again, we can't really evaluate the probabilistic claims.  But we do now know that Obama carried Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nevada by wider margins than he carried Ohio.  Just like he did last time.  

              So this was something the polls, and Nate, and many others of course, were going out on.  This time is different.  Last time was about Colorado and Virginia, this time is about Ohio.  I'm sure you remember.

              And--maybe Obama's margin in Ohio really was more secure, even if it was smaller--but I also think it's pretty likely the polling simply missed what was going on, and so did Nate.

              Which is fine!  Nobody's perfect.  Nate's doing good work.  But he's basking in this aura as a flawless predictor, and I think that story should be qualified.

              27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

              by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:50:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't claim to be a statistician (0+ / 0-)

                but While you couldn't test any one particular claim, he's probably attached probabilities to enough things that you could tell if he's in general being reasonable with his probabilities.

              •  Ohio polling (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                andgarden, Xenocrypt, DCCyclone, MichaelNY
                And--maybe Obama's margin in Ohio really was more secure, even if it was smaller--but I also think it's pretty likely the polling simply missed what was going on, and so did Nate.
                Well the irony is that the polling for Ohio turned out to be pretty good. (The polling average was exactly right - +3.0, though Nate predicted +3.6.) It's just that it underestimated Obama in almost every other state.

                Another thing Nate Silver did was that he said Obama should abandon Florida a couple of weeks before the election. That was dumb.

                It's funny, this election was taken as a big vindication of Nate Silver's methods, but it sort of convinced me that a little bit of ad hoc common sense added to the polling averages could make for a better prediction. (E.g., I always thought VA, CO, and NV were stronger for Obama than they appeared, and especially the latter two. Because what sense was there in thinking that states where all the demographic trends were decisively in our favor would suddenly turn hard against us?)

                •  What you were convinced of after the election (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Xenocrypt, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

                  was my position all along.

                  The "Nate is the oracle" narrative is just not reality based. It gives you a sense of why people follow bad investment advice, though, for example.  

                  Ok, so I read the polls.

                  by andgarden on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:07:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yep. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    andgarden, Skaje, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

                    Everyone loves calling everything "Moneyball".  I don't know the book, but I saw the movie, where equations were thrown at the viewer to give the impression that smart stuff was going on.  I think I can speak for other mathematicians: equations don't always mean smart stuff is going on.  (Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but math is just a way to present certain kinds of claims in a precise way.)

                    As I often do, I think Plain Blog put it well:

                    A quick point: Silver's value added, to me, isn't his poll aggregation (which is in my view good, but there are other good ones out there) or his forecast model (it's fine, but again there are other comparable ones). His value added is that he consistently pumps out lengthy, interesting posts on interesting topics. Sometimes polling, sometimes not; sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't -- but he's consistently worth reading. I actually do think there are some people who mistakenly have treated him as a wizard; I don't think his detractors made that up. But so what? He's good anyway.
                    If Nate makes more people try to go out and try their own models and theories out against quantitative evidence, that's good (and I think he is doing that).  But yeah, you're right about "guru-ism", it's usually a mistake.

                    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                    by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:12:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've often said that Nate is a pundit with a map (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Xenocrypt, Chachy, MichaelNY

                      What bothers me in particular is that few other people seem to be bothered by the fact that Nate doesn't disclose enough information about his model to be able to reproduce his results independently.

                      Ok, so I read the polls.

                      by andgarden on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:18:19 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't really know, but (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        andgarden, James Allen, jncca, MichaelNY

                        what bothers me is that, taken with the sense I have that he likes dissing academics and the academic publishing process.  Which is fine--there's plenty to criticize, I'm sure--but at least they have to reveal what they're doing.  (I recall an interview with someone, Drew Linzer, that seemed to pointedly emphasize how his model is all out in the open.)  As Brendan Nyhan or someone said when they were arguing with Silver about something, the point in political science is often to test a theory--an explanation--not just to get close numbers.  (Although, if that's the post I'm thinking of, I didn't like Nyhan's tone--if it was Nyhan-- when he referred to Silver as something like "a blogger who does regression analysis, not a trained political scientist".  The training's not the point.)

                        And the stuff that I like that Silver's done, he has shown his work--things like testing January polls of incumbents vs. eventual election results.  That's not rocket science, but that's what's refreshing.  It's nice to see someone bothering to look things up and summarize them comprehensively, precisely because all it takes is some time.  That's a lot of what I try to do on here, honestly.

                        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                        by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:25:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Again, I haven't actually read the interviews, but (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        andgarden, MichaelNY

                        when Silver said (I think) that journal articles should often be blog posts--that's promoting openness, which is cool.  But I don't think a blog post with a non-reproducible model is necessarily more open than a journal article with a reproducible one.

                        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                        by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:28:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I am reminded (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          redrelic17, MichaelNY

                          of the popular historians and journalists who sometimes seem outright offended that anyone should ask for the underlying evidence of their claims.

                          I suppose that when you have a brand to protect, showing your work requires conceding that you don't stand alone--and that you are replaceable because other people could do what you do. Incidentally, I think that's why Villagers were long so snooty about "bloggers."

                          The more things change . . . .

                          Ok, so I read the polls.

                          by andgarden on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:32:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If Nate thinks that, I think he's mistaken. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andgarden, MichaelNY

                            I think he'd have more of a "value-add" by revealing his model, and going into the weeds about the changes he's making, his statistical assumptions, and so on.  (Maybe I'm just being selfish--I'm actually pretty ignorant of statistics; it's not even taught in our department.)  Other people can make models, but he does more than that.  And if he explained more, he'd probably be doing more to popularize real mathematics and statistics.

                            27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                            by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:43:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  One alternative possibility (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kman23, MichaelNY

                            is that his "special sauce" isn't that sophisticated.

                            Ok, so I read the polls.

                            by andgarden on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:47:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Don't judge moneyball off the movie (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Xenocrypt, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

                      The idea (not saying you get it in the book) has revolutionized baseball because it worked. Not all of it works but overall as an idea, sabermetrics has killed "gut" intuition in baseball. Because of that, you can now see it in soccer, hockey and basketball because sabermetrics helps push back against the biases built into various sports over the years.

                      What's interesting is we're now seeing (not because of sports but because of the growth of technology) similar stats obsessions in politics (Obama campaign), Finance (Wall Street now buys and sells stocks based on computer created formulas that the computer has simulated based off of other formulas and often even the stock brokers don't understand why the computer says to do what it does), the military (now creating algorithms on how to kill off terrorist organizations quicker as well as how to spread out troops in a foreign country to slow down insurgents) and dozens of other fields.

                      I'm with you in saying that is a guru is a mistake. He was just first to this field but he's already been surpassed by some in the field and to prove he's not this amazing predictor he got the British Elections totally wrong.

                      I'm just saying push back to sabermetrics has become in vogue and I think it's often (definitely not you since you're not arguing this plus from other arguments you've made I can see you're not narrow like this) pushed by people that don't understand why a computer can be better at telling them what's happening than themselves. For example, KenPom (basketball sabermetric site) currently has a team ranked #2 that lost to a team ranked #3 on his site. Many people are saying it's crazy because the #3 team on a neutral site won so they have to be better, which is clearly not necessarily true (1 game is a not a good decider in who the better team is). So that's what I'm pushing back on in this.

                      (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                      by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:11:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And I made a ton of grammatical mistakes (0+ / 0-)

                        and didn't finish all thoughts/ideas. That's what I get for doing this when I'm exhausted.

                        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

                        by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:15:19 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I think both sabermetrics and a push-back (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY, andgarden

                        are in vogue at the same time, which is kind of funny, but it's a big world.  (I was just thinking before about how there are two articles that I imagine could always get onto a magazine cover these days: an article about how "blink" and intuition/common sense are superior to scientific practice, and an article about how nerds with equations are superior to experts.  Both sound anti-establishment even though they're sort of opposing ideas, although I suppose you could put Nate Silver into either one if you really wanted to be on the NYT most-shared list.)

                        I think that the increased capacity of technology, statistics, and so on can do a lot that can't be done any other way.  

                        But a model always reflects some kind of thinking and some kind of analysis, and bad thinking, I think, can be just as present in rigorous-sounding equations and models as in the intuition of those people going on their gut.  In fact, bad thinking presented mathematically might be particularly dangerous because it can be harder to recognize.  (On the other hand, good thinking presented mathematically can be incredibly powerful.)

                        What I worry about is people taking things that seem math-y and work alright for now on faith, instead of treating them scientifically and mathematically, which hopefully means you test your assumptions, make them explicit, try to improve them, recognize their limits, etc.  And this isn't a critique of Nate's model in particular, of course.    

                        Sigh, Plain Blog said it well in that post's comments: "Just as there are plenty of people who don't believe in science and math in part because they don't understand them, there are plenty of people who believe in science without understanding it -- who believe in it the way that others believe in seances or tarot cards. Just because science is not, in fact, magic, doesn't change that."  And there's probably a middle ground, where people do understand a lot of science and don't take it entirely on faith, but also kind of identify with science culturally, and might be biased in favor of things that seem science-y.  

                        I don't know anything about sabermetrics as it's actually applied--either in sports or in other fields--but what I have a problem with is the "Moneyball myth" that's gone throughout the culture, where it's always those silly guys relying on their gut vs. the fancy model (nonetheless invented by an amateur) that's going to blow up everything.  And, to return your kind qualification, I know that's not what you're saying at all, but it's where I'm coming from.  

                        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                        by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:46:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  That's a great blockquote (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      It's exactly right all points.

                      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                      by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:42:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Eh, Florida was nowhere near the tipping point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  Even if Obama won it.

                  •  And as the conversation upthread demonstrates (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    predictions about which states were likely to be the tipping point were flawless...

                    But besides that, he caused Romney to have to keep fighting for a state he could not afford to lose.

                    And besides that, Nate ignored the question of marginal utility: if the Obama campaign had enough money to essentially do as they please in all the competitive states (which it seems that they did), then they might as well have made a play in Florida (which they did).

                    And besides that, the media response to Obama pulling out of Florida would have been bad, and for that reason alone might have meant it was worth it to stay in the state.

                    And besides that, Nate's argument turned partly on his state fundamentals calculation, which suggested Romney ought to be "naturally" favored by about 3 points. But Florida was one of the 4 out of 9 states where his state fundamentals pulled his prediction further from the actual outcome. I.e., it was worthless.

                    •  The notion of Pennsylvania... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      ...as a "tipping point" or close to it just proves there's not much value in the concept of a "tipping point" state.

                      A state that the winner took for granted and the loser conceded months before the election is not a tipping point state, even when the final result is a little closer than expected.

                      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                      by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:45:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Doesn't necessarily have to be ad hoc. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  As I see it, the scientific method says: look at what worked, look at what didn't work, try to fix it, try to generalize it, and test it.  Perhaps incorporating some amount of uniform swing (more than Nate did) or something accounting for demographics would be a good idea in general.  

                  But I think the scientific method also says: don't be too certain from a single experiment, or from only a few experiments.  Which isn't to say you can't know anything.

                  27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                  by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:16:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  But you're mistaken on Ohio polling! (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Xenocrypt, tietack, James Allen, MichaelNY

                As Chachy said in his comment, Ohio polling was accurate.  Indeed, it's the battleground state whose polling was the most accurate!

                All the other battleground states, literally all of them, had RCP polling averages showing Romney doing better than he did, in some states by several points.  Obama outperformed the RCP averages in all of them.  RCP had him up 2.9 in Ohio, with the actual result 2.98, so the average was almost exactly right there.

                So you're greatly mistaken about Ohio polling.  Rather, all the other swing states' polling missed Obama's strength.

                44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:41:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't mean Ohio polling in particular (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tietack, jncca, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

                  but the polling aggregate, which as you say was really mistaken in other states, helped promote an "Ohio-centric narrative" where the state was suddenly going to be more Democratic than the country, be this big outlier, and so on.  So perhaps it was really a Colorado polling problem, or--more than anything!--a national polling problem.  

                  And, again, Nate was just following what the polls were saying.  But I'd be really impressed by someone who had a model that saw where Obama's strengths were really going to lie.

                  27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

                  by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:52:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your last sentence is key (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    That kind of model would, indeed, be gold.  A model that would've countered the CW, had Ohio relatively close but other battleground states more strongly favoring Obama,
                    that model didn't exist but would've made a hero out of anyone who could've produced it.

                    The thing is, I think OFA might very well have had something close to that.  We don't know what their numbers said in the states, but I get the sense they were accurate and satisfied they were accurate.

                    But the problem of course was that they paid tens of millions of dollars for their own sophisticated polling and other modeling that no one can replicate, as no one has that much money for an exercise like this.  A major party Presidential nominee raises money and easily justifies that expense since it's completely essential to being able to serve the campaign's only purpose, to win.  But no one can justify that expense just to make accurate outside predictions.

                    44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                    by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:57:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I blame everyone else on Ohio (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Xenocrypt

                  for believing my well known irrational exuberance that we would do better in Ohio than Pennsylvania.

                  It's my fault that everyone believes the polling on Ohio was wrong!

                  I hope; therefore, I can live.

                  by tietack on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:55:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Still (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    tietack, MichaelNY

                    Ohio was 2.69% more Republican than the nation in 2008 but the state is currently just 0.7% more in 2012.

                    For instance, Pennsylvania was 3.05% more Democratic in 2008 and just 1.7% more this year.

                    Colorado was 1.68% more D in 2008, 1.69% more in 2012.

                    Florida was 4.46% more R in 2008, 2.88% more R in 2012.

                    Virginia was 0.97% more R in 08, 0.2% more Democratic in 2012.

                    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                    by conspiracy on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:49:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  are you sure you don't just want (0+ / 0-)

                people to make a "Drunk Xenocrypt" meme? ;)

                Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                by sapelcovits on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 05:30:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I thought (0+ / 0-)

      when make a list of states to determine the tipping point, you start with the widest victory margins and then list them in order of narrower margins.  So, shouldn't PA be listed ahead of CO?

      •  It's not the state that was the closest in win % (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        It was what state gave Obama the win by putting him over 270 electoral college votes. Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania wre just gravy for Obama.

        (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

        by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:38:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Woohoo! (0+ / 0-)

      Colorado claims the title a second year in a row, albeit much more narrowly than in 2008.

  •  If Rubio decided to run for president in 2016 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I wonder if he would leave the door open to running for re-election? I suppose technically, if he lost the primary, he could file for the Senate race. But I dont know if Rubio is popular enough to do that and not see a drop in favorability rating.

    Seems like if Rubio declined to run for re-election, Dems might have a decent chance of winning the seat.

    •  Rubio seems to have gotten pretty popular (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      in Florida.  PPP's last poll on September 25th for example had him at an astoundingly good 52/32 approve/disapprove.

      Rick Scott in that same poll was 38/48, so it doesn't seem like they got crazy numbers.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:38:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Job approvals now don't mean much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        For someone like Hillary, who will be a private citizen going forward and didn't have the pressure of elected office the past 4 years, her favorables should hold up pretty well.

        But Rubio will be casting votes, pushing legislation, and getting credit and blame alike for what goes on in Congress the next 4 years, and all that will move his numbers over time.  That he's thinking of running for President means he'll have that much bigger a spotlight on him, he won't enjoy the relative invisibility of most backbench Senators that can create space to easily self-define, as someone like Amy Klobuchar can.

        44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:44:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I brought it up to show that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj32, jncca, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

          he's popular in Florida and there's at least the possibility that if he does poorly in the pres primary he can run for reelection.  Of course it's not destined that he'll maintain that spread over 4 years, but within the realm of possibility.

          NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

          by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:53:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  True, those are good numbers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca, MichaelNY

        But I wonder if they would be affected negatively, after months of spending time in IA and NH.

        •  I think more than IA and NH (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Being in the Republican primary fight to see who's the most conservative would hurt him. 10 Republican Debates about who's most anti-choice or most backwards on education should hurt him some in Florida.

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

          by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:40:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Typically, Governors Pay The Price for Failed Pres (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

      Runs, because they're there all the time. McCain and Kerry both got strong numbers after their failed runs. Dukakis was practically run out of town in '89 and '90, and Perry seems likely to suffer the same fate. Course, if Rubio turns out to be a disastrous candidate it could hurt him.

      •  And McGovern had the great fortune (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        of running for re-election in 1974.  (I wonder if he was helped even more than other Democrats--since he'd been Nixon's opponent.)

        Cuomo lost after his "invisible" campaign, if you want to stretch the point.  But Kerry, though he became a joke for a bit, probably came out of it with enhanced stature, especially after Bush became even more of a disaster.

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:58:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Kerry benefited from buyer's remorse (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          and from him being right on Iraq not being connected to 9/11 (was proven before 2004 election but I think most independents didn't buy the argument until close to 2006). Additionally, when Iraq became more of a mess and with Bin Laden still alive, Kerry was right in saying Iraq was a terrible distraction that was destroying our country.

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: J-Min's Stand Up

          by kman23 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:42:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't be so sure about Perry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Texas is pretty darn Republican, and I don't see a strong primary challenge emerging.

        •  Surely possible Perry could recover (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisJohn, JBraden, MichaelNY

          But I think he's done. He was never loved there like Dubya was, more tolerated. He came damn near losing in 2006, and his 2002 and 2010 elections were exactly what one would expect based on fundamentals: neither over- nor underperforming in either one. Add in a deeply embarrassing pres run in the meantime, and that all the big-city mayors in Texas are Dems...I could see it happening. Had 2010 not been a wave, he could have lost then.

    •  I have to think (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, James Allen, kman23, MichaelNY

      that there's no chance that a serious candidate (so, not Michele Bachmann) could actually campaign for president and try to hedge their bets for re-election.

      If Rubio actually starts looking like a front-runner I think there's no way his Senate seat doesn't open up.

  •  Scott Walker does the right thing for once... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, WisJohn, MichaelNY

    ...well, that is, if his Department of Administration is true to their word.

    Walker's Department of Administration has announced that they intend to use private donations to pay for the kitchen renovations at the Wisconsin Executive Residence.

    Watch for Walker's Department of Administration to try to sneak in taxpayer money for kitchen renovations at a later date, though.

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:48:10 AM PST

  •  IL-2 SPECIAL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    State Representative Monique Davis is going to try to court religious leaders from the South Side of Chicago to support a potential campaign by Davis for the IL-2 special election.

    Link to tweet from Blueroomstream

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:51:53 AM PST

  •  KY Fair Map crowdsourcing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jncca, KingofSpades, Daman09

    So I've been trying to tweak my non-partisan map of Kentucky's congressional districts and I can't decide between two iterations derived from a "california-style" commission:

    Photobucket

    Photobucket

    1, 3, and 5* are the same in both and I feel like they're pretty good, but I'm not so sure about how to draw 2, 4, and 6 (5 is supposed to be the same).  What do you all think?  I'm especially interested in getting input from people with local knowledge.

    NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

    by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:57:40 AM PST

    •  Hmm (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf, James Allen

      Both look solid to me. I think KY-04 on the second map looks pretty good as an exurban CoI district, although I like KY-06 on the first map as a greater Lexington CoI district, so it's a tough call.

      I guess my instinct would be that if you can avoid splitting the Louisville area between more than two districts, do it -- so the second map is good in that regard. But I wonder if you couldn't swap Washington, Nelson, and Boyle counties for Madison and Estill counties (and maybe Garrard County, too?) between KY-02 and KY-06.

      Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

      by SaoMagnifico on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:13:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Trouble is that doing that makes it harder (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen

        to keep the Louisville metro in just the 3rd and 4th.

        Also that the bluegrass region is just slightly to small for 3 seats so it has to awkwardly take territory elsewhere, so I figured I might as well keep the Louisville metro counties in the 4th in that map.

        I do really want to get local input though since googling "cultural regions of kentucky" gets you nothing and "regions of kentucky" gives you tons of geological regions and nothing else, so I'm still trying to find a good baseline to compare it to.

        NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

        by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:33:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think Lewis County should go to KY-04 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aamail6

      and the 6th shouldn't touch any state borders, but that's just me.

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:48:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Map 1 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf

      As a native Cincinnatian I would say that map 1 is a better communities of interest option. There are 3 regions split between KY-4 and 6 on the different maps: Cincy/L'ville burbs, river counties, and bluegrass/horse country. My gut reaction is that you can do a whole KY-6 horse country/blue grass district and keep it out of the other 2 areas, but that map 2 split regions in both districts. Just my 2 cents.

      OH-1 (born and raised ), MN-2 (college), CA-53 (grad school), IA-2 (postdoc)

      by aamail6 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:20:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI - GOV (9+ / 0-)

    Denise Ilitch isn't really that random of a rich person. Her dad owns the Red Wings, Tigers and Little Caesar's and is worth almost $2 Billion (with a B), so you can see why Dems would want her in, although he has a history of contributing big amounts to both Ds and Rs.

  •  PA finally certifies their results (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    Meaning CO edges them out to be the "tipping point state".  5.37% margin of victory for Obama, opposed to 5.38% in PA.

    (According to Dave Wasserman's spreadsheet)
    https://docs.google.com/...

    30, (new) MA-7, Unenrolled

    Truman: "The buck stops here!"
    Romney: "The buck stops somewhere in the next county..."

    by Marcus Graly on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:10:32 AM PST

  •  Obama will match FDR's record of being (14+ / 0-)

    sworn in 4 times.

    Different circumstances, obviously. :) Twice in 2009, because the official one was kind of awkward. Twice in 2013, since Inauguration Day falls on a Sunday, and the official ceremony is the next day.

  •  May Beshear run against Paul? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I get the sense he wants to retire from elected office, but stay active in the party.  Conway could try again, as could Treasurer Hollenbach.

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:45:23 AM PST

    •  Beshear ought to run this year (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, James Allen, MichaelNY

      I think he's the only Democrat who A) could make it competitive but B) has nothing to lose when McConnell goes nuclear on him.  I'd hate to see someone like Grimes run then get destroyed and have her career end when it has rising star written all over it.  However, Beshear running against Paul would be great too, but I think he'll simply enjoy whatever he's doing post-governorship to want to run a senate campaign then.

      My preferred candidates this cycle would be:
      1) Beshear
      2) Conway
      3) Grimes, Luallen, Hollenbach
      4) Abramson, Mongiardo
      5) Some random state legislators
      6) Ashley Judd

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:54:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  rankings (6+ / 0-)

        Mine might go like this:
        5. Lunsford
        6. random ex-state legislator who can raise enough $ to lock up the primary
        7. Judd
        8. broke-ass ex-state legislator who could lose the primary to a crank

        SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

        by sacman701 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:23:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But weren't you won over by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        the dazzling knowledge of the legal system that Ashley Judd displayed in Double Jeopardy? [/snark]

        Seriously, I agree that Beshear should run against McConnell rather than Paul, for age reasons as well as competitive ones.

      •  I think your B) misses something...... (6+ / 0-)

        "Nothing to lose" when McConnell goes nuclear on him is not true.

        Beshear like any outgoing popular officeholder wants to stay popular into retirement, and have people forever say "he was a good Governor and I like him."

        Don't underestimate the personal importance of that to Beshear or anyone else.  They want not just to win, but to be remembered well later.

        So Beshear very much will not want to be subject to McConnell's attack machine.

        44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:06:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's certainly a valid point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCCyclone, MichaelNY

          and by "whatever he's doing post-governorship" being held in high esteem by his fellow Kentuckians has to factor into that even if it's passive on his part.

          That being said, he definitely has less to lose in an electoral sense than someone like Grimes or Conway.

          NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

          by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:15:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, agree there (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sawolf, MichaelNY

            No one with a bright future wants to get roughed up in a way that lasts, and McConnell and his team are threatening, and promising, just that to any would-be foe.

            I actually don't mind Ashley Judd as the nominee if her effect can be isolated and there's no spillover effect.  As long as no one else is hurt by her, it at least should be fun.

            The only real loss would be if McConnell actually gets teabagged to death, and we have a weak nominee in a suddenly and stunningly winnable seat.  And it's folly these days, as I've been guilty of myself, to think this or that powerful incumbent or candidate can't get successfully teabagged.

            44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:52:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah that's why Judd is only preferable to (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, MichaelNY, DCCyclone

              a Paul Sadler type: the ex-state legislator who struggles to raise money.  Although to be quite honest I'd be rather worried about her dragging down our candidates in places like the Western and Eastern Kentucky where Democrats who successfully distance themselves from the national party can win big (Dan Mongiardo's Senate seat for example) while those who don't tank like he does (Chandler).  Plus, as you stated she'd be a wasted opportunity if McConnell got teabagged whereas a Jack Conway wins in anything other than 2010 vs. tea partier.

              About the only thing that makes Judd remotely preferable to a random state legislator is that she'd have money, but I'd almost think that having McConnell unopposed and thus allowing Dems to heavily localize their races would be better than having Judd drag everyone down since this will be the sole statewide race.

              NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

              by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:40:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've asked this before (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                but I'm still not sure there's any really solid examples of a poor statewide candidate actually hurting down-ballot races, to the point that having an almost-some-dude is actually preferable.  Obviously having the best candidate is preferable.  But is there really such a danger of hordes of previous non-voters turning out to vote simply because they don't like a Senate nominee?  Has that happened before?

                •  Creigh Deeds? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY
                  •  I think that Palladino (0+ / 0-)

                    also hurt Republicans downballot in New York, but I can't prove it clearly.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 03:04:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Doesn't quite fit because... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...Skaje's question was a top candidate hurting "to the point that having an almost-some-dude is actually preferable."

                    You can't say that about an open-seat Governor's race, a some dude is never preferable.  Deeds basically gave a "some dude" performance, even though on paper he was a bit more prominent than that as a veteran state legislator and previous A.G. nominee who had lost a squeaker to the same foe.

                    44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                    by DCCyclone on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:42:54 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  I remember someone once mentioned Beshear as a (0+ / 0-)

      potentially good WH Chief of Staff. He doesn't have any Washington experience, which I think is critical, but he's been an effective manager and political strategist.

      28, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

      by bumiputera on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:23:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That would be a really odd pick. (4+ / 0-)

        Beshear has been pretty brave in endorsing Obama both times (and the latter time during his re-election campaign) while taking minimal pain from it, but I don't see him in the WH.  He has been immensely critical towards the EPA, for instance.

        Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

        by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:30:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was an easy endorsement for him in 2011 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, MichaelNY

          He did it at the very end of the campaign, I think less than a week out, when he was up by over 20 in polling and Williams was a dead man walkin' by then.  So even if endorsing Obama cost Beshear 5 points which really is larger than likely anywhere for a mere same-party endorsement (voters simply expect you to vote for your own party's other candidates even if voters themselves like you and not the other guy), he had a lot of room to spare.

          If he endorsed Obama in 2007, that was riskier, running against an incumbent GOPer, although Fletcher, too, was a dead man walkin'.

          44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:10:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know, but he really stands out (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, bumiputera, DCCyclone

            compared to people who also had it tied up this year like Manchin, but boycotted the DNC just because of coal.  Beshear is also ga-ga over coal, but he didn't act pouty over it.  In both 2008 and 2012, Beshear also led the KY delegation to the DNC and was the one to announce the giving of all delegates to Obama.  

            Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

            by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:13:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Special election or not. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, MichaelNY

    It's impressive we got close in that HD, which is in red territory.

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:53:39 AM PST

  •  I posted a new diary! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, lordpet8, Skaje

    It's about redistricting Maryland, and creating an 8-0 map that should make all Democrats happy.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), new ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:05:03 PM PST

  •  MI: Agree. Initiative, not recalls (9+ / 0-)

    I'm just not clear whether it could be ready in time for November 2013.  Or whether it would be better in any event to wait until November 2014.

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:14:27 PM PST

    •  Looking at Ohio (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeloitDem, LordMike, MichaelNY

      I think 2013 might be best, with nothing else on the ballot the legislation will be what the election is about.  Hopefully it would make it seem more non-partisan than what Wisconsin went through.

      Also, Ohio showed that it was possible for labor to win a demographically somewhat similar state even in the off year, though Michigan does have a slightly higher minority population (3%).

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:21:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Other question is whether it could be ready (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        in time for 2013.  They would have to collect the signatures, submit them to the legislature, and then wait 40 "session days" before it could go on the ballot.

        Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

        by Paleo on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:30:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yep, having an initiative campaign (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      levlg, KingofSpades, LordMike, MichaelNY

      will also separate the issue somewhat from the gubernatorial race, allowing the Dem nominee to cite it as one example that Snyder is actually extreme and as one of many power grabs by Republicans, but not make the whole campaign about it.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:00:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI-Init (0+ / 0-)

    Michigan voters can use the initiative process to repeal the right-to-work-for-less law, as ThinkProgress detailed in this report.

    Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee is a BFD!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:24:26 PM PST

  •  Time to predict the 2060 election! (9+ / 0-)

    So the population will be 43% white, 31% hispanic, 15% black, 11% other. Figure the electorate will be about 50% white, 16% black, 25% hispanic, and 9% other.

    Assuming Malia Obama wins 39% of whites, 70% of hispanics, 90% of blacks, and 60% of others...

    That's a 57-43 wipeout! And even if Wyatt Romney can hold Dems to 30% of the white vote, he still loses 52-48.

    Hope I live to see it. 2060 is pretty close to my actuarial checkout date...

    •  How about the just announced "TBA" Bush-Hager? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, bumiputera, James Allen

      Is half a century long enough for America to consider another Bush?

    •  No way she gets 39% of whites (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, Chachy, Skaje, BeloitDem, skibum59

      Dems haven't gotten that since the Alpha Centaurians vaporized the Pacific Northwest in 2047 and thus killed off a lot of white Democrats.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:03:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but don't underestimate how much (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bumiputera, gabjoh, itskevin

        the voting strength of Quebecois Americans has grown ever since the resettlements following the Montreal Incident. They're become a powerful constituency everywhere from Michigan to New New England.

      •  I also think 70% among Latinos is low (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NMLib, BeloitDem, skibum59

        Ever since GOP President Anthony Rubio attempted to put forward a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, leading the Republican Party to split into the New Whigs and the Patriotic National Front.  Ever since the PNF's formation (and subsequent overtaking of the New Whigs), Democrats can expect at least 80% of the Latino vote.

        •  I actually do think we'll see (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen

          a Major political realignment before 2060.

          The angry white guy coalition will be officially dead by then. Which either means that Republicans will collapse and another party will that their place, or they'll have a genuine change in coalition and policy.

    •  The very hard thing about predicting an election.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, MichaelNY

      ...like that is the absolute plummeting of the birthrate not only in the United States but around the globe.  With the spread of tv and internet it's already under way in a delayed fashion in Latin America.  And even the Middle East and Muslim countries many thought were immune to this.  And it would not be shocking to see Sub-Saharan Africa catch up with the rest of the world.

      By 2060 you might finally start seeing smaller sub-populations with abnormally high bithrates like ultra-Orthodox Jews becoming far more meaningful voting blocs and swinging states like New York.  Or Mormons with their higher birthrates drastically changing places like the West Coast.

      By 2060 the population implosion of a large number of white voters is old news.  And MOST other demographics look likely to follow as well though at least so far not in as rapid a pace.  The question is what groups will have a high enough fertility to buck this trend?

      And will the world be fighting to get immigrants from the few remaining backwaters of fertility like Zaire so they'll have workers to support their dying geriatric populations?

      The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

      by Taget on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:27:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I hardly see ultra-orthodox Jews (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen

        swinging New York state or Mormons swinging California any time soon, if I were to make a prediction about how this prediction gets it most wrong, it would be this: I bet the Asian population goes a fair bit higher than they're predicting. It's already the fastest growing group in the country, and it's obviously a vast source region. Plus several Asian nations are moving from low- to middle-income status, which means there will be a ton of people who are poor enough to benefit economically from moving to the first world but with enough resources to actually do so. Further, I would expect any likely immigration reforms in the nearish future to be more favorable to more educated immigrants, and there will be increasingly vast numbers of those coming out of China and India. And Indians, at least, tend to have high birth rates (though not so much for other Asian American groups).

    •  There won't be much turnout differential... (0+ / 0-)

      ...by then IMO.  By then, we're talkin' a much smaller percentage of immigrant voters as their American-born children and grandchildren overwhelm the Hispanic and Asian electorates.  And of course black voters already are almost all American-born.

      I would bet a very small turnout disparity, where a population that is 43% white has only maybe a 45% white electorate.

      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:13:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The new 'Black' in Constitutional Amendments (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, JGibson, Skaje, LordMike, bfen, Taget, MichaelNY

    "Right to Work". Ugh.

    Having pushed gay marriage bans across much of the country for a decade in an effort to drive conservative nutball turnout in state after state, Americans for Prosperity have a new group for God-fearing, gun-owning, white senior citizen Teabaggers to fear - unions.

    The North Carolina chapter of Americans for Prosperity on Wednesday called for a constitutional amendment to protect the state’s “right to work” law, which says workers can’t be forced to join unions and bans collective bargaining for public employees.

    Woodhouse says AFP doesn’t doubt that the GOP-run legislature and North Carolina’s newly elected governor will uphold the law. But, he says, “fringe elements opposed to worker freedom continue to press for changes towards more forced unionization.”

    http://projects.newsobserver.com/...

    Huh. Forced unionization. Somehow, I missed that story. It must have been right after the one documenting the rampant voter fraud Tea Party types keep whining about, and right before the one about Bigfoot.

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:41:39 PM PST

    •  Ugh, I've just tried to not think about (7+ / 0-)

      all of the reactionary crap they'll do next session.

      God forbid teachers or the state's poor agricultural workers be allowed to unionize! They might join with "the blacks" in oppressing real 'mericans!

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:49:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is this a real possibility? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83

      And if so, how easily can these things be overturned?

      I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

      by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:56:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm afraid so (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeloitDem, JGibson, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

        NC already has the lowest percentage of union workers of any state. We're number 50. I am baffled by this so-called 'forced unionization' B.S.

        Republicans don't need solutions. They have a ready supply of boogeymen for people to be afraid of.

        Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

        by bear83 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:08:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm kind of embarrassed to admit this, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY

          but it was...surprising, I guess, to read earlier today that workers who don't pay the union dues aren't allowed to be discriminated against in pay/benefits. Which is to say, he has a strong incentive to freeload.

          Maybe it's not as black and white as a commenter on this post made it seem, and I am not entirely sure of what I had thought of RTW in the past. Still, I feel as though I am MUCH more opposed to it now.

          I guess if there's an upside, a big if, it's that this isn't going to hurt what isn't there. Then again, the reason I asked about changing the constitution was that you'd think Democrats would be very eager to do try to change the laws if/when they get back into power, partly as a political tool but also for socioeconomic reasons.

          I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

          by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:42:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  If Walsh hasn't "seen or heard that candidate" (5+ / 0-)

    doesn't that rule out himself? While it makes sense he wouldn't appear in mirrors, he should still be able to hear his own voice.

    (-9.38, -7.49), Blood type "O", social anarchist, KY-01, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy." — Stanisław Lem

    by Setsuna Mudo on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:50:38 PM PST

  •  US Population Growth Expectation (0+ / 0-)

    By 2060 we'll have 420 million people?  But Nigeria will still surpass us.

    •  Seriously, can earth sustain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen

      this sort of population?

      •  I don't believe so (0+ / 0-)

        but others know much more about it than I do.

        19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
        politicohen.com
        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

        by jncca on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:56:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Carrying capacity is not a fixed constant (0+ / 0-)

          but yes, there is a critical mass there somewhere.  It's why Professor Stephen Hawking said that we have to begin settlement of other worlds this century if we are to survive as a species.

          Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

          by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:02:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a non-starter (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BeloitDem

            We are not going to settle other worlds in this century.  That's just not going to happen.  The obstacles cannot be overcome for a much longer time, and very realistically perhaps never.  The human body's limits are too many.

            44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:15:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed, we'll have to see how tech and aerospace (0+ / 0-)

              develops.  In order to make a settlement on another planet viable, it must have enough resources to be relatively self-sustaining.  As for the carrying capacity here, we can up it with advances in hydroponics, trash management (including methane collection from dumps to use as fuel), urban renewal, etc.  Boy is this far in the future.  

              Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

              by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:08:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The biggest problem was foreseen by H.G. Wells (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KingofSpades, sawolf

                We would suffer the same fate in another habitable planet that Wells' fictional invaders suffered here:  microbial murder.  At least, one should assume we would suffer that.  All the massive technological advancement to find and travel in-person to another world with breathable air and edible plant and animal life......only to die from a virus against which our best medicine is completely helpless.

                44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                by DCCyclone on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:39:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's actually worse than you think (0+ / 0-)

        Birth rates in well developed countries like the US are in decline if I remember correctly, but the birth rate in Industrial nations are on the increase.

        This creates a pretty big problem that the world may need to face at some point.

        Then again, we have a lof of empty states in the US, so maybe the population increases will just increase our population density in states like Nebraska.

        Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

        by Daman09 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:06:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I guess we'll find out (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, MBishop1, DCCyclone

        We'll certainly hit 8 billion around 2025 or so, but projections get fuzzier further out.  Most of the estimates seem to have us getting to 9 billion by 2045, but beyond that it's all subject to massive speculation.  The UN had a (now-comical) report in 1995 that posited that if fertility rates remained constant for the next 150 years, the Earth would end up with a quarter of a trillion humans.  Africa alone would have 170 billion people.  But just 15 years after that report, fertility rates have already decreased significantly (global average has gone from 3 to 2.5 children per woman).

        We'll have a better idea of world population trends by the next decade.  If it looks like it's taking us longer to get to 8 billion then expected, then it would seem we're finally slowing the rate of increase.  As soon as that happens, it seems likely to imagine that we'll get close to some top number eventually.  If we're still beating expectations, then it would seem the inflection point is still a bit further out.

        If you ask me, we'll keep figuring out more efficient ways of supporting more and more people with the limited resources we have, at least into the near future.  At some point though, I think there will be serious renewed interest in space exploration, and alternative forms of energy.

        •  disease will crash the population (0+ / 0-)

          before it hits critical mass.

          We will never colonize space.

          Those are my predictions. But haven't we wandered pretty far from the focus of DKE, here?

          A Republican is a person who says we need to rebuild Iraq but not New Orleans. - Temple Stark

          by Christopher Walker on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:24:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  An excellent article in Foreign Policy Mag... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        ...explained a lot of this.  Unfortunately I think due to it's age it has been moved behind the pay wall.

        http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...

        But the most recent finding is that except for Sub-Saharan Africa the third world's population is cratering just like Europe's.  Even in countries that are not fully developed.  The theory is that mass media like the internet and television reduces fertility radically.  In fact they mentioned that a study in China showed that a test area that was exempted from the "One Child" policy had the exact same number of children as the rest of China.

        The problem of course is that still in the absolute poorest areas of the world like say Zaire the population is still exploding.  So for awhile we'lll see the population of the planet rise in absolute terms due to Africa.

        But the main problem for the planet is not rising population but falling population.  Particularly in countries like say Japan that are literally dying out completely.  One central thesis is that a lot of the world will soon be begging people to migrate  and many in the United States are just too dumb to realize it.  And another is that the world will not become more peaceful with an older and wiser population as a lot of sociologists assume.  But that the societal pressures placed on such unsustainable demographics will create all types of social unrest.

        The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

        by Taget on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:41:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Declining population (5+ / 0-)

          scares me far less than unsustainable population growth. While efficiency fixes some of it, ultimately there's a finate amount of resources and climate change in particular is made worse by the population boom.

          •  Better for the planet maybe. Not for humanity. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            You want a stable population that goes up slowly or goes down slowly.  Any sharp increases or decreases is bad.

            Having a large geriatric population who are living longer with fewer and fewer children to support them is a recipe for disaster.  You can solve that by immigration.  Which is what the west is doing.  The United States from Latin America (primarily Mexico), Europe from Africa and the Middle East, Argentina from Bolivia.  But if those populations also decline and fewer of their citizens want to migrate you are hosed.  The example used in the article was Puerto Rico which has seen it's fertility rate plummet and it's population age rapidly.  You hardly see much immigration from Puerto Rico to the United States anymore.  Despite it being legal.

            If you don't then you have a very small and very resentful population of young people supporting an invalid population and with fewer and fewer resources to do it.

            It also dispels one myth.  That because of improved life expectancy people can work longer.  They mention the debate over the Medicare eligibility date.  Evidence points to this being false.  In fact there is every reason to believe the next generation of senior citizens will be less healthy and less able to work longer.  Even if they live longer due to increased medical technology.  Which shows no sign of getting any less expensive.

            This scenario has as much Malthusian potential than a rising population.  This social instability is a recipe for war.  War has been, remains, and will continue to be the best and most likely way we'll destroy the planet.

            One thing to keep in mind.  It's one thing for the United States to face this problem.  What about a poorer nation like say Iran which saw a huge population explosion and now seeing birthrates falling below replacement levels?  It is doubtful that they will see anywhere close to the wealth of Europe or the United States before they reach the population cliff.  And it would not be a bad bet that they'll be nuclear armed before then.

            Of course one nation has a solution.  Particularly since they are too xenophobic to have immigrants.  Robots.  May skynet save us all!

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

            That health care has become THE issue in the US is because of this.  The economic decline of Europe and Japan is because of this.  The rise of China is because of this.  And their power eroding a generation from now will be because of this.  It is the driving force in the world.  And it is potentially catastrophic.  It is just being masked as I said by sub-saharan Africa which is gaining absolutely absurd population in some of it's more direly poor area.

            The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

            by Taget on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:58:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ruing the planet (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

              Would be catastrophic for humanity. Whatever demographic problems are caused by population loss, coastlines 200 feet higher (flooding most major coastal cities) our farmland becoming desert, and a Hurricane Sandy every couple of months is far worse. Obviously it's better if the change is gradual, but we need to come up with an economic and technological system that doesn't depend on exploding population.

      •  It's more a question of resources (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        than space, I think. I remember reading that, at least right now, the entire population could fit in Montana (or one of the wide open Western states) pretty comfortably. Not all of the earth is so easily habitable, of course, but let's remember that there are still absolutely enormous parts of this country, of Canada, and of Russia, to name three places, where few if any people live.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:59:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Global warming could change that. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          What is frozen under the Canadian and Russian permafreeze?

          They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

          by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:19:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm having trouble coming up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            with good information, but supposedly, let's say you take the country as a whole, which is 6.5 million square miles, assume that only a fourth of it is habitable. Out of a 143 million people, that's a density of 117.69. As a point of comparison, there are about 8.2 million people living in New York City (the city itself, as opposed to the larger metro area), which is 302.64 square miles.

            I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

            by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:05:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  CT-GOV 2014: Foley(R) likely to run again (4+ / 0-)

    link.

    He lost by just 6k in 2010. Malloy aides are making comparisons between Foley and Mitt Romney.

    PPP's latest CT poll in early Nov had Malloy's approval showing a big improvement to 46-38, and leading a generic Republican 48-37.

    PPP link(PDF).

  •  I had no idea Bob Filner was a Freedom Rider! (16+ / 0-)

    He participated in the protest when he was only 18 (while he was enrolled at Cornell) and was arrested for "inciting a riot" with the other Freedom Riders and was jailed for two months.  Here's his mugshot:
    http://www.crmvet.org/...

    I didn't know that he had such a rich history.  For a while, I just knew him as the Congressman with the extremely scary smile from southernmost California who beat a Republican veteran with a badass eyepatch (Nick Popaditch) in 2010

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:38:04 PM PST

  •  NJ Gov: Dick Codey and the Bayonne Bleeder (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommypaine, Taget, KingofSpades

    team up for, Indecision '13.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:44:29 PM PST

  •  Re: The New York polling. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawolf, Skaje, gabjoh, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

    I don't think this necessarily has any direct political ramifications (i.e., "primarying Diane Savino would be kill the Democratic party!").  But I do think it's a nice reminder that, even in a safe D state like New York, many people still like the sound of something like "a coalition in which Democrats and Republicans share power".  And, if so, perhaps that's part of why so many politicians say things that sound so annoying to partisans.

    27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

    by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:00:42 PM PST

    •  I wish they had listed the three options (0+ / 0-)

      then asked respondents to rank them (so we could do an instant runoff and get a generic preference).

      But hey, we're getting coalition government by default on the federal level! Yay gridlock!

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:11:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (5+ / 0-)

      things like "bipartisanship", "moderation", "independent", "power-sharing", etc. always poll well.  But that's rarely what people vote for.

    •  People are ignorant about Albany. (6+ / 0-)

      And they are ignorant because hardly any news organizations cover Albany.  The only reason WE have really known as much as we do about what is going on with the IDC is the online coverage in the Albany based Times Union.  Though I should also mention the folks at Politicker / New York Observer like Colin Campbell who do some of the most awesome political coverage you're going to see anywhere in New York City.

      I asked a reporter for the State Island Advance two years ago how anyone can make an informed voting decision if they don't cover state government.  The example i used was Janele Hyer-Spencer who probably won in 2006 because of Iraq and lost in 2010 due to Obamacare.  Despite the New York State Assembly having nothing to do about Iraq and Obamacare.   And Janelle not having a known public position on either issue.  How are voters supposed to vote on anything else unless you tell them?  The answer I got?  What's wrong with voting based on Obama Care.  The real answer I got from another reporter.  Just about every news organization has closed their Albany bureau due to it being too much money.

      Which is why the average New Yorker knows more about the state legislature in Wisconsin has done than they know about what legislature in New York State has done.

      You'd be surprised how little committed politically active Democrats know about what is going on.  The reaction I've found so far is utter confusion and a naive hope that Diane who they like knows what she's doing.

      There was far more outrage at Janine Materna switching parties.

      http://blog.silive.com/...

      A young Hillary Clinton wannabe who made an instant conversion because we all assume she's being recruited to run for something in the South Shore.  Just like Vito Fosella who was a Democrat until Guy Molinari made an offer to his father and uncle (who were both senior Democratic Party leaders) to run Vito for City Council as a Republican.

      The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

      by Taget on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:25:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All good info, although (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, Taget, MichaelNY

        I'm not sure how much more detailed coverage would change the fact that people in local elections will often win or lose based on national trends.  But it's still important.  

        Do you think Savino will end up getting a credible primary challenger--or does that depend on what actually happens with the legislative session?

        27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

        by Xenocrypt on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:19:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd rather have people vote locally (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Taget, MichaelNY

          based only on knowledge of their federal preferences than vote out of total ignorance or not vote at all.

          ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

          by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:31:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't thnk so. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

          All the incumbents back her which of course means so does the local party.  And the response is muted because I don't think people understand what is going on.

          She comes from organized labor and has in past years been condemned by the local paper for being too pro-labor.  Which only makes her more popular with labor.

          She was not the organizational pick to be State Senator and her victory was a victory for the more liberal wing of the party.

          Diane is popular.  She made a big show out of saying she was going to run a full campaign against her token opponent to help Mark Murphy.  She's seen as a loyal partisan Democrat who will help even underdog opponents who are facing popular Republican opponents.

          A lot of party activists dislike Cuomo.  Particularly those who are in organized labor.  And when she speaks she always separates herself from him and points out her own disagreements.

          What people know about Senate Democrats in the press has not been at all positive.  Anything they know that did not come from the press probably comes from Diane Savino herself or someone who works in Diane's office.

          She has a lot of credibility and goodwill built up.  For something of this magnitude the response is very muted.  As I said a young liberal (or should I say ex-liberal) former Hillary intern who got smoked in a city council race 4 years ago issuing a press release that she changed her party registration has gotten much more of a reaction.

          It all depends on whether Diane's two strongest bases,   organized labor and liberals turn on her.  And no one is going to even pay attention to this until after the 2013 city elections.

          So she has a year to bring something to the table to justify her actions.  Or to throw the Republicans under the bus if things start to get dicey.

          Right now probably the most important thing to pay attention to is the Working Families Party.  They are the one group who can make or break her.

          The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

          by Taget on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:04:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  They made Vito an offer he couldn't refuse. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, jncca, Taget, MichaelNY
      •  I've wondered if what you describe (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Taget, MichaelNY

        is part of the reason Cuomo is so damn popular with Democrats in the state.

        I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

        by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:07:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yahoo I passed! (13+ / 0-)

    Got a 38 average, out of 50. You can still pass with 25 out of 50. I don't know of many tests where you can pass with a 50% but I wasn't complaining.

    Next semester will be the big one though.

    Sophomore platforms are the hardest. You will have 5 judges, and even if 3 of the 5 give you a passing grade, you still fail. You need at least 4 to give you a passing grade, to survive....

    But that's next semester!

    21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance.

    by aggou on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:12:27 PM PST

  •  With all the polling PPP is doing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBraden, James Allen, LordMike

    I would actually be interested to see a poll done of MA, asking about a potential Senate special election.

    Not because I think Kerry will definitely be selected as SOS. Obviously, it's a strong possibility, although it wouldnt surprise me if Obama passed over both Kerry and Rice and went with a less talked about choice. Hillary Clinton was a bit of a surprise selection for SOS in 2008. As I recall, the speculation then focused on Kerry, Bill Richardson and Richard Holbrooke.

    Anyway, I'd like to see head to head matchups with Brown vs potential Dem challengers like Patrick, Marty Meehan, Mike Capuano, etc.

    The conventional wisdom seems to be that a special would mean an easy return to the Senate for Brown. And he would no doubt be a formidable candidate. But I think Dems would still have a good chance to hold the seat, assuming Brown ran(and thus declined a 2014 bid for governor). The non-presidential year electorate would help Brown, but I dont think it would be very unfavorable to Democrats. The DNC/WH wouldnt fall asleep regarding this race as they did in 2010. And there are probably several Dems who would be as strong if not stronger candidates than Elizabeth Warren.

    I wonder if the WH itself has done some polling on this race, when making the SOS decision.

    •  One argument for Kerry at State (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf, MichaelNY

      I was looking at the new Senate committee assignments and I realized that my Senator, Barbara Boxer, would be at the top of the heap in terms of seniority should Kerry resign to go to State to take over Foreign Relations. She'd have to give up Environment and Public Works to do so, which I couldn't gauge the likelihood of. That is one of her passions. But Foreign Relations Chair Boxer would be epic, she's smart and tough enough to be great at it, and her politics are superb. Conservatives would throw a fit.

      On the other hand, if she passed, the job would fall to the vastly less impressive Bob Menendez, in which case this goes from being a point in favor to one opposed.

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      I'd love to see some polling in this regard, though I'm not at all convinced that Brown would run.  He may choose to run for governor instead, or simply to take one of the many high-paying lobbying gigs which undoubtedly will be placed at his feet.

    •  Doesn't make much sense (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      for them to spend the money to poll MA without being relatively sure the seat will be open.

    •  If you're right about what the CW says, then... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf

      ...whoever is responsible for setting the CW is a complete moron.

      But I don't think there's a CW that says that.  I think there's a CW that says Brown would be strong in another special and have a good chance to win.

      And that CW, too, is also wrong.

      There's this fascination still that Brown won that one time.  And now it's coupled with dismissing that he just got his ass kicked.

      The notion is that Brown is popular.

      Problem is, if people say you're popular, but then you get your ass kicked, it means people were simply wrong and you're not so popular after all.

      Brown will lose another special by double-digits.  He might or might not poll competitively very, very early, but he would quickly fall apart under a barrage of immediate Democratic attacks.  He proved this year he doesn't handle it well.  He's a Republican in a state that dislikes and distrusts Republicans, and that's decisive...that he once caught lightning in a bottle during a brief period when that wasn't decisive is meaningless going forward.

      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:26:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not to nitpick since I agree with your larger (5+ / 0-)

        point, but Brown is popular, it's just that his personal popularity among voters doesn't outweigh the fact that he's a Republican when they actually go to vote.  Call it the Lincoln Chafee syndrome; a politician has a high approval rate but loses thanks to a party ID opposed to their constituency's electorate.

        NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

        by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:43:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to take issue with that because... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NMLib

          ...it strikes me that the word "popular" for a politician is devoid of any meaning if its definition doesn't include "a majority of voters voted for him."  Take that away, and Brown is about as "popular" as I am.

          People who vote against an incumbent find something dislikeable about the incumbent that is overridingly important.  That they might like the guy personally is meaningless.

          I note that Chafee left the Republican Party after his Senate loss, then won the Governorship wtih a 36% plurality as an independent.  I don't know how popular he can be called, I'd say "not very."  Angus King of course got elected much the same way, but that was as a first-time candidate, not as an incumbent and he went on to get 59% as an independent 4 years later and now in his Senate race again easily cleared 50% even with a pair of major party nominees.  So that's an example of someone in Chafee's shoes who stands in stark contrast to Chafee.

          44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:18:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, one slight walkback...... (0+ / 0-)

            Obviously Chafee, like King, wasn't the incumbent Governor when he won in 2010.  But Chafee was a supposedly "popular" ex-Senator, not remotely new to the scene as King was.  And from what I've read, unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Chafee is not wildly popular now and not expected to cruise to a big reelection (if he runs at all) like King did.

            44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Michigan RTW Initiative Question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    I'm sorry if this has been covered already, and particularly sorry if I have already asked this, but based on a comment in a previous thread, I have to ask: if the RTW legislation in Michigan is overturned by the initiative process, does it need to get voted on by the legislature?

    Someone in a previous thread said yes, it does. That sounds risky, but then, if another comment is correct--that they really need super-duper-majorities (in technical terms, 3/4 of each body, I believe), beyond what they got in 2010, then we are safe. No Democrat will vote for this, right? And why would any Republican who voted for against it last time vote for it this time?

    The advantage here seems to be that it will force people to either go on the record supporting it, which could in theory make some vulnerable next time around, not that it will simply be passed again. Is that accurate?

    I'm a corporatist McGovernite Atari Democrat...I think.

    by bjssp on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:31:32 PM PST

    •  No Democrat will vote for it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY

      It won't be like the Taft-Hartley Act where Democrats largely voted against it, letting it pass with a majority in the GOP controlled Senate, but then completely inexplicably voted to help override President Truman's veto (why they defected to override the veto is so baffling to me, that I just can't begin to understand it).

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:45:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dixiecrats supported it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, DCCyclone, MichaelNY

        Also, it was the times. Lots of labor disruptions after WWII, the economy was in pretty lousy shape and labor was very militant at the time in making sure workers got what was theirs, or there would be stoppages. And there were lots indeed. Right-wingers freaked out and red-scared it to some extent, but labor was seen as a pain in the ass during that period and centrists ran for cover.

    •  There is a vote by the Legislature involved (7+ / 0-)

      But it comes before the initiative goes on the ballot. (Art. 2, Sec. 9 of the MI Constitution deals with referenda and initiatives, if you want to see the exact language.)

      The initiative works like this:

      1. Draft the initiative law. In this case, it would basically be a bill that would rewrite all of the sections of the Michigan Compiled Laws that the RTWFL bill is about to alter.

      2. Next, collect valid signatures equal to or greater than 8% of the total gubernatorial vote in the last gubernatorial election (2010). In this case, ~260k, I think is the number I've seen bandied about.

      3. The initiative petition is submitted to the Legislature. The Legislature has 2 options: enact the petition or reject the petition. They can't make any changes or amendments, and have to make their decision within 40 "session days."

      4a. If not enacted by the Legislature, it goes to a public vote at the next general election. Also, if the Legislature rejects the petition, the Legislature can propose its own competing measure on the same topic that will also go on the ballot, side by side with the initiative; if conflicting laws both pass, the one with the "highest affirmative vote" prevails.

      4b. If the Legislature enacts the petition, then it can be subjected to a referendum like a normal law passed by the Legislature.

      5. In a situation where the Legislature doesn't enact the initiative petition, it goes before the voters and is enacted if a majority vote in favor. It is not subject to a veto by the governor, and cannot be amended or repealed except by another popular vote (unless the initiative itself allows another method) OR a 3/4 vote of both the MI House and MI Senate.

      Obviously, a referendum would have been preferable given how convoluted this process is. Someone really needs to propose a constitutional amendment to tweak the appropriation provision to stop the "tag on an appropriation" BS.

  •  5 Govs that need to be taken down in '14 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Taget, MBishop1, MichaelNY

    1. Scott (FL)
    2. Corbett (PA)
    3. Snyder (MI)
    4. Kasich (OH)
    5. Walker (WI)

    We have great candidates to compete in those races. I'm optimistic on the first four, but pessimistic on Wisconsin. I think the recall race embolden Walker. Unfortunately

    Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:10:31 PM PST

  •  Sign you're a political junkie (13+ / 0-)

    When your therapist asks you why you wrote in your thought diary that you were worried about Obama's performance in the first debate.

  •  pres by CD MO03, MO04 (0+ / 0-)

    Camden County, Mo Pt

    http://www.camdenmo.org/...
    http://www.camdenmo.org/...

    has an unoffical precinct break down page which has the same number of votes as the certified MO sec. of state site

    http://enr.sos.mo.gov/...

  •  sweet, Jeff Merkley won a seat on Appropriations (7+ / 0-)

    Wyden is now Chair of Energy & Natural Resources and #4 on Finance.  I like.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:29:09 PM PST

  •  CA-15: Corbett seeking endorsements for 2014 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    http://www.rollcall.com/...

    California Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, who had banked $105,000 in her congressional campaign account by Sept. 30, has begun seeking endorsements for a potential Swalwell challenge. According to a source in the room, Corbett asked for endorsements at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee event last week in Oakland, where Swalwell’s speech received what was described as a rousing ovation.

    26, Male, CA-24 (new CA-26), DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:10:22 PM PST

  •  SD04, CA (0+ / 0-)

    some data about the upcoming special election in California

    TOTAL    473,015    266,666
    PHONE (LAND LINE)    286,200    159,540
    PHONE (MOBILE)    54,331    45,411
    DEMOCRATS    161,463    115,545
    REPUBLICANS    191,898    126,528
    ALL OTHER (NOT DEM OR REP)    119,611    93,717
    INDEPENDENT    111,405    88,173
    MINOR PARTY LIBERAL    4,528    4,266
    MINOR PARTY CONSERVATIVE    3,678    3,448
    GREEN    2,977    2,786
    PEACE & FREEDOM    1,473    1,426
    LIBERTARIAN    3,576    3,358
    DECLINE TO STATE    93,181    75,494
    AMERICAN INDEPENDENT    15,594    14,060
    MISC. (UNKNOWN)    2,630    2,418
    PURE DEM    106,317    72,449
    PURE GOP    133,841    82,490
    MALE    209,624    177,013
    FEMALE    240,522    203,245
    GENDER UNKNOWN    22,869    20,927
    AGE 18-24    52,489    42,816
    AGE 25-34    71,751    57,564
    AGE 35-44    67,551    53,634
    AGE 45-54    85,601    68,171
    AGE 55-64    87,188    68,938
    AGE 65+    108,435    81,683
    HOMEOWNER    276,118    159,145
    MOBILE HOME    6,591    4,753
    RENTER (PROBABLE)    57,586    43,518
    EMAIL (REGISTRAR)    42,938    35,849
    EMAIL (ENHANCED)    44,041    41,169
    FOREIGN BORN    53,040    39,395
    US BORN    417,781    245,728
    AFRICAN AMERICAN    4,721    4,038
    LATINO    46,213    30,905
    ASIAN (COMPOSITE)    14,391    10,073
    CHINESE    1,527    1,097
    FILIPINO    3,853    2,693
    JAPANESE    1,818    1,320
    KOREAN    709    516
    VIETNAMESE    1,266    781
    ARMENIAN    671    426
    EAST INDIAN    6,183    2,972
    JEWISH    5,827    3,963
    PERMANENT VBM (PAV)    255,248    168,620
    REG BEFORE 2/08    328,603    204,887
    REG 2/08 - 11/08    31,672    27,706
    REG 11/08 - 11/10    33,637    29,551
    REG 11/10 - 6/12    35,431    30,588
    REG AFTER 6/12    43,672    36,056
    VOTED 11/04 GENERAL    260,152    169,425
    VOTED 11/05 SPECIAL    201,577    134,128
    VOTED 6/06 PRIMARY    155,920    105,533
    VOTED 11/06 GENERAL    222,857    146,124
    VOTED 2/08 PRIMARY (PRES.)    211,788    139,657
    VOTED 6/08 PRIMARY    123,435    84,630
    VOTED 11/08 GENERAL    308,664    192,239
    VOTED 5/09 SPECIAL     141,902    95,713
    VOTED 6/10 PRIMARY    174,797    115,071
    VOTED 11/10 GENERAL    271,652    170,939
    VOTED 6/12 PRIMARY    180,881    117,379
    VOTED 3 OF 3 (6/10 - 6/12)    127,609    85,924
    VOTED 3 OF 4 (5/09 - 6/12)    155,406    103,410
    UNIVERSE 12G1    270,532    170,233
    UNIVERSE 12G2    277,847    173,940
    UNIVERSE 12G3    310,495    191,015
    UNIVERSE 12G4    326,742    199,498
    UNIVERSE 12G4A    333,278    202,987
    UNIVERSE 12G4B    373,786    224,495
    UNIVERSE 12G4C    404,823    238,609
    UNIVERSE 12G5    344,472    208,192
    UNIVERSE 12G5A    384,980    229,196
    UNIVERSE 12G5B    392,697    233,007
    UNIVERSE 12G5C    422,870    246,034
    UNIVERSE 12G5D    431,418    249,429

    TOTAL    473,015    266,666
    PHONE (LAND LINE)    286,200    159,540
    PHONE (MOBILE)    54,331    45,411
    DEMOCRATS    161,463    115,545
    REPUBLICANS    191,898    126,528
    ALL OTHER (NOT DEM OR REP)    119,611    93,717
    INDEPENDENT    111,405    88,173
    MINOR PARTY LIBERAL    4,528    4,266
    MINOR PARTY CONSERVATIVE    3,678    3,448
    GREEN    2,977    2,786
    PEACE & FREEDOM    1,473    1,426
    LIBERTARIAN    3,576    3,358
    DECLINE TO STATE    93,181    75,494
    AMERICAN INDEPENDENT    15,594    14,060
    MISC. (UNKNOWN)    2,630    2,418
    PURE DEM    106,317    72,449
    PURE GOP    133,841    82,490
    MALE    209,624    177,013
    FEMALE    240,522    203,245
    GENDER UNKNOWN    22,869    20,927
    AGE 18-24    52,489    42,816
    AGE 25-34    71,751    57,564
    AGE 35-44    67,551    53,634
    AGE 45-54    85,601    68,171
    AGE 55-64    87,188    68,938
    AGE 65+    108,435    81,683
    HOMEOWNER    276,118    159,145
    MOBILE HOME    6,591    4,753
    RENTER (PROBABLE)    57,586    43,518
    EMAIL (REGISTRAR)    42,938    35,849
    EMAIL (ENHANCED)    44,041    41,169
    FOREIGN BORN    53,040    39,395
    US BORN    417,781    245,728
    AFRICAN AMERICAN    4,721    4,038
    LATINO    46,213    30,905
    ASIAN (COMPOSITE)    14,391    10,073
    CHINESE    1,527    1,097
    FILIPINO    3,853    2,693
    JAPANESE    1,818    1,320
    KOREAN    709    516
    VIETNAMESE    1,266    781
    ARMENIAN    671    426
    EAST INDIAN    6,183    2,972
    JEWISH    5,827    3,963
    PERMANENT VBM (PAV)    255,248    168,620
    REG BEFORE 2/08    328,603    204,887
    REG 2/08 - 11/08    31,672    27,706
    REG 11/08 - 11/10    33,637    29,551
    REG 11/10 - 6/12    35,431    30,588
    REG AFTER 6/12    43,672    36,056
    VOTED 11/04 GENERAL    260,152    169,425
    VOTED 11/05 SPECIAL    201,577    134,128
    VOTED 6/06 PRIMARY    155,920    105,533
    VOTED 11/06 GENERAL    222,857    146,124
    VOTED 2/08 PRIMARY (PRES.)    211,788    139,657
    VOTED 6/08 PRIMARY    123,435    84,630
    VOTED 11/08 GENERAL    308,664    192,239
    VOTED 5/09 SPECIAL     141,902    95,713
    VOTED 6/10 PRIMARY    174,797    115,071
    VOTED 11/10 GENERAL    271,652    170,939
    VOTED 6/12 PRIMARY    180,881    117,379
    VOTED 3 OF 3 (6/10 - 6/12)    127,609    85,924
    VOTED 3 OF 4 (5/09 - 6/12)    155,406    103,410
    UNIVERSE 12G1    270,532    170,233
    UNIVERSE 12G2    277,847    173,940
    UNIVERSE 12G3    310,495    191,015
    UNIVERSE 12G4    326,742    199,498
    UNIVERSE 12G4A    333,278    202,987
    UNIVERSE 12G4B    373,786    224,495
    UNIVERSE 12G4C    404,823    238,609
    UNIVERSE 12G5    344,472    208,192
    UNIVERSE 12G5A    384,980    229,196
    UNIVERSE 12G5B    392,697    233,007
    UNIVERSE 12G5C    422,870    246,034
    UNIVERSE 12G5D    431,418    249,429

    http://www.politicaldata.com/...

  •  CD21, California (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.politicaldata.com/...

    TOTAL    203,053    111,744
    PHONE (LAND LINE)    134,585    73,198
    PHONE (MOBILE)    28,064    23,521
    DEMOCRATS    96,078    63,625
    REPUBLICANS    66,284    44,649
    ALL OTHER (NOT DEM OR REP)    40,691    33,441
    INDEPENDENT    38,791    32,063
    MINOR PARTY LIBERAL    1,013    982
    MINOR PARTY CONSERVATIVE    887    856
    GREEN    380    364
    PEACE & FREEDOM    573    559
    LIBERTARIAN    754    729
    DECLINE TO STATE    33,212    28,058
    AMERICAN INDEPENDENT    4,909    4,505
    MISC. (UNKNOWN)    670    632
    PURE DEM    64,251    42,370
    PURE GOP    42,845    26,988
    MALE    85,558    68,687
    FEMALE    99,664    79,140
    GENDER UNKNOWN    17,831    15,640
    AGE 18-24    31,823    26,337
    AGE 25-34    42,416    34,073
    AGE 35-44    30,957    25,663
    AGE 45-54    33,174    27,104
    AGE 55-64    29,716    24,213
    AGE 65+    34,967    26,941
    HOMEOWNER    109,334    61,549
    MOBILE HOME    2,326    1,649
    RENTER (PROBABLE)    19,630    15,494
    EMAIL (REGISTRAR)    15,615    13,936
    EMAIL (ENHANCED)    19,552    18,186
    FOREIGN BORN    38,944    29,964
    US BORN    161,013    95,260
    AFRICAN AMERICAN    3,523    2,494
    LATINO    107,832    62,985
    ASIAN (COMPOSITE)    5,713    3,740
    CHINESE    298    205
    FILIPINO    3,589    2,266
    JAPANESE    765    497
    KOREAN    79    60
    VIETNAMESE    127    85
    ARMENIAN    651    384
    EAST INDIAN    1,853    999
    JEWISH    714    488
    PERMANENT VBM (PAV)    95,578    65,130
    REG BEFORE 2/08    135,494    82,447
    REG 2/08 - 11/08    17,636    15,675
    REG 11/08 - 11/10    13,581    12,370
    REG 11/10 - 6/12    18,719    16,567
    REG AFTER 6/12    17,623    15,383
    VOTED 11/04 GENERAL    87,217    57,299
    VOTED 11/05 SPECIAL    57,617    39,120
    VOTED 6/06 PRIMARY    40,628    28,108
    VOTED 11/06 GENERAL    67,220    44,891
    VOTED 2/08 PRIMARY (PRES.)    68,397    45,676
    VOTED 6/08 PRIMARY    35,304    24,562
    VOTED 11/08 GENERAL    109,531    68,734
    VOTED 5/09 SPECIAL     38,982    26,504
    VOTED 6/10 PRIMARY    48,761    32,206
    VOTED 11/10 GENERAL    87,877    55,699
    VOTED 6/12 PRIMARY    49,049    32,403
    VOTED 3 OF 3 (6/10 - 6/12)    31,995    21,738
    VOTED 3 OF 4 (5/09 - 6/12)    40,762    27,386
    UNIVERSE 12G1    85,038    54,332
    UNIVERSE 12G2    88,923    56,367
    UNIVERSE 12G3    104,343    64,666
    UNIVERSE 12G4    111,919    68,811
    UNIVERSE 12G4A    115,960    71,251
    UNIVERSE 12G4B    138,203    84,365
    UNIVERSE 12G4C    150,806    90,699
    UNIVERSE 12G5    122,509    74,478
    UNIVERSE 12G5A    144,752    87,230
    UNIVERSE 12G5B    148,608    89,260
    UNIVERSE 12G5C    160,875    95,098
    UNIVERSE 12G5D    165,763    97,329

  •  My one worry about the Madiganmander... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JGibson, MichaelNY

    was that I thought it would be better to shore up the Democratic hold on the 12th (especially in view of Costello's likely retirement sometime in the decade, though I didn't realize it would happen so quickly) instead of making a move to win the 13th--which I thought was probably futile, given the increasingly Republican nature of most of Downstate.

    As it turns out, Enyart held the 12th more easily than I expected, while Gill came closer in the 13th than I expected.  So I guess Madigan knew more than I did...

  •  Where can I see the full committee assignments (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeloitDem, bfen, MichaelNY

    for the next session of the US Senate?  I wanna see things like memberships and partisan edge.

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:05:13 PM PST

  •  Thoughts about 2014 in KY Senate and Legislature (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, CF of Aus, MichaelNY

    I think the key is a Democrat that will do well in Western Kentucky (particularly the Purchase and the Western coalfields, which was nearly as big of an Obama decline as the Eastern coalfields), which I still say is Allison Lundergan Grimes based on her 2011 election performance. She does not have a long record on federal issues for McConnell to attack either. One of the biggest things from the PPP poll is with the popularity of Hillary Clinton in the state, is that the Clintons are extremely close to Lundergan's father, and she would probably get Bill and Hillary to campaign for her and raise money.

    Democrats in Western Kentucky will also want a strong top of the ticket to try to regain a few of the 3 open seats they lost in the KY House this year and protect the ones they still occupy. Democrats are almost certain to merge Rep. Ben Waide (R-Madisonville) and Myron Dossett (R-Pembroke), and create a new Republican seat out of it in the Louisville area, where Democrats are pretty maxed out in how many seats they can draw there.

    They also will be looking to regain ground in the KY Senate, likely against Bob Leeper (I-Paducah), Mike Wilson (R-Bowling Green), and Bill Bowen (R-Owensboro). Even seats are up in the Senate, and redistricting will take place in the 2013 or 14 session, and I anticipate Republicans pairing Sen. Dorsey Ridley (D-Henderson) and Jerry Rhoads (D-Madisonville). They tried pairing Ridley and Sen. Joey Pendleton (D-Hopkinsville), but the map was thrown out and Pendleton lost a narrow race to Sen-Elect Whitney Westerfield. I also now anticipate that Republicans will no longer eliminate a seat in Southern KY and simply eliminate a seat in Eastern KY and move it to somewhere outside of Louisville. The elimination of the maps and reelection of Katie Stein (D-Lexington) makes her elimination a little tougher too. Republicans will also have to decide whether to try to eliminate or make the lives of Sen. Perry Clark (D-Louisville) and Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville) very tough. Clark was merged with Sen. Denise Harper Angel (D-Louisville) and the seat McGarvey won was drawn to elect Rep. Julie Raque Adams (R-St. Matthews).

    "So there's a time for silence, and there's a time for waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you'll know it. I don't think you should wait. I think you should speak now." -Taylor Swift

    by SouthernINDem on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:50:20 PM PST

  •  Comment on my Monkey Cage post (8+ / 0-)

    Hey, this is Nick Goedert....I just noticed there was a lot of discussion of my Monkey Cage piece from last month in the comments to yesterday's digest.  I posted this comment in that thread too, but I don't imagine many people read the comments from earlier days, so I will also copy here.

    The Monkey Cage post is here.

    The gist of the piece is that two factors both contributed to the Democrats losing the House majority despite winning the popular vote: (a) the GOP controlled redistricting in more states (and more seats), and (b) Democrats are inefficiently geographically concentrated.  

    Because the overall popular vote was so close, either of these factors alone would probably have been enough to keep the Democrats from winning a majority.  But I think (b) was a slightly larger factor that (a).  If I had to make a rough estimate, I would guess (a) costs the Dems about 10 seats, and (b) cost them about 13.

    I would be happy to consider a different baseline for what we should expect in the absence of either (a) or (b); the one I have chosen is quite neutral and based on broad historical averages.  

    But I don't think you can just draw your own map ad hoc and call that the "ungerrymandered" result.  Just because you create new institutions or guidelines to reform the process doesn't mean they will create the map you want.  Look what happened in NJ and FL this time around...both states have ostensibly nonpartisan gerrymanders, but both ended up with maps very favorable to Republicans.

    •  I think the geographic concentration of Dems (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, CF of Aus, MichaelNY

      accounts for a larger number of districts, maybe 15-20 or more.  That's baked into the numbers, though.  It may be becoming stronger as many urban centers are becoming more Democratic, but they generally already have been to an extent for a while.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:38:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  New Jersey and Florida were both still partisan. (5+ / 0-)

      Clearly in New Jersey we got screwed by the GOP map that was picked over a dem map by the chairman.

      Florida was a partisan GOP Gerrymander where the redistricting law brought in forced the GOP to make some token adjustments that ensured the gerrymander was a bit more tolerable....

      You certainly can draw your own map and call it an "ungerrymandered" result... not everyone needs to agree but if you set your rules beforehand and abide by them you can produce "ungerrymandered" results.

      Basically you need to concede that the GOP locked in the results of the 2010 wave election with their gerrymandering a massive advantage.

      And as has been told to you before, it is the Gerry,angering that puts the seats out of reach... The natural packing effect concentrates our vote somewhat... but it is gerrymandering that sees the Dems lose the house despite winning the vote

      Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

      by CF of Aus on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:04:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  on behalf of DKE I'd like to give you props (9+ / 0-)

      for coming here to respond to criticism.

      19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since others and I have been arguing with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CF of Aus, MichaelNY

      John Sides over this topic recently I'll reply here to a few of the points you brought up.

      As CF of Aus said below, the NJ and FL maps were still partisan drawn and regardless of whether you think a "fair(er)" map would have been more favorable to Democrats, it seems pretty obvious to me that the maps would at least be different if they were drawn by a court special master or a California-style commission.

      If you accept that proposition, then I think you have to provide alternative maps which is of course difficult to do, but what's the point if you can't prove your hypothesis?

      Anyway, while I think NJ cost Dems 1 seat because the 5th district would have gotten more Democratic, one thing that you can't take into account on a qualitative level for that sort of scenario is that candidate quality is significantly impacted by how friendly or unfriendly the district is; If NJ-05 had been a few points more Democratic it seems very plausible to me that Democrats would have gotten a top tier recruit and thanks to Obama's strong showing in the state would have held the district.

      Florida on the other hand I don't think improves Dems' share of the delegation until the 13th is an open seat, but that's admittedly one state where I'm not comfortable with the alternative maps I've drawn or seen elsewhere.  This isn't true for very simply drawn states such as Maryland where it's almost impossible to see Democrats winning 7/8 under a non-partisan map.

      Fortunately we're not stuck there.  For example, Texas had a court fight where we got to see a counterfactual map that was briefly in place until SCOTUS struck it down, but it gets even better because the legislature compiled dozens of alternative proposals by various interest groups.  So no, it isn't just some random blogger in pajamas drawing what they "think" should be the map, it's seeking out input from various parties about what constitutes a community of interest and determining which CoI's should be in the same district.  The same can't be said for computer programs that try to use a formula to draw districts and the result is tons of cities, towns, even precincts are needlessly divided that a "California style" communities of interest map would never draw.

      To summarize, my position is twofold:

      1) I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that concetration costs Dems seats, that's why some form of proportional representation is the only true remedy.  Your original post just didn't and couldn't prove that districting rather than gerrymandering cost Democrats the house without a counterfactual baseline of maps.  

      2) That if every state had a California-style commission of totally non-partisan rather than bi-partisan maps, Democrats would have won a narrow majority in the house.  I can't prove that yet, but that's the hypothesis I'm trying to either prove or disprove.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

      by sawolf on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:09:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  According to a few knowledgable posters (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawolf, MichaelNY

        here, the NJ map also cost us NJ-03 by cutting out Cherry Hill the Dem stronghold.

        It might not have been won by Adler, but it was made uncompetitive by gerrymandering.

        I wonder if Obama won the old NJ-03 in 2012... He says hoping KingOfSpades has the answer.

        Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

        by CF of Aus on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:29:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All I can say right now (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CF of Aus, MichaelNY, bumiputera

          is that Obama apparently did a tick better in Burl. and Ocean County than in 2008, but without the town numbers, it's hard to tell where the shifts took place.  Also, did you mean to say "wasn't made uncompetitive"?  Although taking out Cherry Hill and adding Brick shifted the balance, they also took out Little Egg Harbor and Long Beach Island (where in my grade school days, my family and I would go to during the summer to get some beach time), which are small, retiree-filled towns.  They also added Bordentown and Burlington (the town), but those don't add much.

          Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

          by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:58:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I meant that Adler may still have lost NJ-03 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            On paper but it was redistricting that ensured that she didn't have much hope of beating Runyon.

            So while the focus was on NJ-05 it was the NJ-03 damage that really made it a good GOP map.

            Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

            by CF of Aus on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:03:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  There is no question that (0+ / 0-)

        you could use some basic guidelines for compactness & community integrity and draw alternate maps that were not biased against Democrats.  

        But those guidelines still allow for essentially infinite variation (absent a strict mathematically algorithm), and in states like PA, FL, and OH, you could just as easily draw maps that follow the same guidelines but are heavily biased against Democrats.

        I guess I just don't think you can assume that a nonpartisan commission would choose one particular map over others.  In NJ, the nonpartisan tiebreaker chose a map that was biased against Democrats, precisely because he thought it was more compact and better preserved communities.

        Moreover, when political scientists have attempted to create truly nonpartisan maps (e.g. the random maps in the Chen & Rodden paper I cite in my Monkey Cage post), they find that these are overwhelmingly likely to be biased in favor of the GOP.

        I just don't any reason why either nonpartisan commissions or neutral algorithms would necessarily overcome the bias in geographic concentration.

        •  Again it is the gerrymandering that takes seats (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, wwmiv

          off the board... natural packing may produce red seats more so than blue ones, but it is the gerrymandering that puts them out of reach. Eg the Dems are naturally packed in Florida and Pennsylvania, but it is the GOP gerrymandering that creates seats out of our reach. No one is arguing that a neutral commission would create more blue seats than red seats in these two states... But would could compete for those light red seats...

          I still don't think you quite get what our fantasy redistricting is all about. We (not me it is not my area) create diaries saying what if you really did a brutal dem gerrymander of a state then a GOP gerrymander... Then a court ordered map (using known state rules or precedent). People then get called out if they havent abided by local rules, VRA etc.

          I think you are confusing red seats with guaranteed GOP seats.... Look at OH and PA the two states you mention where Dems did very well pre2010... PA was termed a dummymander because Dems could win red seats despite being packed into three Philly districts and two western districts. Now the GOP embarrassed by their failure perfected the art of the gerrymander tout seats out of reach by creating shapes worse than the salamander....look at those suburban Philly seats.

          Now I suggest you learn how to use DRA and apply your theories for us... Because that is what you will need to do to convince seasoned veterans like wwmiv and sawolf.

          Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

          by CF of Aus on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:58:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you are essentially agreeing with me... (0+ / 0-)

            I suspect that a neutral commission in several of these states would indeed create a lot of "light red" seats, because that tends to be how voters are concentrated.   And given a Democratic wave of sufficient size (e.g. 2006, 2008), these seats would fall to the Democrats.  But 1% national popular vote margin is a tiny wave, not large enough to win very many "light red" districts.  Under these conditions (a very close national vote), Republicans would still win a clear majority.

            But Republican gerrymanders also create a lot of "light red"" seats.  In PA, there are currently five districts won by Republicans in 2012 but Obama in 2008.  Given a reasonably-sized wave, Democrats could very well win a majority of PA's delegation even under the current map, just like they did in 2006.  They are definitely not guaranteed GOP seats....in fact, the Democratic seats drawn under that map are the ones that are "guaranteed" to vote for one party.

            Again, I don't think you can create one map ad hoc and use that as evidence of what a neutral commission would do.  Chen & Rodden have created thousands of maps under neutral procedures, and found persistent Republican bias.

            •  It depends on what you call "neutral" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              I would consider "neutral" to be taking into account the fact that Democrats tend to be "packed" geographically relative to their statewide performance.

              Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

              by SaoMagnifico on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:38:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would tend to agree... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CF of Aus, MichaelNY, bumiputera, sawolf

                But in that case, I would think that recognizing that this geographic bias exists, so that you can ask a future commission to take it into account, is an important step!  Right?  This won't just be achieved by relying on "compactness" and "communities of interest", etc.

                •  Good suggestions (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, bumiputera

                  But to better articulate my point, by light red seats I slightly led you astray. I meant that neutral commission can result in neutral maps would result in more competitive or purple seats not just light red ones.

                  I am not arguing that compactness doesn't hurt us ever... just that gerrymandering hurts us more in those key battleground states. As shown by recent history. You are to quick to point to 2006 and 2008 gains from the waves... yes we lost those guys in 2010 but we have lost some veteran dems and long held dems seats through gerrymandering as well. But this of course varies from state to state.

                  Thanks for taking the time to discuss this... It keeps us all entertained in the aftermath of the election.

                  Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, "If you agree with Bush's economic policy, Cheney's foreign policy, and Santorum's social policy, you loved Romney's speech" - James Carville (aka the Ragin Cajun) on the Colbert Report

                  by CF of Aus on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:55:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, CF of Aus

            Thank you very much for those words, but I have to admit that I hope I become as accomplished as Nick. I simply have a difference of opinion here with him.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:35:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The "nonpartisan tiebreaker" in New Jersey... (5+ / 0-)

          Was a former acting Republican governor and Cabinet official.

          Keeper of the DKE glossary. Priceless: worth a lot; not for sale.

          by SaoMagnifico on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:35:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  NJ-Pres: Just saw town #'s on Wasserman's list (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, itskevin, MichaelNY

    for Middlesex County.
    New Brunswick (the location of the bulk of RU) voted 6-1 for Obama.  Piscataway (the location of the Busch and Livington Campuses) voted 3-1 for Obama.  The winner is Perth Amboy, at 7-1 Obama.  Romney only won two towns in the whole county: Milltown and Spotswood.

    Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

    by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:50:34 PM PST

    •  Now I want to see Burlington County (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CF of Aus, MichaelNY

      hopefully my precinct went Dem this time.  IIRC, my new hometown was a very light shade of red in 2008.

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:06:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If only Middlesex could muster that kind of split (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      in the off-year elections.

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:09:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Makes sense that Perth Amboy won (0+ / 0-)

      high Hispanic population. Although I wouldn't have been surprised if Highland Park were up there too...think it's pretty blue.

      Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

      by sapelcovits on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:04:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tim Kaine moment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, DrPhillips, MichaelNY

    back from '08

    Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:18:23 PM PST

  •  Sen. Bingaman appeared on the Colbert Report (0+ / 0-)

    tonight, advising Colbert on what to expect when he  "inevitably" gets appointed to the Senate. Pretty good stuff.

    24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

    by HoosierD42 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:22:26 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site