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 8 districts spanning four states.

Indiana (IN-08, IN-09)

Missouri (MO-04)

New York (NY-22, NY-23, NY-24, NY-27)

Texas (TX-13)

A mixed assortment of districts today, with few surprises. Results from Crawford County, Indiana allow us to complete the state. IN-08 and IN-09 trade relative places; while the new IN-08 gave Obama a higher percentage than new IN-09 in 2008, it's 39.6 percent Obama showing this time is more than a point worse than IN-09's 40.7.

Meanwhile, in MO-04, Dem Prosecutor Teresa Hensley was considered a formidable candidate against freshman GOPer Vicki Hartzler, but Hartzler's 25-point victory in the congressional race was very similar to Romney's 61-36 win here. (For some reason, I'm reminded of Kay Barnes' race against Sam Graves in MO-06 in 2008, when another touted Dem lost by a greater-than-expected margin.)

Another influx of New York results finishes off the upstate districts, the Binghamton-Utica-based NY-22, the Southern Tier-based NY-23, the Syracuse-based NY-24, and the Western NY-based NY-27. While NYC is the spiritual home of Daily Kos Elections, we're having some trouble getting results from the city's notoriously bad Board of Elections. (We're also missing results from Long Island, but let's just say that... that's definitely not our spiritual home.)

Interestingly, while NY-22 and NY-23 had very similar presidential performances (Obama lost both narrowly by about 1 percent with 48-49 percent of the vote), they had stunningly different congressional races: GOP Rep. Richard Hanna (arguably a true "moderate") defeated his challenger by more than 20 points in NY-22, but Dem Nate Shinagawa held GOP Rep. Tom Reed to less than 52 percent of the vote.

Further north along Lake Ontario, Obama improved his standing slightly in NY-24, up to 57 percent. Of all the Republicans who could hold such a district, it certainly wasn't outspokenly conservative (former) GOP Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, who lost 49-43 to Dem Dan Maffei (who held the predecessor NY-25 from 2009 to 2011) with a whopping 8 percent going to a Green party candidate. In the last upstate NY district, Dem incumbent Kathy Hochul lost a 5,001-vote squeaker to Republican former Erie County Exec. Chris Collins in NY-27 (perhaps unsurprising given the 55-43 Romney presidential topline).

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, we have the new most Republican district in the nation, the Amarillo/panhandle-based TX-13. Mac Thornberry's district takes the cake both in terms of Obama percentage (18.5) and margin (a 62-point loss), edging out UT-03 (19.5 percent Obama, a 59-point loss). Fun (and completely arbitrary) fact about the district: there are a number of billboards advertising Indian restaurants, partially in Hindi, on I-40 west of Amarillo. The more you know! (jeffmd)

8:42 AM PT: Special Elections: Johnny Longtorso recaps Tuesday night's action:

California SD-4: Republican Jim Nielsen defeated Democrat Mickey Harrington by a 2-1 margin.

Georgia HD-21: No luck for Democrat Natalie Bergeron, she was shut out of the runoff with only 21 percent of the vote. Scot Turner was first, with 46 percent, and Brian Laurens came in second with 30 percent, both Republicans. Kenneth Mimbs was last with 2 percent of the vote.

One thing of note from the no-Dem specials: You might recognize Mike Keown, the guy who lost a close race to Rep. Sanford Bishop in 2010. He's gone to a runoff with fellow Republican Dean Burke in SD-11.

Mississippi HD-59: No runoff here, as Republican Brent Powell won a majority (51.4 percent, to be precise). Bradley Lum came in second with 26 percent, and Benny Hubbard was third with 19 percent. Scot Allen (is there a T shortage in the South or something?) was last with 5 percent.

10:39 AM PT (David Jarman): VA-Gov: We're on our second Virginia governor's race poll in two days, this time from Quinnipiac, and we've got a head-scratching disparity between the two of them. While PPP gave Dem Terry McAuliffe a 46-41 lead over GOPer Ken Cuccinelli, and a 40-32-15 lead in a McAuliffe/Cuccinelli/Bill Bolling three-way race, Qpac finds a much closer race, with near-ties not just in the two-way but also three-way configurations.

Quinnipiac has McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli 40-39 mano-a-mano (down from a 41-37 lead in November). Even more puzzling, it's a 34-34 tie between T-Mac and Cooch in a 3-way heat, with Bill Bolling at 13 (with no trendlines on that permutation), which -- unlike PPP -- suggests that Qpac has the indie candidacy of Bolling, currently the state's Republican Lt. Governor, drawing equally from both Dems and GOPers. Qpac also finds Cuccinelli's favorables above-water at 33/25, quite the turnaround from PPP's 29/45.

If you're frantically trying to unskew the polls, the answer doesn't lie in their party ID numbers: Qpac is 34D-26R-29I (with another 10 of 'other'/'don't know'), while PPP is 35D-32R-32I. Instead, it looks like the two pollsters ran into decidedly different patches of independent voters: Quinnipiac may have found a more tea-flavored batch, as their indies went 31 Cuccinelli, 22 McAuliffe, and 19 Bolling in the 3-way race, while PPP's indies apparently were more of the traditional centrist variety, breaking 30 McAuliffe, 27 Cuccinelli, and 24 Bolling.

11:23 AM PT: MS-04: Hah, wow. After excoriating sophomore GOP Rep. Steven Palazzo for his vote against Hurricane Sandy relief funds, I wondered when he'd next be visiting the New York region. (Him and what army.) Amazingly, though, he did just make the trip up here on Tuesday, specifically to visit storm-ravaged areas at the behest of fellow Republican Rep. Jon Runyan of New Jersey. It sounds like the tour had its intended effect, as Palazzo—who advocated for massive federal aid after Hurricane Katrina devastated his hometown of Biloxi—now claims he has an "unwavering commitment in advocating for the next round of assistance to be considered in Congress."

Could Palazzo have genuinely feared a primary challenge from a pork barreling good ol' boy-type? Or even a comeback attempt by the man he beat two years ago, Democrat Gene Taylor, who made quite the mark lacerating Congress for inaction over Katrina? Or did a drop of conscience somehow squeak out into his teabagger soul? We'll probably never know, but let's see what happens when it's time to actually cast ballots.

11:28 AM PT: WI-Gov: I've regularly spoken out in favor of using social media to promote "draft" movements for candidates favored by the grassroots, so I'm happy to call attention to a new one. Local activists in Wisconsin are promoting the candidacy of Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca for governor, as a possible opponent for Republican Scott Walker in 2014. Barca has been a vocal critic of Walker's ever since the latter took office, and the absence of prominent names eager to take on the incumbent could make Barca an attractive choice. I haven't seen any word from Barca yet as to whether he's interested, but hopefully this draft effort will make him take notice.

1:17 PM PT: FreedomWorks: Hahahah!

Dick Armey had no idea he was speaking to the left-wing Media Matters organization during an interview last week, he told The Daily Caller Tuesday. Instead, Armey thought he was chatting with the conservative Media Research Center. [...]

When asked who he thought Media Matters was, Armey replied, "Who's the guy with the red beard that always does the show where he points out how biased the press is?"

"Oh… the Media Research Center? Brent Bozell?" TheDC suggested. Bozell appears weekly on Sean Hannity's Fox News show to spotlight liberal media bias in a segment called "Media Mash."

And Armey's the experienced DC hand, with years of managing the press under his belt, that FreedomWorks paid so handsomely to serve as their public face. Money well spent!

1:48 PM PT (Steve Singiser): Miscellaneous: Here is a pretty interesting McNugget of data from a guy that our readers know and love: Greg Giroux crunched the numbers, and has come up with Obama's top 10 performing counties in the November elections. Casual observers of politics might be shocked to see that five of the top ten counties (including numero uno on the list: Shannon County, South Dakota) came from states that threw their electoral votes to Mitt Romney. Behold, the power of racial voting patterns: Shannon County is largely comprised of the Pine Ridge Reservation, and three of the counties in Alabama and Mississippi were African-American majority counties. The lone contribution from Texas was Latino-majority Starr County.

All ten, in fact, were counties that were comprised of "majority-minority" populations. Which raises a fun afternoon trivia contest for dedicated DKE fans--which county in America was Obama's best performing majority Anglo county? Feel free to toss your answer in the comments!

1:51 PM PT: CA Redistricting: As you may know, some states stagger elections for their upper chambers: state senators serve four-year terms, with half the membership up every two years. Seems pretty reasonable, and not that different from how the U.S. Senate operates, but there's one serious problem: redistricting. Staggered terms do not mix well with new maps, particularly in California, where some areas are now represented by two senators (one elected in 2010 and one in 2012)—and some by none at all!

This is manifestly something that should not happen in a democracy, and shame on any state which adopts such a system. To deal with this, the Senate will appoint "caretaker" senators for regions which otherwise lack representation for the next two years, but still, this is ridiculous. About eight states (including some of the biggest, like Florida and Texas) use a much more sensible method: Senators' first term of every decade lasts only two years, while subsequent terms are four years. That neatly avoids this problem, and it's something every state that insists on staggering should use.


2:24 PM PT: MA-Gov: It's important to remember that the definition of a Some Dude operates on a sliding scale. If you're running for dogcatcher (an elected position in Duxbury, VT!), no one's a Some Dude. If you're running for president, even a former governor can still be a Some Dude (see: Johnson, Gary). With statewide races, though, it gets a little trickier, and context is everything. Take, for instance, Joseph Avellone, who just announced his entry into the race for governor of Massachusetts. Avellone is a former selectman from Wellesley, a small town outside of Boston. That's not an imposing profile, but this is much more important: He's former surgeon and a top executive at Parexel International, a publicly traded clinical research company currently valued at close to $2 billion.

Avellone also has a long history of political involvement dating back over 30 years and even served on John Kerry's finance committee in 2004. In short, he's well-connected and certainly well-to-do (possibly even very rich)... but does he have political chops? Can he raise money for himself? Can he even give a stump speech? It's hard to say whether a six-year stint on a town board offers much preparation. But the real reason I ask all these questions is, again, context. Some big-name politicians are very likely to make the race, including state Treasurer Steve Grossman and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray. I'm not saying Avellone is a Some Dude—with a background like his, he definitely can't be dismissed. But will it be possible for him to gain traction against heavy hitters like Grossman and Murray? That's much harder to answer.

2:29 PM PT: NC-Sen: State House Speaker Thom Tillis, who has seemingly been gearing up to run against freshman Dem Sen. Kay Hagan since forever, says he won't make a formal decision until June. That follows a classic formulation for state-level officials: waiting until the end of the legislative session. Tillis, you may recall, performed abysmally in PPP's kitchen-sink GOP primary poll, taking just 2 percent, but he's term-limited out of his current job (something he even cited in his latest remarks), so that may be reason enough to make the leap.

2:39 PM PT: Polltopia: So, remember Harper Polling, that new Republican pollster that's supposed to be the GOP's answer to PPP? (Because all the other answers—Rasmussen, We Ask America, Susquehanna—have simply been wrong.) Well, they're out with their first state-level poll... and it leads off with a random-ass question about which convenience store Pennsylvania voters like most. (Yes, seriously.) There are a few nominally more "serious" questions later on in the poll (biggest story of the year in the state, opinions on Gov. Tom Corbett's lawsuit against the NCAA over Penn State, etc.).

But this is not how you make your bones as a pollster. Vague questions whose results no one can possibly challenge ("You say Sheetz is the best? PPP says Wawa!") make Harper seem like they're trying to evade serious scrutiny. They do claim this is only part one, but here's something else they're already doing wrong: The poll was in the field for just a single day (PDF), a serious methodological no-no that's Rasmussen's stock in trade. A pity, because we could always use more good pollsters.

2:54 PM PT: TX-23: San Antonion Express-News analyst Gilbert Garcia reports that the NRCC has already started recruitment efforts in Texas's 23rd Congressional District, where Democrat Pete Gallego just knocked off GOPer Quico Canseco in November, rendering him a one-term wonder. Republicans are talking to Public Utility Commissioner Rolando Pablos, whom Garcia says considered the race in both 2008 and 2010 (though I couldn't find any mention of him in the Swing State Project archives). Garcia describes Pablos as well-connected up-and-comer (he was appointed to his current post by Gov. Rick Perry), but also mentions that he's the "former chairman of the board for the long-troubled Museo Alameda," which doesn't sound like a great resume item. Anyhow, Pablos says it's too early to think about a run, but keep an eye on this one.

3:04 PM PT: MN-Sen: In a new interview with the National Journal on GOP recruitment woes vis-à-vis Al Franken, ex-Sen. Norm Coleman—the guy Franken ultra-narrowly turfed four years ago—is explicitly ruling out a rematch. Sure, a serviceable candidate might yet emerge from the woodwork (probably some rich business-type guy), but I think Franken is going to be in better shape this cycle than his ultimate 312-vote margin of victory in 2008 might have augured.

3:25 PM PT: NV-03: Democrats are on the hunt in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District, where GOP Rep. Joe Heck just won a second term last November. Heck fended off Democratic state Sen. John Oceguera by about seven points, but his 50 percent tally, combined with the fact that Barack Obama prevailed here by about a point, means Heck will remain a target. The good news is that some very big-name local Dems already have a fresh face in mind: Democratic National Committeewoman Erin Bilbray. According to Jon Ralston, both Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Dina Titus have touted Bilbray to DCCC chair Steve Israel, who will meet with her next week when she visits DC for the presidential inauguration.

If Bilbray's surname sounds familiar, that's because her dad, Jim Bilbray, represented Nevada's old 1st Congressional District from 1987 to 1995, until he was swept out in the Gingrich wave by none other than John Ensign, the now-disgraced former senator. (The 1st also happened to be Reid's old seat until Bilbray took it over when Reid was elected to the Senate.) The elder Bilbray is also a cousin of ex-Rep. Brian Bilbray (god it feels good to type that), who just lost his own re-election bid in California last year. As for Erin Bilbray, she runs a group called Emerge Nevada, which Ralston says "has recruited women to get involved and run." Now it may be her turn.

3:46 PM PT: NM-Sen: Jon Barela is the latest Republican to say he won't run for Senate against Tom Udall in 2014. Barela, you'll recall, came close to knocking off then-Rep. Martin Heinrich in NM-01 in 2010, falling short 4 percent despite the GOP wave. But now he says he has "no plans at this point" to make a Senate bid, leaving his party back at square zero. Right now, only former state party chair Allen Weh is publicly considering, while Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry and Lt. Gov. John Sanchez are possibles.

4:09 PM PT: MT-Sen: I'm curious: Has anyone named "Champ" ever been elected to Congress? I'm asking cuz state Rep. Champ Edmunds probably isn't going to be the first, even though he just became the only Republican to openly express interest in taking on Dem Sen. Max Baucus so far. Edmunds is best known for his efforts to make voting harder, introducing a (thankfully failed) bill last year that would have eliminated same-day voter registration and accusing University of Montana students of engaging in voter fraud. Oh, and he also questioned whether a federal probe of rape cases handled by local authorities Missoula was a political ploy by Joe Biden undertaken in support of the Violence Against Women Act. Sounds like a real lovely guy!

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

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

    by David Nir on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:00:09 AM PST

  •  MN-Sen (11+ / 0-)

    It appears as though Coleman has taken himself out of consideration for a rematch with Franken. So far, no Republican has thrown their hat into the ring, and it is unlikely any big names will do so at this point.

  •  NJ-State Sen (5+ / 0-)

    incumbent who represents the reddest district of any Dem sen may retire: http://www.politickernj.com/...

    not a big deal though - D majority is pretty safe (currently at 24-16) and we could probably hold his seat anyway (both assemblymen from this district are D).

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

    by sapelcovits on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:42:00 AM PST

  •  Rhode Island likely to lose a house seat in 2020 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY
    •  Here's the full result using a simple linear model (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paleo, BeloitDem, James Allen

      Winners: California (+1), Colorado (+1), Florida (+1), North Carolina (+1), Texas (+2), Virginia (+1).

      Losers: Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Ohio (-1), Pennsylvania (-1), Rhode Island (-1), West Virginia (-1).

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

      •  Loss of 4 EVs (0+ / 0-)

        Based on 2012 election.  Not as bad as after '08.  Which I think was 7.

        Bigger question is how it plays out in redistricting.

        •  2 EVs actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OGGoldy

          +3 to red states (TX, NC) but -1 from a red state (WV) = +2 overall.  The rest is Blue to Blue switches, though arguable more from safer to less safe.

          If you use Dave Wasserman's definition of swing states:

          Blue: -2
          Swing: +1
          Red: +1

        •  How do you get -4? (0+ / 0-)

          Of the lost seats, 6 are from Obama states, and 1 is from a Romney state. Of the gained seats, 4 go to Obama states, and 3 to Romney states. That seems like a loss of 2 to me.

        •  My guess... (7+ / 0-)

          This is presuming we have the exact same control in 2020 as 2010.  This isn't likely, but it's a good neutral scenario.  I'm also assuming we make no pickups in the heavily gerrymandered states, as it will change the calculus a lot.  

          CA: +1D (Commission + all growth in minorities)

          CO: +1D (Assuming we don't pick off Coffman in the next decade, Republicans will want a deal to shore him up)

          FL: +1D (I think Republicans will try and focus on shoring up their on incumbents in Central Florida once again, and cede the new seat to us)

          NC: +1D (Gerrymander will be getting creaky by 2020, and Republicans maxed out already.)

          TX: +1D, +1R: (Republicans will have to cede at least one seat to us due to VRA concerns - possibly both).  

          VA:  +1D (Republicans maxed out)

          IL: -1R (The lost seat will have to be downstate.  Democrats will combine remnants of IL-12 and IL-13 into a lean D seat.)

          MI: -1R (None of the Democratic vote sinks can be sacrificed, although two black VRA seats in Detroit won't be possible any longer).  

          MN: -1D (I'm presuming at the moment that Peterson retires in 2020, and his seat is split between Nolan, Walz, and Bachmann.  So although a loss, it's a seat we'd lose anyway with his retirement).  

          OH: -1R (Republicans cannot sacrifice another Democratic seat and shore up their incumbents

          PA: -1R (Same as Ohio.  PA-17 could in theory be chopped up, but it's very risky for the 2-3 Republican districts which would get this area).  

          RI: -1D (no-brainer)

          WV: -1D (one way or another, two Republicans will represent the state in 2022.  Rahall might have lost/retired before this of course).  

          Overall, that means Democrats gain five seats and lose two, and Republicans gain one and lose four.  Thus the Democratic total rises by two, and the Republican total drops by three, for a net change of five seats.

          Not bad at all, considering I put this together under the pessimistic model that Republicans still maintained control of states like MI, OH, PA, and VA, which I think are highly likely to have divided government at the very least in 2020, which would mean court-drawn maps and big Democratic gains.  

          On the other hand, the assumption is also few seats change hands in these states in the next decade.  If we begin picking up seats like CO-06, VA-02, PA-08, etc, then actually improving the Republican gerrymander by eliminating Democrats becomes feasible.  

          •  No way MN-7 is cut (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumiputera

            anyone drawing the lines would not yet and pull a 5-2 metro delegation, as the COIs would be completely ignored, and competing interests would be constantly bickering. That bring said, I don't believe Peterson makes it to 2020, and the 3 outstate districts may be configured, but there will still be 3 of them.

            •  It makes the most logical sense... (0+ / 0-)

              The rural fringes are what is losing population so far, and it will be hard to keep three strictly rural seats with a seven-seat delegation.  Hell, MN-08 is already into the Twin Cities exurbs.  Plus there is a long precedent across many states of sacrificing either the seats of retiring reps, or reps with the least seniority, when someone has to go  

              That said, I understand what you mean from a COI perspective.  Probably the best map in terms of COI would eliminate Tim Walz's seat.  Put Rochester into MN-02, and put the rest (which is seeing shrinking populations anyway) into MN-07.  Then you have a more strictly farming-based district.  

              •  Again, Minnesota's population is ideal for 4-3 (0+ / 0-)

                There is just Jo coherent way to do a 5-2 delegation, and the current 5-3 is already tortured with throwing a lot of rural areas, and non metro cities like St. Cloud in with metro seats. Courts came to this decision after only a very difficult deliberation that 5-3 was slightly closer to 4-4 in terms of population distribution. Mark my words, there will be 3 outstate districts in Minnesota come 2023, regardless of if the state loses a seat or not.

                •  I tried to do... (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OGGoldy, Chachy, jncca, MichaelNY, bumiputera

                  what you suggested in DRA.  This is what I get.

                  Basically I started with the 2011 map, and tried to keep the rural districts as close to the old map as possible.  I then did the same with the urban districts, and filled in the remainder for the suburban districts.  Ultimately Bachmann's district ended up getting the knife, although she has a fair base left in MN-03, and stands a chance of holding this seat.  

                  On the other hand, MN-03 is also far more right-wing in this incarnation, so you could say that one of the two suburban barely lean R seats was sacrificed, leaving Kline with the only potentially competitive seat in the metro.  

                  •  Something like that, yea (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY, bumiputera

                    I mean, the lines in the metro are fairly negotiable, but overall that is the kind if 4-3 metro-outstate map I'd expect. And overall it isn't bad for Democrats considering. Walz, Nolan, McCollum, and Ellison's districts are more or less intact and not changed frantically in terms or partisanship and Peterson's isn't either, but he likely won't be around for this, but Paulsen is out of a job. I would take this map for sure.

                  •  I came up with something similar (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    OGGoldy

                    1 - blue
                    2 - green
                    3 - purple
                    4 - red
                    5 - yellow
                    6 - teal
                    7 - gray

                    I tried to keep the Iron Range/Red River split as it currently is. St. Cloud probably should be in the 7th instead but I put it in the 6th instead so I could keep the 6th our of the suburbs and out of the Red River area. I also changed the 1st back to the 2000s map because that second row of counties isn't really that far from I-90 making traveling easier.

                    As far as the metro/outstate split goes, I generally think of 11 counties (Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Carver, Wright, Sherburne, Isanti, and Chisago) as part of the metro, including exurbs. With that definition, the outstate districts need to pick up about 115,000 people from those 11 counties. I moved Chisago and Isanti into the 6th since they're in the current 8th and then some of the more rural areas of the west metro counties into the 7th.

                    22, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)

                    by JonathanMN on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:30:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am much more of a traditionalist (0+ / 0-)

                      As long as I have been alive it has been the "7-county metro area", the 11 county thing was a term coined by Republicans just prior to redistricting to ensure a couple more seats for themselves. I think it is a stretch to consider Chisago and Isanti Counties "metro" as outside of a couple isolated towns on highway 65 and interstate 35 respectively, the area is very rural. And even the cities Cambridge and North Branch are not really exurbs, insomuch as they were rural towns that had a few mega-commuters move in. And I don't think Sherburne and Wright Counties are metro at all. There are wide swaths of farmland between then and "the cities".

                      •  Well (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        HoosierD42, JonathanMN

                        Be as traditionalist as you want, but the Census Bureau - not Republicans during redistricting for selfish reasons - defines the Metropolitan Area (MSA) as the 13 county area containing these counties (11 in Minnesota)

                        Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey,  Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright from Minnesota

                        Pierce and St. Croix from Wisconsin

                        And this isn't some arbitrary "lets just look at a map and agglomerate certain counties that are close together regardless of development and commuter patterns!" that you seem to think.

                        The Census Bureau uses very fine-tuned methods based on, like I inferred above, commuter patterns and development patterns to create their Urban Area and Metropolitan Area (and even Combined Statistical Area, which has 17 counties actually) classifications. There may be empty farmland in some areas, hell! in all metropolitan areas there are places with empty farmland, but the overall development and commuter picture paints something totally different from what you assert. People from Isanti and Chisago counties commute into the central area for work. They're part of the distinct community.

                        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 Jan 09, 2013 at 12:56:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  True. I've definitely only heard 7 county metro. (0+ / 0-)

                        The towns along 35 and 65 though are pretty much the only towns in the counties and grew rapidly over the past 10 years (though that flatlined with the recession). The definitely have an exurban character and when driving through them, I think "I'm almost to the Cities". I'm guessing this is similar with the towns along 94 up to St. Cloud but I haven't actually been up that way. The rural parts are definitely rural though, as you said, so I tried to put some of them in the outstate districts.

                        22, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)

                        by JonathanMN on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:03:12 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Sherbourne county is definitely metro (0+ / 0-)

                        I agree though on Isanti and Chisago.

                •  Is something like this? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OGGoldy

                  What you'd expect?

                  I tried to keep to the 2011 districts as a baseline, drawing the rurals first, then the urban districts, and finally the suburbs out of the leftovers.  

                  Keep in mind though by 2020 county populations will have changed, and thus district sizes will be different.  MN-2 and MN-3 will be able to be more compact, while MN-1 and MN-7 will probably need to be a bit larger still.  

            •  cutting MN-07 doesn't move to a 5-2 (0+ / 0-)

              necessarily.  I drew a map that put the northern parts of it into MN-08, the southern areas mostly into MN-06, pulling it out of the metro area for the most part, and I think a little of the southernmost into MN-01.

              ...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 Jan 09, 2013 at 09:52:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know what you're saying (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bumiputera

                I have seen maps do this similar "3 horizontal stripes" pattern before where there are three districts that traverse the state east-west, two going north of the myriad area, and 1 south.This is actually exactly what Republicans tried to do with their proposed maps. It is out outside of the realm of possibility something like this happens. But it isn't really dismantling the 7th, its still destroying the 6th, but it turnaround the border between the 7th and 8th from east-west  to north-south.

                •  is not outside the realm of possibility* (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Combine Minneapolis and St. Paul (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Minnesota Mike

                    I think when we go down to 7 districts the possibility of combining Minneapolis and St. Paul goes up. And if that happens, it is probably good for Democrats in a 7 district map.

                    I say that because now we get to move a lot of the inner-ring blue suburbs into the suburban districts making them bluer. I think with a MSP district you get a CD2 and a CD3 that lean Democratic. You can then move some southern counties in the current CD2 into CD1, like Goodhue, Wabasha, and the rest of Rice. A Northern district similar to the GOP plan from 2011 could be drawn as well. That would leave you with an exurban Republican vote sink and a Rural/Exurban Republican vote-sink. This would make a map that is 2 Safe DFL (MSP and Northland districts) and 3 lean DFL districts (2 suburban and CD1 which would be safe if Walz sticks around), and 2 safe GOP districts.

                    •  Combining Minneapolis and St. Paul (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bumiputera

                      That has been on a Republican to-do list for a long time now. It would super pack that district into something like D+27 to D+30. If slicing and dicing the suburbs the wrong way, you could end up with a 3-1 Republican metro delegation. I am much more comfortable locking in 2-2 in a 7-seat scenario, especially since Republicans already hold all three suburban districts.

                      •  Mind drawing an example? (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not convinced just one D+ district in the Metro is possible, although they might be able to map the second competetive.

                        •  I dont have time to sit down and use DRA (0+ / 0-)

                          I am certain that you can make a 4-corners pizza pie map that a court could conceivably draw. The SW and NW metro districts would be fairly Republican, the north metro district could either be competitive  if it includes Washington County, or it could be safely Republican if it were just the northern inner-ring suburbs plus Anoka + Isanti + Chisago. The southern or southeaster district would likely lean Democratic, but due to the inherently swingy nature of Washington and Dakota Counties, it wouldn't be safe. In a 7 district scenario, I am all for locking in the 4th and 5th for the DFL at the expense of the other two suburban districts instead of having 1 other-worldly DFL district, 1 lean DFL districts and 2 lean R districts.

          •  I got -3. But that assumes Texas is still red. By (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            2020 could it be be marginally toss up?

            Delenda est filibuster!

            by TofG on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:55:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, OGGoldy, JGibson, JBraden

              2020 is too early for Texas to flip, IMHO.  I think we should be able to elect a Democratic governor some time in the middle of that decade though, which may set us up better for 2030.  

              In terms of emerging states, I think Georgia is the big prize we stand a real shot of flipping by 2020.  Beyond of course states we could always win at least one branch of government in (AZ, FL IN, MI, OH, PA, and WI).  

            •  Not by 2020. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              More like 2028. But a Dem governor is not totally out of the question, and a court-drawn Texas map might be something like 21R-17D or thereabouts, which would be D+5 and R-3. That would be nice...

              •  About right, even without a court map (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chachy

                At that time, it will be very very hard for Texas not to be required to draw 2 AA districts each in DFW and Houston, a Hispanic district in DFW, 2 Hispanic districts in Houston, the El Paso seat, the San Antonio seat, five border seats (that's an addition of one from right now), as well as a coalition vote sink in Austin that they'll be forced to cede, and a new "opportunity district" based in Corpus Christi which by that time will be not quite tossup, but only Lean GOP.  

                That's 15 good districts, but a 16th that would be winnable.

                The only difference between this and a court map, is that a court map is likely to draw a second white Austin vote sink.

                That's a 17th possible district.

                It won't be any more than that, and Democrats would likely only win, normally, the 15 from the first option.

                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 Jan 09, 2013 at 11:43:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you're saying that if Texas gains 3 seats, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  they would all have to be Dem seats? That's kind of amazing.

                  I wonder if that 5th "border" seat wouldn't be more of a San Antonio district, though, with Doggett's seat contracting into Austin (with or without the white Austin vote sink).

                  •  That's a +2 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bumiputera

                    21+17 is 38. We have 36 districts now.

                    IF we gain three seats, the third is likely to have to be Republican, probably resulting from a split of the 31st where Williamson County (Round Rock and Georgetown) anchors a district and the Centroplex (Fort Hood, Temple, Belton, etc.) anchors another.

                    But yes, if we only gain 2 districts, Republicans will be forced to protect their own incumbents.

                    As for the 5th border seat (really this would be 5 fajita strips plus the 23rd), the way I envision it playing out is like this:

                    27: Corpus Christi and Kingsville plus a few of the counties northward. The current district is substantially Republican, but if you add Kingsville and subtract Victoria it would be more like 55% McCain (probably somewhere like 58% Romney). But keep in mind that Hispanic growth here is substantial, and with an immigration reform package it would probably be split pretty evenly in 2022.

                    34: Brownsville and Harlingen to Victoria through Sinton (maybe even split Nueces County to give it Robstown). The current district is substantially Democratic, and will be even moreso then, but with the addition of Victoria would probably weight it back down to high 50s Democratic.

                    15: Edinburgh, Donna, Weslaco, and Mercedes (all McAllen area cities) to San Marcos and Lockhart (just south of Austin) via Beeville and Gonzalez. This would probably be the most Democratic of the Valley districts, because it has the most Democratic northern extension.

                    37: McAllen to Seguin and probably Hispanic parts of New Braunfels. Probably a high 50s Democratic district at this point, but it'd be about 54% Obama 2008 right now.

                    28: Laredo to Metrocom (these are the military communities in Northeast San Antonio), like currently. High 50s low 60s Democratic.

                    23: El Paso to San Antonio. Most likely to emerge as a mid50s Democratic district, probably higher by that point.

                    San Antonio would maintain the current vote sink, as would El Paso.

                    The big wildcard here is immigration reform. If we get a comprehensive package, the 23rd would likely be required to remove completely from San Antonio and instead take in Midland and Odessa (which are currently evenly split between Anglos and Hispanics, and will by 2020 probably have many more Hispanics than Anglos). With an immigration package, we can turn those cities purple and require their either whole inclusion or partial inclusion in a VRA district. That'd be great for PPG given that the entire district then would be a CoI Hispanic West Texas district.

                    If that happens, two San Antonio VRA districts can be drawn distinct of other communities (plus the 28th, ofcourse).

                    In other words, the current 35th is likely to retract from San Antonio to take in just the Hispanic parts of Austin (which the population of would warrant a single district at that time), and the other three counties/communities would be apportioned to fajita strips (San Marcos and Lockhart to one, New Braunfels to another, and San Antonio to either one or two more).

                    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 Jan 09, 2013 at 12:38:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I see. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      OGGoldy, bumiputera

                      So basically you're saying another fajitamander district would take in Doggett's portions of San Antonio. That makes sense, given growth rates in the Valley.

                      As for Midland/Odessa... it's hard for me to imagine those towns being purple by 2020, given that Obama just lost Ector and Midland counties by 49 and 61(!) points, respectively - and for Ector, at least, that's already with a VAP hispanic plurality in 2012 (45% Anglo now, will probably be at or just under 40% in 2020). On the other hand the post-2020 version of TX-23 would likely take in another 80,000 or so El Pasoans, so maybe that would help to make up for all those Midland-Odessa uber-republicans, especially if it just went into the heavily hispanic parts of those places.

                      •  No no (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bumiputera

                        What I'm saying with Midland and Odessa is that if we get an immigration package that they'll be purple. Almost all of the Hispanics there are non-citizens. The electorate is probably 70% Anglo in those counties, yet the counties overall are split between Anglos and whites. If we can bring in those Hispanics as somewhat voting citizens, those counties will be purple. We need an immigration package to do that.

                        So, if we get one, a district would likely be required then to be better CoI compact than now and remove itself from San Antonio for Midland and Odessa (or just Odessa, given that it is much more Hispanic).

                        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 Jan 09, 2013 at 01:38:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Anglo is not an accurate term (0+ / 0-)

                          The correct way to say it is either non-Hispanic white, or Caucasian. Anglo is specifically regards to those of English descent.

                        •  Hmm... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MichaelNY, bumiputera
                          Almost all of the Hispanics there are non-citizens.
                          I don't think this is right. According to the maps on pages 38 and 39 of this pdf, the unauthorized immigrant populations of Midland and Odessa are rather small. (I realize that's not exactly the same thing as the non-citizen population, but it's a good proxy.) The non-citizen population in Texas is really concentrated in Houston and DFW, and to a lesser extent in Austin.

                          Also, I would be surprised if any immigration reform package granted blanket citizenship to non-citizen immigrants. But you raise an interesting point, because if it did the effects would be really huge in places like Culberson and Olson's districts in Houston, and Barton and Sessions' districts in DFW.

                          •  Hmm (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Chachy, MichaelNY, bumiputera

                            That's a good find, and definitely contradicts anecdotal evidence that I've been privy to.

                            However, the interesting thing (pg. 39 specifically) that this gives us is that the district I posted the image would still work because Eagle Pass has a high illegal population. That alone would have boosted it about a point or two for Democrats.

                            I think the bigger picture, though, is that even while there might not be a huge illegal immigrant population, there is still a huge immigrant population in both Ector and Midland counties that an immigration deal would still do alot to solve. Also, an immigration deal would necessarily be a precursor to a large registration and enculturation program that would boost the Democratic percentage in these counties.

                            In Midland the Hispanic VAP was 33.0 in the 2010 census (37.7 AP), yet the SSVR was only 21.6.

                            In Ector the Hispanic VAP was 47.4 in he 2010 census (52.7 AP), yet the SSVR was only 35.2.

                            If you boosted the SSVRs through a combination of an immigration deal, registration and enculturation programs to better reflect the VAP, Ector would be purple perhaps even lightly blue whereas Midland wouldn't be so strongly Republican. In combination with the immigration deal's impact on Eagle Pass and to a lesser extent Del Rio, that would have moved this district from being 55.2% McCain to something more like 51% Obama in 2008.

                            Even if it were up to 53% McCain, Xenocrypt's regression would have PPG winning the district against Canseco. Given that PPG is now the incumbent, he could probably win a district up to 55% McCain. I think that makes him one of the strongest Democratic incumbents in the country, actually.

                            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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:34:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  SSVR? I think I get it, but what are the words? nt (0+ / 0-)

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:41:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Spanish Surname Voter Registration (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Audrid, MichaelNY, bumiputera, jncca

                            You know VAP ofcourse, and I've been using AP as shorthand for all population.

                            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 Jan 09, 2013 at 03:47:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  As an example (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MichaelNY, Chachy, bumiputera

                        If you map out such a district now with 38 seats, but with about 60,000 more El Pasoans in the district than is now needed (given the growth that will occur in El Paso, though I don't think that you'll get more than that extra 50 thou), you can take in Midland, Odessa, Eagle Pass, Uvalde, and Del Rio and get a district (ofcourse, remember disparate population growths - this is overall a slow growing area relative to the state):

                        The district is 54.9% SSVR, 65.2% Hispanic VAP, 69.3% Hispanic AP. And only 55.2% McCain TPV.

                        Hell! Even if we don't get an immigration package, a district like this might be evenly split by 2020. With an immigration package already passed like he had promised, Obama could very well have won this district this year.

                        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 Jan 09, 2013 at 01:53:41 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

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

            McIntre will be drawn into a new safe Dem district where he'll be primaried, and they'll add an R seat.

      •  Linear extrapolation (5+ / 0-)

        I don't find it terribly useful 7+ years out. Come 2017-2018 is when the models will be fairly close to accurate.

        •  true (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, R30A, Zack from the SFV

          I remember when the first predictions for CA had us gaining a seat after the 2010 census, that quickly moved to us losing a seat after the recession, and then as it got closer everything evened out and we had the status quo.

          Hopefully this we can hang on and actually gain a seat by the next census.

          24, gay Atari Democrat CA-41

          by lordpet8 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:37:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Interestingly (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, JGibson, MichaelNY, JBraden

        In Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, if Republicans maintain control, they'll be pretty much forced to cut one one of their own.

      •  the question is where the new seats will be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        located and in states losing them; which seat will be axed.

        CA - probably in the IE
        Colorado - my guess is the new seat will be made up of parts of the 4th 5th and 6th
        Florida - either in central or southwestern florida
        North Carolina - probably in the research triangle or in the central party of the state
        Texas - probably a new seat that takes some areas from the Johnson Hall and Burgess seats; and another that takes in the McCaul Poe and Culberson districts
        Virginia - the 8th 10th and 11th all contract and a new gop seat is made that takes in the outer fringes of the DC Metro including the northern part of Cantor's district

        Illinois - the second will probably get axed

        Michigan - a Detroit-centric district will probably be drawn and the Levin or Bentivolio districts will absorb the released suburban turf from Peters

        Minnesota - its location in the middle of the state is reason to  believe the sixth will be eliminated. But its also the fastest growing part. Its possible the 4th gets eliminated; but that would endanger either Kline or Paulsen

        Ohio - the Stivers district probably gets eliminated

        Pennsylvania - the 12th and 18th are possibly merged. The 3rd shifts further south and the 9th shifts further west

        West Virginia - the 2nd is axed

        RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

        by demographicarmageddon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:39:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unless Republicans control the process in MN (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY

          The 4th and 5th will be left alone by courts. Ultimately it will have to be a metro district, as the population distribution in the state would be dramatically disproportionate with a 5-2 setup. you'd have districts running from St. Paul to Duluth, Maple Grove to Alexandria, and Bloomington to Rochester. a 4-3 delegation would match nearly perfectly with the population distribution. My hunch is that the 3rd and 6the get combined, The 5th takes in most of Hennepin County, the 4th takes in the east metro, and the outatate districts absorb the areas in the 2nd and 6th that really are culturally outstate like the southern edge of the 2nd, and the western side of the 6th.

        •  It's hard to say... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, bumiputera

          Where districts will be created or axed, because all districts have to shift as a result.  In commission states, none of the seats may closely align with the old ones (unless the VRA requires it), and in seats with partisan gerrymandering, incumbency factors will trump population growth.  

          I do have a few general quibbles though.  While it is true that Illinois won't have enough of a concentrated black population in Chicagoland for three majority-black districts any longer, AFAIK actual population decline is much stronger in the rural counties downstate.  So that's a natural place to assume a district is cut - especially because Democrats are weak there.  

          More generally, it will be interesting to see how former majority-black districts in the north turn out in 2020.  Technically speaking MO-01 was already no longer required by the VRA this year, and OH-11 was just barely drawn by extending it into Akron.  By 2020, this seat will be impossible to retain as majority black.  Illinois will be down to only two VRA black seats, Detroit down to one, and NYC possibly down to only two as well.  Add to this PA-02, and two (or possibly three) seats in MD, and you come out to only 8-9 black VRA seats in the north.  

          Of course, if Republicans control a state, they'll try to keep it as close to status quo as possible.  A 45% black seat is almost as good at packing Democrats as a 51% black one, after all.  But it offers major chances for Democrats in northeastern and Midwestern states if they feel more comfortable with "sharing the wealth."

      •  Pennsylvania has lost seats (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, MichaelNY

        Every 10 years since the 1930 census.

        24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

        by HoosierD42 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:00:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  losers (0+ / 0-)

        Can the Republicans make the lost seats in Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania a loss for the D seats without a dummymander?

        I think, off hand, the loss in West Virginia will be our D seat.

        Assuming D control in Ill, we can make the loss an R seat

        Rhode Island will be a D loss

        Texas will like liky be split 1 each gain because of VRA
        Colorado will depend on who controls the state trifecta. New swing if court redeistricts?

        California may add another swing seat, nonpartisan redistricting

        Florida: new R?

        North Carolina: R will control process, new R? or will they try to maintain the existing seats and crate a new massive D

        Virgina: Rs have maxed out in the stat. new D

        •  NC they'll definitely go 10-4 (0+ / 0-)

          Which shouldn't be too hard at all.  Using the actual map as a baseline I was able to get every district over 58% McCain when I went for 9-4, so Republicans will have a lot of room to maneuver once they draw a southeastern vote sink.

          NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

          by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:29:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Odd to see a Southern seat at risk (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen, MichaelNY

      I know it's just 1, but seeing the potential for Alabama losing a seat warms my heart...even if it probably just moves to Texas :-(

      "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

      by rdw72777 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:51:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  question about committee assignments (0+ / 0-)

    are there committees that the dems have term limits on? For instance, it seems that the House Budget Committee always rotates in their members. Same with House Admin and Intelligence.

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:27:10 AM PST

  •  TX-13 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I can't believe the most Republican district in the nation is not from LDS-heavy Utah! UT-03 gave Obama 19.5% of the vote. I am quite sure that no district gave Kerry or Obama (2008) less than 20% of the vote. Polarization, blah, blah, blah.

    http://www.snappac.org/ Students for a New American Politics!

    by redrelic17 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:29:41 AM PST

  •  Hello Everyone, It's Been Awhile (13+ / 0-)

    Hello all. The other day, I logged in to check the last time I posted, and I can't believe it was over three weeks.

    I've been trying to focus on energy on finally getting a new job, so if I check in during the next few weeks, it'll probably be late at night, before I go to bed. But I figured I'd stop by to say hello and to say how pleased I am that President Obama intends to nominate Jacob Lew for Treasury. I think it's an excellent pick for a few reasons.

    This Politico article does a decent enough job of scratching the surface of why I think he's good. I'm open to compromise as the next guy, but Lew's got experience in the private sector and even more in the public sector. The biggest fights in the coming years are probably more about the tax code and fiscal policy, not financial regulation, and when the biggest complaint against him is that he's too liberal and fights like a dog for our causes, I can only smile. This Times article says he's willing to make concessions on Medicaid, but that he's a warrior for our side. There are plenty of other signals that he's a sharp, sober, serious, and tenacious individual--kind of like his old boss, Tip O'Neill, perhaps?

    Oh yeah, by the way, LOL at Peter King switching parties.

    "The polls are meaningless, riddled with biases, inaccuracies, and an unrealistic electorate. The only poll that matters is the one on election day..."--said by any number of candidates down in the polls

    by bjssp on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:55:18 AM PST

  •  What It Takes (6+ / 0-)

    I haven't read it, but I know it's well regarded by a number of folks here. I just ordered it yesterday, spurred on by a strong tribute from Ezra Klein after Richard Ben Cramer's passing. And it turns out many others are buying it, too. It's now up to #11 on Amazon overall bestseller list -- and it's the #1 seller in the political science and elections categories.

    Seems like it's finally getting its moment in the sun commercially!

    http://www.amazon.com/...

    •  So read it. (4+ / 0-)

      Don't you want to know all about Mike Dukakis' feuds with other Brookline Democrats?  Or about Bob Dole's first race for county prosecutor?  (He had been a state legislator in law school, but according to Cramer, this was a somewhat half-assed office, and his backers won it for him on the argument of "hey, he's already in East Kansas, so Russell won't have to pay travel expenses".)  How about cameos by a surprisingly sharp, hard-edged George W. Bush?  Or Barbara Bush putting an implausibly positive spin on H.W.'s career move--"I've always wanted to live in Odessa, Texas."?  Or detailed descriptions of Joe Biden's bumbling get-rich-quick schemes, along with--interestingly--a new level of respect for the man?

      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 Jan 09, 2013 at 09:20:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've always meant to buy it, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, MichaelNY

      just never got around to it. Well, officially ordered now.

  •  Bad as the NYC Board of Elections may be. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    At least you guys didn't elect a "reform" slate to the election-overseeing body, only to have it collapse in hilariously open warfare immediately after (but apparently not necessarily related to) the next election, right?  Because in Philly, we can't even say that.  (A bit more info here.)

    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 Jan 09, 2013 at 09:05:11 AM PST

  •  Virginia Q-Poll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    shows McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli by 1 point, 40-39.  In a 3-corner race with Bolling it's a tie, 34-34-13.

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

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

    by Mike in MD on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:36:22 AM PST

  •  Dan Maffei (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, MichaelNY

    Has any house candidate gone L-W-L-W before like Maffei did from '06-'12?  The first person to come to mind is Baron Hill but his losses were further apart.  

    NY-7 in real life, @BobbyBigWheel on Twitter

    by Bobby Big Wheel on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:52:34 AM PST

  •  New PVIs (7+ / 0-)

    The Indiana districts stay the same at R+8 and R+9, respectively.

    Hartzler's moves from R+11 to R+13.

    Hanna and Reed both stay at R+3, so I think they're winnable (especially given Reed's very very poor performance).

    Maffei moves a point better from D+4 to D+5.

    Collins regresses from R+7 to R+8 (if it hadn't moved away from us, I think Hochul may have won it... sadly).

    Thornberry's (TX-13) district moves from R+29 to R+32. This is more Republican than the most Republican district in 04-08 PVIs (which was a tie between TX-11 and TX-13).

    This is the first time that we have districts that are R+30 or more, with both GA-9 and TX-13 reaching that distinction. Although it sounds bad, this is actually a good thing because it infers that Republicans are self-segregating. The more self-segregation that occurs, the better distributed voters are throughout the country relative to the way they are now for Democrats and the easier it will be to pick up a majority (theoretically).

    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 Jan 09, 2013 at 10:20:03 AM PST

  •  Can Christie win a GOP Pres. Primary at this pt.? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, itskevin

    I was shocked to see him have higher approvals nationally with democrats than republicans.  Can Christie be elected to anything else?

    27, male, gay, living and voting in IN-7. Joe Donnelly for Senate and John Gregg for Governor!

    by IndyLiberal on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:37:15 AM PST

    •  While Christie is a bully and a loudmouth, plusses (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, JBraden

      for teabaggers, it's hard to see them backing a northeastern Jersey atteetude guy who is pro choice.

      One "intriguing" possibility, he follows Charlie Crist and switches party.

      And what is his political future, in either party? If not pres., how about the senate?

      Delenda est filibuster!

      by TofG on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:09:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Christie isn't pro-choice (6+ / 0-)

        He self-identifies as pro-life, but he's doing the "I'm not going to legislate on it" bit and has effectively governed as a pro-choicer. But he can say he's always been pro-life if he runs, which would be true in a literal sense.

        Approvals among Democrats are due to his bipartisan-friendly Sandy handling. Not very deep at all. I can't imagine him switching parties or mounting a successful Senate bid, his personality wouldn't fit the Senate well. He's an executive type through and through. And lots of local Democrats bear grudges because of his education and pension policies and nixing key infrastructure projects like a subway tunnel that would have eased traffic. He'd not be a terribly effective leader if he switched.

        I actually don't think his chances are that bad if he runs in 2016 as a Republican. The Republicans almost always choose the relative moderate in the nominating field, especially when there are plenty of hard-right conservatives to break up the conservative vote. Jim DeMint might have been able to keep all those folks together but it looks like he's done with elective politics. Christie has done what he needed to do to get FOX News and a large percentage of the donor class to warm up to him, and now he's appealed to the center. He looks a lot more like recent GOP nominees than Rick Santorum, say, does. After eight years, the right will be desperate to retake the White House, and might allow him to slide on stuff like immigration. It's what they've always done.

      •  A roadblock for him that I see (4+ / 0-)

        is that he's very supportive of the Muslim community and calls bullshit on xenophobia.

        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 Jan 09, 2013 at 11:33:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Christie is not pro-choice (4+ / 0-)

        And he's conservative on social issues (last year, he vetoed a marriage equality bill the legislature passed).

        And he's cut funding for women's health in NJ.

  •  CU money tipped Montana senate race Democratic? (4+ / 0-)

    If this report, seen in Taegan Goddard, is correct, it's unintended consequences redux (first being GOP voter suppression helping turnout in 2012).

    ================
    ProPublica reports a small "dark money" group called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, bought radio and television ads in Montana's U.S. Senate race -- not supporting incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) but instead backing libertarian Dan Cox, describing him as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative."
    ================

    Delenda est filibuster!

    by TofG on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:44:16 AM PST

  •  Mike McIntyre (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, SouthernINDem

    he's quite the survivor, I didn't realize until now but his seat is as red as Virginia Foxx's district!

    24, gay Atari Democrat CA-41

    by lordpet8 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:11:25 AM PST

  •  Minnesota GOP (5+ / 0-)

    Former State Representative Keith Downey is running for the chairman of the state Republican Party. The MNGOP is still a mess following their thumping in November. Downey raised gobs of cash on his bid for the state senate in the swingy Edina-based senate district, ultimately losing 47-53 to political newcomer Melissa Franzen. Downey is seen as a strong fundraiser, as he outraised the Republican congressional candidates in MN-4 and MN-5. But he is seen as an ideologue that dies not communicate well with non-base voters. I think he would actually be a good fit for the position, considering the chairman's primary job is raising cash. And right now, the MNGOP is flat broke.

     http://blogs.twincities.com/...

    •  In Oregon the Republicans finally may have a (0+ / 0-)

      decent choice for their new state chair, the chair of the Clackamas County Republican Party.  Thing is, much of the conservative efforts were funded by the Oregon Transformation Project, and most of their funds came from one man, so going by the same logic, he doesn't make as much sense.  And I mean sure, the Clackamas Republicans have had a resurgence lately, but that's really only limited to local, nonpartisan offices.  Considering partisan offices, only one legislative seat is different now from before 2010, and if not for redistricting making it 4 or so points more Republican, we'd probably get it back in 2014 too.

      ...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 Jan 09, 2013 at 01:13:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  David J, you know I'm a fan. (8+ / 0-)

    But I don't think a 46-41 result from one pollster vs. a 40-39 result from another pollster is really all that "head-spinning" a disparity, especially given the slight differences between the way they ask the question and the options and other numbers they describe.  (For example, Q lists "DK/NA" numbers for a question, and PPP doesn't, possibly since it's a robopoll, while Q is a live poll.  Do you have to answer every question to complete a PPP poll?)

    Also note that the favorability questions are a bit different.  Q asked "Is your opinion of Terry McAuliffe favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?", getting 23/16/61, and "Is your opinion of Ken Cuccinelli favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?", getting 33/25/41.  

    PPP asked "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Terry McAuliffe?", and the same for Cuccinelli, but provided "not sure" as an option, getting 25/26/50 and 29/45/27, respectively.

    Given how relatively little-known both candidates are, I can believe that explicitly providing "haven't heard enough" as an option in the initial question could change the outcome non-trivially, as opposed to having to say "not sure", which some voters might hesitate at.  

    The favorability numbers are fairly similar in both surveys, but the unfavorability numbers are higher in PPP, which might mean that a certain number of people have vaguely negative feelings for one candidate or the other, but would rather say they haven't heard enough to be sure, if given the option.  Or it could be a coincidence.

    But I get a pretty similar picture from both polls.  It's a swing state, the election's a long way off, the candidates are both pretty obscure, McAuliffe is probably more obscure, and Cuccinelli is probably less obscure but has more people who like him or don't like him already.  We shouldn't get too caught up in a 5 point lead vs. a 1 point lead this far out, in my opinion.

    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 Jan 09, 2013 at 11:20:00 AM PST

  •  Dick Armey didn't know he was talking to MM (5+ / 0-)

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
    He thought he was talking to a conservative website.

    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 Jan 09, 2013 at 11:46:55 AM PST

  •  Does anyone have the link to the gdoc with (0+ / 0-)

    congressional candidates youtube channels?  I seem to recall one being put together a few months before the election.

    NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

    by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:23:31 PM PST

  •  Cook PVI Ratings: This looks like a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, skibum59, abgin

    mini-realignment to me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    This shows you how good Democrats really did.  There were only 3 - count 'em 3 - seats with a Democratic PVI that were won by Republicans.  CA-31 (a fluke), IL-13 (very close margin - also Obama home state effect), and PA-08.  Meanwhile, Democrats hold 16 districts with a Republican PVI.

    Note - the PVI is based on 2004 & 2008, not 2012.  However with most districts the PVI has not changed much.

    And the re-alignment part:  It seems there has been a major shift away from split-ticket voting in just the past four years.  The parties are being pushed into their respective corners - House Republicans are completely on the "Right" side of the spectrum now.  Even when they were in the minority in 2008, they had several members in heavily Democratic districts - albeit some of them were flukes, like Honolulu and New Orleans having Republican representatives.  The Democrats have become far more polarized as well; although they still have a few heavily Republican districts under Democratic representation, that is very different from 2008 when Dems had dozens of R+10 or more districts under their control.

    •  A note on terminology (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sacman701, jncca, MichaelNY, dc1000, JBraden, Audrid

      That isn't technically realignment. That's polarization. Realignment is when a group which was previously almost entirely on one side moves to the other side almost entirely. Polarization occurs at the end stages of multiple, competing realignments, where the final holdouts finally make the conversion so that parties control coherent and opposite ideological blocs and districts.

      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 Jan 09, 2013 at 12:43:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca, MichaelNY, abgin, bumiputera

        For the most part, 2012 showed the logical conclusion of the "alignment" process which has been proceeding for decades.  There are hints of some new trends, like the strong movement of the South Florida Cuban seats towards the Democrats, but these tend to be exceptions rather than the general pattern.  

        I expect in the shorter run, polarization has yet to peak.  We have five lonely seats left with PVIs of R+6 or greater.  While I don't expect all of them to be defeated in 2014, I do think that none of those seats can be regained once the current occupant retires or is defeated.  

        One thing I think we don't consider enough is part of the reason PVI aligns so well with seats right now is because we're just coming off of a gerrymander.  It seems self-evident to note that almost none of the remaining Republicans who have remotely competitive seats are in states which were gerrymandered by Republicans.  But the flip side is if neutral lines were used, some Republican incumbents would have survived even if they had mildly D+ seats.  It's impossible to know exactly who, but given we screwed up a few seats which should have been gimmies like CA-21, some would have threaded the needle.  Conversely, we would have had some Demosaurs hang on in North Carolina.  So at least some of the increased polarization is due to district changes, not voter changes.  

        •  Like you tell (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          The old trends of re-alignment have not end still. This decade we will continue having cases of Democrats losing in R+5+ states or districts and Republicans losing in D+5+.

          The strong pro-Republican redistricting of this decade will help likely to end the movements from the old trends in the red states this decade.

          In the blue states, still is necessary a new favorable redistricting round to see the true maps of the new political balance. Despite this, even after a bad redistricting round the old trends are doing that some districts in blue states go to the left from R+low PVIs, and this process will continue until the following redistricting round.

  •  KY St. Rep. Sannie Overly (D-Paris) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    won a spot on the House Leadership team, as Majority Caucus Chair. Given she is now in the leadership, this should make her less likely to challenge Rep. Andy Barr (R-Lexington).

    "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 Jan 09, 2013 at 12:52:01 PM PST

  •  Susana Martinez says NM will expand Medicard (6+ / 0-)

    They are also setting up their own exchange.

    Is this her way of saying she wont be running in 2016?

    Martinez is one of the candidates that worries me that most; she would be a strong general election candidate.

    link.

    •  or, um, Medicaid n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY
    •  These are, I think, minor issues (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, NMLib, MichaelNY, bumiputera

      This is probably a place where she can moderate herself quite a bit for the general election, yet remain in the good graces of the conservative movement.

      Medicare, though unpopular with elite Republicans, is still decently popular with actual Republican voters (they don't want to cut services, they just don't want to have to actually pay for the services that they get).

      As for her potential, she won't be a top of the ticket. She's a small state governor without the charisma and charm or even the policy wonkiness of Bubba. She's more likely to be the VP pick if anything. The problem is that the same moves that make her an attractive headliner make her a less attractive VP, because the elites - not the voters - pick the VP. And the elites are a hell of alot more conservative than the Republican voters themselves.  

      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 Jan 09, 2013 at 01:35:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She can't get away with not doing it (4+ / 0-)

      New Mexico is a poor state, and she's going to have a strong race against Attorney General Gary King (son of former governor Bruce King).

      But nationally, Martinez doesn't worry me, New Mexico is just a horrible place to try to launch any type of presidential campaign from, especially if you're a Republican.

      Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

      by NMLib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:42:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe it's just because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      it's the right thing to do?  (Hey, I know she's a Republican, but hope springs eternal!)

      IIRC, she also has a disabled sibling.  That may have been a factor as well.

  •  Hilda Solis (4+ / 0-)

    has resigned as Secretary of Labor

  •  Solis to retire at Labor (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, terjeanderson, MichaelNY

    kinda disappointed and surprise. He has to appoint a minority woman to this post as a replacement.

    Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:36:22 PM PST

  •  WI-1: Ryan introduces extreme anti-abortion bill (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, James Allen, MichaelNY, jj32

    It's based on the "personhood amendment" that voters in Mississippi, of all places, rejected at the ballot box.

    Here's the report from WI progressive blogger Lisa Mux.

    This will probably get pro-choice groups involved in the WI-1 race this cycle...

    Progressive activist and lifelong resident of Vermilion County, Illinois IL-15/IL-SD-52/IL-HD-104

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:47:19 PM PST

    •  trying to make up for his fiscal vote? (4+ / 0-)

      ...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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:05:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He might be doing exactly that (5+ / 0-)

        I don't think Ryan is all that vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right, although there's been some talk of trying to primary Ryan, however, if Ryan is ousted in a primary by some ultra-conservative nutcase, that puts WI-1 in play if Democrats land a strong recruit.

        One potential primary challenger to Ryan is Tamra Varebook, a conservative activist who was planted as a fake Democrat by the WI GOP in the WI-SD-21 recall, losing the Democratic recall primary to real Democrat John Lehman (who could probably make a race of it if he runs for Congress in WI-1 and Ryan is primaried), who went on to defeat real Republican Van Wanggaard in the recall general election.

        Progressive activist and lifelong resident of Vermilion County, Illinois IL-15/IL-SD-52/IL-HD-104

        by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:30:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's best white Anglo majority county (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jncca, lordpet8, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    I haven't attempted to compare it to other prospects around the country, but one candidate would have to be Windham County Vermont, where Obama won 73.06% to Romney's 24.37%.

    My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world - Jack Layton

    by terjeanderson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:06:10 PM PST

  •  The best thing to do regarding state senates... (8+ / 0-)

    Is to abolish them.

    No, seriously.  I understand what the historical reasoning was.  State governments were modeled on federal governments, and since the federal government had two chambers, the states did as well.  

    Prior to a 1962 Supreme Court decision which enshrined one person, one vote, most states assigned Senators on a county-by-county basis.  Although this massively over-represented rural areas, at least this meant that each body of the legislature represented communities of interest.  

    Once this was overturned, state Senates became effectively useless.  Bicameral government causes more gridlock, which cuts both ways depending upon if your party is in or out of power.  Even when one party controls both branches, it means bills need to be reconciled.  

    It also means we have less local representation.  Look at a state like California, which has 80 state reps and 40 state senators.  If it had 120 state reps, the total number of elected officials wouldn't be reduced, but each one would represent a smaller territory.  

    I'm surprised more states (besides Nebraska) haven't done this.  Particularly in the west, where it's easy to reform government via the initiative process.  

    •  have to be done by ballot measure (5+ / 0-)

      legislators aren't going to support reducing their individual power.

      ...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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:09:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't Maine try to push something through? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, bumiputera

      To convert to a unicameral under Balducci? Guess it didn't go through.

      I actually completely agree, though this is in the lower half of the top ten things about California government that need to be fundamentally fixed.

    •  Completely agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      State Senates are outdated.

      24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

      by HoosierD42 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:12:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And the US Senate as well! (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf, jncca, MichaelNY, BeloitDem, andgarden

      Goose, gander, etc.

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madmojo

        I prefer to keep the Senate at the federal level.

        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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:41:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  for what reasons? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, BeloitDem

          20, 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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:48:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is value in giving states (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumiputera

            equal representation in a federal system. Less so at the state level.

            24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

            by HoosierD42 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:03:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't see the value. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, BeloitDem, andgarden

              20, 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 Jan 09, 2013 at 03:13:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  "There is value in Wyoming having the same (6+ / 0-)

              number of senators as California" is something absolutely no one would ever say if we were designing a federal government from scratch. It's pure status quo bias that this seems at all sensible to anyone.

              A stronger argument could be made for a proportionally representative senate, though I'd still be against it. Heck, the UK is hardly a failed democracy, and they don't really have a senate or a president!

              •  Yet (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bumiputera, JohnnyBoston

                The UK somehow does not fetishize population equality in their ridings. In fact, there are huge disparities in population between ridings there. Instead, they draw their ridings to prize CoI population be damned.

                ...

                ...

                ...

                The fact is that the U.S. is the only nation on earth that has a fetish for population equality for its House. Most every other Democracy values other things far and above population equality, such as CoI, preexisting governmental boundaries (admittedly this is intertwined with the concept of CoI), and stuff of that nature.

                The Senate is just an extreme example of CoI, and is actually considered by many political/democratic theorists as completely fine democratically - perhaps even preferable - because it inherently protects minority rights. The fact that is isn't protecting ethnic minority rights does not mean that it doesn't protect a specific minority - rural voters - from being trampled over by the urban and suburban majority.

                The fact that the House privileges, relative to the Senate, urban constituencies simply means that common ground and compromise will be found between the two factions. And that is better overall for democratic consolidation (very specific theoretical term) according to most political theorists than a fetish for population equality.

                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 Jan 09, 2013 at 03:37:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The logic here - (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sawolf, MichaelNY

                  that the system of representation in the Senate is justifiable because it arbitrarily protects the rural minority by giving them disproportionate representation - could be used to justify just about any system of disproportionate system of representation (e.g., one which benefitted the urban minority against the suburban and rural majority, or one which benefitted the New England minority against the non-New England majority). Again, it's hard for me to imagine that this system would make sense to anyone if we were setting up a new federal system from scratch in the 21st century.

                  Also, why am I talking to you so much today? :)

              •  Especially given the filibuster (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sawolf, MichaelNY

                The large states have more House members, but each House member does not have the extra minority power to block stuff that a minority of Senators have.

                The Senate is absurd anyway you look at it, as the states themselves are absurd.  Do we really need two Dakotas?  Why isn't San Bernadino county split into two states?

                Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

                by tommypaine on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:46:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  there was 200 some years ago. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sawolf, MichaelNY, andgarden

              I don't think there is anymore.  Far more people nowadays identify with the United States than with their own, and they see their senators, who they directly elect, as representing the people of the state, not the state government.

              ...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 Jan 09, 2013 at 03:29:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See my above (0+ / 0-)

                It isn't necessarily to do with distinct identities - nor was that the whole of the argument in the first place - but more to do with certain types of minority rights being implicitly protected by the system.

                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 Jan 09, 2013 at 03:39:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If by minority rights (5+ / 0-)

                  you mean the right to prevent free states from abolishing slavery nationwide then yes.

                  There is absolutely no constructive purpose in having the senate today.  You say "rights of the minority" but what that really means is the right of the Republican minority to produce as much gridlock as possible.

                  If you really, really cared about protecting minority rights in Congress the solution is a consociational form of government, not a system that needlessly produces gridlock and acts to massively subsidize unsustainable development and the "idiocy" of rural living.

                  NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

                  by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:52:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                    And do you know how well consociational governments have worked in the past? Horribly. That's why Lebanon has gone through a very horrible civil war and many many many violent outbreak periods. That's why Belgium is on the brink of governmental collapse.

                    I'd pick our system any day over a consociational government.

                    Also, I think you might be misunderstanding what consociational government is meant for. It isn't meant for when there is a minority needing protection, but rather meant for when a country is cleavaged into roughly equal sections. Letting them maintain a toehold onto some power is important and is supposed to produce compromise governments. But it hasn't even worked there!

                    And I wouldn't call rural living idiotic! It's all these people have ever known. And I'd remind you that a very substantial portion of your food intake comes from rural land and workers.

                    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 Jan 09, 2013 at 03:58:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So South Africa and Northern Ireland (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY, Audrid

                      are utter failures? It's not my preferred form of government for the united states (that would be a unicameral open list mixed member proportional parliament), but that's ridiculous to assert that consociationalism doesn't ever work.  It clearly has mixed results, like most other things.

                      NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

                      by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:09:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh and the "idiocy" of rural life refers to (0+ / 0-)

                      a mistranslated section of the communist manifesto where Marx is essentially saying that social and scientific progress is easier when you aren't isolated from other people, so it makes sense to live in cities, etc.

                      The only part of rural living that's idiotic is that it is much worse for the environment than urbanization and it's for that reason that subsidizing rural living like we do is terrible policy.

                      NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

                      by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:13:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sawolf, MichaelNY

                        and rural life was idiotic because rural people hadn't yet benefitted from the better education, greater worldliness, and unleashing of productive powers that followed from the capitalist revolution, was Marx's point. They were trapped in their miserable and ignorant feudal lives. And then he thought that following the communist revolution the distinction between city and country would fade away.

                    •  I find the idea that states with huge agribusiness (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sawolf

                      farms should have the same representation as California and New York - and for that matter, Texas - deeply offensive and unjust. And let's remember that California produces more crops than any other state.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:38:08 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Well, I said "there's value" in the idea (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, jncca

                Not that it's the best idea available.

                24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

                by HoosierD42 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:45:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  The better argument would be (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sacman701, MichaelNY, HoosierD42

              Something along the lines of the French Senate or the UK House of Lords: they can't really block legislation (the latter can under very specific circumstances), mostly they can only delay it. But they do add value: they have a deliberative function, but not an obstructionist one, and working with them is in the interest of the lower House so that things get through quicker and more easily.

            •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, James Allen

              I don't see why we should be giving the voice of a half a million people the same weight as the voice of 30 million.

      •  I agree with that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, David Nir, James Allen, jncca

        Get rid of the Senate and add those hundred seats to the House for one big unicameral House of Representatives.

        26, Male, CA-26, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

        by DrPhillips on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:49:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The U.S. Senate has a function... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawolf, MichaelNY, bumiputera

        Which is to represent the States.  We may disagree with the function.  It's certainly undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional if not for the whole specifically written into the constitution thing.  Still, it roughly fulfills its original intent, which is to ensure that U.S. states are all on roughly equal footing.  

        State Senates, in contrast, don't serve this function, or any other function.  They usually operate under the same rules that the State House does as well - unlike the federal Senate, they don't have specific responsibilities.  They just duplicate the State House, but have bigger districts.  

    •  Completely Disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terjeanderson

      Unless you change some of the rules and mechanics down here in Texas and make a 2/3rds rule or a Mr. Smith style filibuster in a unicameral body, it's the State Senate that has been able to slow down and sometimes stop the Republicans because of our 2/3rds rule and Mr. Smith style filibuster in that body.

      •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

        Except for when all those bad bills came back during the special session (albeit slightly watered down) when the filibuster wasn't operable... Yes, so great a system.

        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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:49:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Very few states... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawolf, MichaelNY, bumiputera

        have a state level filibuster.  To my knowledge, Texas is one of the few.  

        Still, I don't think arguments that "we can gridlock up things we disagree with" is a valid one, because the reverse is also the case.  I'd rather have wide swings in policy from year to year than nothing much accomplished.  

        •  Exactly it's hypocritical to complain about things (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Audrid, MichaelNY, Chachy, bumiputera, jncca

          like California's requiring a 2/3rds vote for tax increases and then bemoan not being able to do the reverse in states like Texas.

          Plus, where we can see this in action in states like the United Kingdom there typically aren't wild swings between governments of different parties, but more of a zig-zag since some things become popular and have too many interests protecting them once enacted.

          NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

          by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:17:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordpet8, MichaelNY

      Either that, or make State Senates be elected on a two year basis as well.

      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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:40:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In response to David's "challenge" above . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    I will say the most caucasian county that Obama performed the best in was . . . King County, Washington?  My other guesses would be Multnomah County, Oregon or San Francisco County, California.

    27, male, gay, living and voting in IN-7. Joe Donnelly for Senate and John Gregg for Governor!

    by IndyLiberal on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:08:24 PM PST

  •  Obama's best White County (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, terjeanderson, MichaelNY

    San Francisco is plurality white (48.5%) so I'd guess its 83.4% is tops. If not then 75.8% in Multnomah County is tough to beat

    NY-7 in real life, @BobbyBigWheel on Twitter

    by Bobby Big Wheel on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:08:32 PM PST

  •  Charlottesville, VA? (4+ / 0-)

    It's a county equivalent.  About 77% Obama.

  •  Not DKE related but... (5+ / 0-)

    people in Seattle should start to rejoice cause your Sonics are coming back

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    That was the biggest robbery in the NBA. Moving the Sonics to Oklahoma. Really, Oklahoma?!?!? The Sonics were one of the most prestigious NBA franchises in the Pacific Northwest, and the people in Seattle IMO did not deserve not to have their franchise taken away in favor for the people in OKC.

    While they were building new stadiums for the Seahawks and Mariners in the early '00s, they should had done the same for the Supersonics, and they never would had moved.

    Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:25:19 PM PST

  •  I believe that Obama's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terjeanderson, jj32, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    top-performing white-majority county is Berkshire County, Massachusetts, where he received 76% of the vote.

    Another note: all the counties mentioned previously, while majority-white, have substantial non-white populations that cause the Democratic percentage to increase. If you look at just mostly-white counties, Berkshire almost definitely wins, as it is 95% white.

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

    by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:28:52 PM PST

  •  My challenge: The whitest county (2010 census) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, jncca, MichaelNY

    to vote for Obama?

    My choice is Mitchell County, IA, which is 98% non-Hispanic white and voted 50.7%-47.4% for 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 Jan 09, 2013 at 02:33:07 PM PST

  •  Supposedly Solis resigned in order to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, drhoosierdem, MichaelNY, bumiputera

    run for something in Los Angeles. County Supervisor? Mayor?

  •  Converse question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jncca, MichaelNY

    What was Romney's best majority minority county. (Defined by <50% non-hispanic white)  My initial guess is Kern County, CA, where he got 57.17%, and is 49.5% non-hispanic white, though that could easily be beat.

  •  Bob McDonnell State of the Commonwealth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Governor Ultrasound is announcing his proposal to get rid of the gas tax altogether, tonight.  There is some speculation that this could help the Cooch's campaign since people really don't like gas taxes.  From a border economics standpoint, this seems good for Cooch and other Republicans because the DC area obviously has a huge commuter population.  McDonnell is proposing a sales tax increase to make up for the lost revenue.

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

    Hasn't Durbin been mentioned a lot? He would make an excellent Secretary in my view. But would President Obama be willing to take more heat for making another potentially competitive Senate race? Not that I think we would lose Illinois, but still.

  •  Harper Polling (0+ / 0-)

    Geographic crosstab for Phila / Southeast under 23%.

    That's just embarrassing.

    "Rain Clearing, Breezy Overnight."

    by looking italian on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:01:08 PM PST

  •  Biggest vote increase from primary to general? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Nir

    I nominate Morgan Osborne, the Republican who ran against Karen Bass in CA-37. She (he?) got 36 votes as a write-in in the primary, to 32,541 in the general, an increase of almost 904%

    24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

    by HoosierD42 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:07:00 PM PST

  •  Tom Udall is pretty much invincible (6+ / 0-)

    In the same way that Jeff Bingaman would never have gotten a serious challenger if he had run for re-election, Tom Udall is never going to get a serious challenger, you don't win your first election by 20+ points and then worry about your re-election (even if it does happen to be against Steve Pearce).

    Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

    by NMLib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:03:52 PM PST

  •  Saying thing in a different way (0+ / 0-)

    Could have been... unfortunate.

    7. Baltimore city, Maryland (87%): more than three in five residents are black in Maryland’s biggest city.
  •  Here's the champ of all Champs (7+ / 0-)

    Champ Clark, Speaker of the House from 1911-1919.  He was really a champ!

  •  members of u.s. house who have been rejected or (0+ / 0-)

    stripped of their chairmanship

    1966 - A.C. Powell - stripped of Ed & Labor title
    1974 Wilbur Mills - stripped of Ways and Means title
    1974 - Wright Patman - stripped of Banking title
    1974 - Bob Poage - stripped of Ag title
    1974 - Felix Hebert - stripped of Armed Services title
    1980 - Don Edwards - rejected as Veterans Affairs chair
    1980 - Henry Reuss - stripped of Banking title
    1984 - Melvin Price stripped of Armed Services title
    1990 - Glenn Anderson stripped of Public Works title
    1992 - Jamie whitten stripped of appropriations title
    1994 - Neal Smith Sidney Yates and Jamie Whitten (again) rejected as appropriations chair
    1994 - Dan Rostenkowski stripped of Ways and Means title
    2008 - Dingell stripped of E&C title
    2010 - Jerry Costello rejected as Science chairman
    2010 - Charles Rangel stripped of Ways and Means title
    2010 - Silvestre Reyes rejected as Armed Services chair
    2012 - Marcy Kaptur rejected as Appropriations chair 2012 - Brad Sherman rejected as Foreign Affairs chair
    2012 - Corrine Brown rejected as Veterans Affairs chair

    anyone know why these particular members got the shaft?

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:31:52 PM PST

    •  Um.. not exactly using "stripped" correctly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      some of those guys just lost elections in their party caucus

      The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

      by RBH on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:33:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most of these just lost to or pushed aside for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      other congressmen favored by party leadership.

      Like Corrine Browne wasn't stripped of the VA committee ranking member slot rather she never got it despite her seniority on the committee because the leadership knows she's ethically challenged and kind of a loose cannon.

      Chris Smith (of New Jersey) was legitimately stripped of his chairmanship of the VA committee because he was a big spender who did follow republican demands to cut budgets. Steve Buyer, a loyal foot soldier, replaced him.

      Jane Harman was "removed" from the top Democratic spot on the Intell. committee because of disputes with Pelosi and then Alcee Hastings was also passed over because of his past impeachment as a federal judge.

      •  i never said Brown was stripped (0+ / 0-)

        i said she was rejected. Stripped means you were already the chairman or ranking member and you were unseated. Rejected means that the ranking member retires and the person next in line is passed up.

        RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

        by demographicarmageddon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:15:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dingell was made Chairman Emeritus (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      because of his advanced age.

      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 Jan 09, 2013 at 06:12:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  as for Richard Berry (0+ / 0-)

    his re-election is in October, so if he runs for re-election, then he can't really commit to a statewide until October

    The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

    by RBH on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:43:43 PM PST

  •  2016 Question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    if Hilary is our nominee how many think she can put state in play particullarly in the deep south. Like Georgia, Arkanasa and Louisiana? States her husband won. Raising the question "it's an Obama thing".

    Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

    by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:17:40 PM PST

    •  Probably just Georgia and even that's doubtful (8+ / 0-)

      Conservative whites aren't going to suddenly forget why they hate the national Democratic party and Clinton won't suddenly buck the national party platform on a whole host of issues like coal or guns.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

      by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:20:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Despite its hard right turn (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, jj32, KingofSpades, LordMike

      it wouldn't shock me if she is competitive in Arkansas.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:29:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's possible (5+ / 0-)

      Georgia will probably be in play regardless of who the nominee is, Hillary's chances of winning it would mostly depend the metro area, but if middle Georgia posted strong numbers for her, it would very much help her.

      Arkansas and Louisiana will see marginal swings, Louisiana being more likely, because it actually went slightly more democratic in 2012.

      26, Male, CA-26, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

      by DrPhillips on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:28:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your'e right about Georgia (4+ / 0-)

        If Dems can tap into suburban ATL. In Cobb county and Gwinnett county then that put Georgia in play for sure. With Louisiana it depends how the voting insuburban New Orleans is, as well as Cajun Country in Southern Louisiana.

        I forgot to mention Missouri, but Missouri has been fool's gold for Dems, like Pennsylvania has been fool's gold for Republicans IMO.

        Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

        by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:58:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think there's a good case to be made that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, bumiputera, sacman701

          Hillary Clinton would have won Missouri in 2008.  However the state was R+7 this year and Obama really cratered in suburban/exurban St. Louis which makes it basically impossible to win the state when the rural areas are almost universally trending away too.  She might keep it closer, but I don't think she could win the state barring a repeat of the 2008 wave.

          NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

          by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:59:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

          Hilary would perform well in Jefferson Parish but not as well as Landrieu.

          Sh'd also perform about as well as Landrieu in Cajun Country. I think her great strength, like WJC's, is the improvement in North LA among whites, while keeping black support.

          23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

          by Stephen Schmitz on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:26:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Georgia will not be in play in 2016 baring (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawolf, skibum59, MichaelNY, bumiputera

        the state party getting its act together and actually registering new minorities and then getting them out to vote.

        We need to stop losing suburban Georgia 79-21 (as what happened in the last special House election) if we plan to be competitive in the state. Of course, the state party doesn't actually realizes this...

      •  New Orleans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Fastest growing city in 2011 IIRC. Huge influx of young progressive whites in NOLA.

        23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

        by Stephen Schmitz on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:24:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Virtually none (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skibum59, abgin, MichaelNY

      Clinton needed Perot to win Georgia in '92, and lost it in '96.

      Arkansas I think is out of reach now for Hillary.  She likely would've won it in '08 after the Lehman crash...although I think it would've been a tossup, not better than that, before the crash.  But the state has changed, as GradyDem has explained well, and besides the population shift he explained the state's conservatives just don't like federal Democrats anymore, not even home-grown ones.

      Louisiana, too, is not the same as it was politically.

      The conservaDems in the Deep South hate federal Democrats now, and many fewer are even registered Democrats anymore.

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

      by DCCyclone on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:15:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

        about them "hating" homegrown Dems. I don't think folks hates Pryor, Beebe, and Halter in Arkansas. Or the Landrieu's and Breaux in Louisiana.

        Ive never saw the what GradyDem wrote about the south, that you are referring to.

        Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

        by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:29:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They are unique & it's getting harder for them (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skaje, abgin, MichaelNY

          GradyDem knows Arkansas well and expects Pryor to have a tough fight this time.

          Beebe is unique, but can't be replicated.

          Landrieu hung on by only 5 in the 2006 Dem wave year against a middling GOP opponent.

          Breaux is history, gone long ago.

          Halter was a one-shot wonder.

          We're getting slaughtered in white-majority jurisdictions in the South.  Hillary is going to struggle, ultimately those voters are going to vote based on what they think she'll actually do as President, and she's not going to do anything much different from Obama or any generic Democrat......and that will prove fatal.

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

          by DCCyclone on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:49:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The great thing is (5+ / 0-)

            we dont need those states to win. I was just putting it out there to get ppl thoughts. Those states don't matter and are not worthy of the big 3 Southern battlegrounds of FL, NC, VA.

            But I just want to know what do you mean by "prove fatal"

            Moderate Progressive, Born in Cairo, Raised in NY-11, Living in NJ-13.

            by BKGyptian89 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:58:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think you mean 2008 for Landrieu... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            Otherwise, I completely agree with your take, Clinton (if she runs, and I sincerely doubt that she does) will do as well as any Democrat in the south, and that's mostly getting destroyed, even in Arkansas (although I do think she'll do better than other Democrats would in Arkansas, but that's not winning it or even making it competitive).

            Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

            by NMLib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:52:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There was also a hurricane that greatly altered (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, DCCyclone

              Louisiana's turnout that year.

              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 Jan 09, 2013 at 08:54:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I doubt it made a huge difference though (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, DCCyclone

                A few percentage points, but it still would've been single digits, and it was against a candidate who was ultimately seen as fairly weak.

                Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                by NMLib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:00:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  New Orleans turnout factors in heavily. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  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 Jan 09, 2013 at 09:02:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's do some math then (5+ / 0-)

                    Let's assume that there were roughly 50,000 voters who would have voted in Orleans Parish who would've voted otherwise had Hurricane Katrina not happened. Let's also assume they broke at the same rate that Orleans Parish went (84-14).

                    Instead of winning the two-party vote 53.26 to 46.74, she would've won 54.1 to 45.9.

                    So again, she still only would've won by single-digits even under an increased Orleans parish turnout assumption.

                    Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

                    by NMLib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:13:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  NMLib is right, the math matters and... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY, NMLib

                      ...it's a good rule of thumb to keep in mind that much of what people point to in polling or election results is actually less important than some people think.

                      You want to change the party ID a few points in a poll?  Go ahead...it changes the topline hardly at all.

                      You want to consider depressed local turnout in some places in an election?  Go ahead, do the math, it ends up not changing anything except in the very tightest of races.

                      There are times when something like turnout changes everything.  That was true in 2009 in Virginia, when we lost some downballot Delegate races because Deeds was such a disaster that a lot of Dems didn't bother to vote.  But even then, it was only a handful of seats we lost because of it.  My district clearly was one of them, the coattails made the entire difference, so I feel it a lot, but statewide it was just a few seats that flipped because of that.

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

                      by DCCyclone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:29:49 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  It did end up costing Paul Carmouche (6+ / 0-)

                  the 4th district.  John Fleming won by just 450 votes on the December 6th runoff and if that race hadn't been delayed, presidential turnout would have put Carmouche over the top.  Amazingly, primary turnout for that race (on November 4th) was 66% Dem, 34% R.

                  NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

                  by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:14:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Duh, yes, 2008 not 2006, thanks. (nm) (0+ / 0-)

              nm

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

              by DCCyclone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:25:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Incidentally, (6+ / 0-)

          Pryor should have little issue winning the rural Democratic Blue Dog part of the state. This is the part of the state that we all know about - that's been solidly Democratic since Reconstruction. His name is golden there; that's fine.

          The problem arises in Saline County, Arkansas and Benton County, Arkansas. Both counties have exploding populations and most people are coming from out of state to take advantage of the economic opportunity here. The problem? They are solid conservatives everywhere on the ballot and don't have fond memories of David Pryor or voting for Democrats downballot. Simply put, they see no reason to vote for Mark Pryor regardless of how conservative he is.

          Pryor's job is to either get like a 1990 style showing out of rural Arkansas or limit his loss margin in the suburbs, both of which are going to be very hard tasks. However, he remains very popular within the state. If both Tom Cotton and Steve Womack pass on his race, he's in a little better shape.

          BTW, with the McDaniel implosion, Pryor is likely the only Democrat who can win statewide in 2014. Fingers crossed for Chris Thomasen for Attorney General, but otherwise, we're screwed there. Halter is not well known enough to be of any importance.

          •  What do you mean (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            when you say implosion?  You said any wound would heal if there was no other shoe to drop and there has been no other shoe.  I checked on talkbusiness once in a while and this isn't being talked of like an implosion and not even Tolbert has called it as such.  He just said that his assurances set a high bar.

            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 Jan 09, 2013 at 08:49:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  McDaniel (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sawolf, MichaelNY, DCCyclone

              The Democratic Party is acting like he's done. And frankly most people here believe there's more to come. Michael Cook, who's Tolbert's partner over at Talk Business and a leading Democratic strategist has not been all crazy about him over the last few weeks. People really want Mike Ross in, since he could actually win, but we probably settle for John Burkhalter instead.

          •  You don't think we can beat Mark Martin? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KingofSpades, MichaelNY

            the guy has seemed like a total disaster as Secretary of State.  What about Charlie Daniels and Martha Shoffner, are they even running again?

            NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

            by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:03:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Shoffner has gotten into several "issues" (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sawolf, abgin, MichaelNY, DCCyclone

              and Republicans seem ready to make her testify before the legislature re: budget. Its a bunch of ridiculousness but they are making her look really bad. Regardless, she is term limited so she'll be gone after 2014.

              Charlie Daniels is like 75 so I'm not sure he'll run again. He could win if he runs again.

              We need a good candidate who can rise above the "I'm a conservative Democrat" and offer more to meet Martin. So far, that's Mike Ross, Mark Pryor, Chris Thomasen, Robert Thompson, Paul Bookout, Mark Malone and perhaps someone like Bruce Maloch. I don't think any of them want to run for Secretary of State. And Martin's scandals have died down.

              •  Great, so we're going to have gone from (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skibum59, MichaelNY

                holding basically everything in the state to holding just Pryor's seat over a mere three cycles.

                How about the state legislature?  I'm guessing we probably lose more seats in the House if not both chambers.

                NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

                by sawolf on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:52:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  State Legislature is a different story (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  abgin, MichaelNY, DCCyclone, sawolf

                  We actually overperformed at the state legislative level in rural Arkansas the same as we did in 2010...it's just that Blanche Lincoln got 40% and Barack Obama got 30%. If we have Mark Pryor getting above 40% and we continue our overperformance at the state legislative level (why shouldn't we continue it?) then we will either break even in the Senate or lose one. Worst case scenario is to lose 3. We have a 0% chance of gaining any seats in the Senate.

                  The House - one of the really interesting parts of the Arkansas legislative elections last month was that Democrats held onto the reddest most seats in rural Arkansas, but lost seats that Blanche Lincoln won two years ago. Obama underperformed Lincoln by 10%+ in some rural areas (while outperforming her by a ton in the cities, the suburbs, and Northwest Arkansas). If we can win back seats that Lincoln was getting 45%+ in, we should stay above 45 seats.

                  And I see Mark Pryor, whether he wins or loses, following Lincoln's map rather than Obama's. He'll run strong in the Delta and depending on the political climate do okay in Southern Arkansas. Pryor must must win Craighead County to win.

      •  Wholeheartedly disagreed (0+ / 0-)

        I addressed LA elsewhere. As for GA, BHO got what 47% in 2008? I think Hilary could make up that extra 3% easily in the black growth around Atlanta plus the increased showing among old blue dogs.

        23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

        by Stephen Schmitz on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:28:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry but forget all that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, sawolf, jncca, bumiputera

          The notion of Hillary popular with white Dixiecrats is a myth.  It was always compared to Obama in primaries, and there was this assumption among Hillary fans and some in the media that it could be extrapolated to a general election, but the 2008 general election blew up a lot of notions about primary results "informing" anything about the general......Obama did well in November in plenty of states where he stunk up vs. Hillary, the general election dynamics were just completely different.

          And Georgia is going to come into play because of demographics over time, yes, but not so soon as 2016.  There will be no black vote growth over 2012 because increasing black population and voter registration will be offset by not having Obama on the ballot.  Basically we'll do surprisingly well to keep black vote share constant, and odds are it will drop a little.  Other nonwhite groups, especially Hispanics, are growing faster, and there might be some growth there, but we don't have 90-10 margins with those groups, we'll do well to get 70-30 with something closer to 65-35 more the norm.  That doesn't translate to making up much in Obama's 8-point overall deficit in 2012.  The math just isn't there for Georgia in 2016 unless there's an exceptionally bad GOP nominee, or events driving a wave election in our favor although that's not imagineable at the tail end of a two-term Democratic administration.

          As far as Georgia Dixiecrats go, Hillary will not do any better with them than any generic Democrat.  They wouldn't even go back to Roy Barnes who was as good a fit as Democrats have in the state with those voters.  And this was with the GOP nominating a badly flawed candidate in a non-federal contest.  And it wasn't close, Barnes lost by double-digits.

          Things have changed from the 90s, when Bill Clinton didn't actually do as well as mythology holds...Perot mattered more than people realize in some places, including the Deep South.  Arkansas twice and Louisiana in '96 were exceptions, but now those white voters are done with national Democrats no matter who is nominated.

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

          by DCCyclone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:10:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perot is generally considered (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone

            not to have taken more Republican than Democratic votes, right?

            Also, I wouldn't assume black voting couldn't rise with an increase in population. Black folks turn out in good numbers, generally.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:48:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In the South there's some evidence that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, DCCyclone

              Clinton retained more of the voters who would have gone to Perot in other states.  Try looking for Xenocrypt's diary comparing Dukakis' and Clinton's performances.

              NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

              by sawolf on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:03:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It varies by state (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Georgia and Montana were the most obvious states where Clinton needed Perot to win in '92.

              It's very possible those are the only states Clinton won in '92 that he would've lost without Perot, but those two at least are pretty obvious.  Clinton didn't even reach 40% in Montana, and he got just 43.57% in Georgia and won by barely over one-half of one percent.  When you look at the combination of vote share and margin over Bush, it's not plausible to think Clinton would've gotten close to 50% without Perot...it's a high bar when your starting point is below 44 and you barely edged out the other guy.

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

              by DCCyclone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:23:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The problem with black voters... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              ...isn't that they don't rise with population growth, on the contrary I agree they do.  The problem is this is offset by the fact there was a turnout spike the past two Presidentials caused by Obama, and the size of that spike almost certainly is greater than the amount of natural voting increase from population growth...meaning take the spike away, and turnout drops a bit.

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

              by DCCyclone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:26:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

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

                I just think your conclusion, though intuitive, is not as much of a slam dunk as many people think it is. Black voters understand who has their interests at heart, so I believe they will continue to turn out big-time for Democrats and against Republicans.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:32:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My view is... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  ...when you do the math, the incremental increase in black voter registration over the next 4 years will prove smaller than the decline from not having Obama on the ballot.

                  I do partially agree with you in that I don't think the entire Obama spike will disappear.  Voting behavior is such that once people vote, they vote again, and when they've voted a couple times, they tend to become voters for life.  But that's not going to be true of everyone who voted the last couple Presidentials for the first time in life because of Obama.  Some will drop out.

                  My view is that the dropouts will still outnumber the incremental black vote growth in Georgia.

                  The difference won't be huge, and it could be de minimus, but we certainly won't see an increase in the percentage of the electorate that is black over 2012.

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

                  by DCCyclone on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:08:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Louisiana (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeremimi

      Yes, yes those are all in play. I'm here on the ground, if Mary Landrieu can win (she can), so can Hillary.

      She has the magic combo you need (popularity among blacks, poor whites in N La and Catholics in S La).

      I'd say Hilary could put in play NC, SC, LA, AR and KY.

      23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

      by Stephen Schmitz on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:23:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll believe it when I see it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sacman701

        SC, among other states, is way too conservative for her to have a chance to win. Same with KY, I'd have to say, given 2012 election results there and trends in that state. They vote for conservative Democrats state-wide. Hillary is not conservative. Arkansas might be an exception because of her time as First Lady of the state there. I am also skeptical about Louisiana, but at least it's a state that had a slight uptick in Democratic voting this year, so it bears watching but seems a couple of steps too far for now. Maybe after a lot more Hispanic immigration and registration.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:14:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, jncca

          Landrieu can win in LA because she's a carbon Dem, just like Manchin, Begich, and Heitkamp. Hillary will have to take mainstream Dem positions on environmental issues, and thus lose LA. She'd do better in AR and KY than Obama or Kerry did, but that's not saying much. I don't think she would be that strong in NC or SC. Bill didn't run well in those states, and Hillary would likely not be able to turn out the black vote like Obama did although she would likely do better among whites.

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

          by sacman701 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:21:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Clintons are different (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          They have a different appeal to people down here. You've got to remember Democrats still have party registration advantages in much of the  South.

          They are one of the few people able to garner enough support from white Dems while also able to turnout black dems in significant numbers.

          Politics are just different here than elsewhere. The Clintons are gold, especially now.

          23, Male, LA-02, TX-08 (originally), SSP: sschmi4

          by Stephen Schmitz on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:18:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  MT-Sen, I am working on a Champ Edmunds diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    right now and thanks for the additional info.  He might just be the craziest Republican of the 2014 Election cycle.  By the way, PPP will be polling the North Carolina Senate race next so lets see how Tillis does this time around.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:19:19 PM PST

  •  question for Chicagoans (0+ / 0-)

    did any of you guys here about sort of an uprising in Tinley Park last may?

    I never heard of it until recently. It never really made the news. A borderline radical organization (think Emma Goldman style anarchy) burst into a restaurant and attacked a bunch of people.

    I've always thought of that area as very ho-hum suburbia and not much else to it. I'm surprised it would happen there since the people who live there tend to want to get away from that type of stuff.

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:40:40 PM PST

    •  if you mean May 2012 (0+ / 0-)

      then I never heard about it, even though I was living in Chicago at the time and reading the Tribune pretty regularly.

      as for weird crimes like that - they can happen anywhere. and unfortunately the Chicago suburbs aren't new to heinous crimes (Brown's chicken).

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

      by sapelcovits on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:33:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  WATN? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, drhoosierdem

    "Little" Jeff Fitzgerald, the former Republican speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly and candidate in the 2012 WI-Sen race (losing the GOP primary to Tommy Thompson), is now lobbying the very same state legislature he once presided over the lower house of!

    Little Fitz is lobbying on behalf of American Traffic Solutions, a company that makes devices such as red-light cameras, cameras for toll lane violations (currently no toll roads in WI, although that could change thanks to ATS hiring Little Fitz to lobby on behalf of them), and cameras with radar detection to catch speeders. Also, the only reason why Little Fitz is legally able to lobby the Wisconsin State Legislature is because the state legislators exempted themselves from a state law designed to stop "revolving door" lobbying!

    Progressive activist and lifelong resident of Vermilion County, Illinois IL-15/IL-SD-52/IL-HD-104

    by DownstateDemocrat on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:58:56 PM PST

  •  Rumors floating around that (5+ / 0-)

    Blanche Lincoln is in the running to replace Tom Vilsack if he leaves.

    Absolutely unacceptable if true.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site