Follow the money trail

Lynch raised 100k for this race, Deutch raised $1.2 mil. If a favored candidate out raises a some dude by 12 to 1 and can't beat the crap out of him on friendly territory than there is a problem. Lynch was joke a Deutch beat him like a red headed step child, that is really the only lesson to be drawn IMO.

Also you left out the district is heavily Jewish and that most non uber orthodox Jews tend to support Democrats, especially locally.  

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 21:36:07 PM UTC

Unquestionably true

Clearly money, actually running an active campaign and doing so in a safe seat are the most important lessons. But still, I think there is encouragment there in the demographics. I really was expecting a result closer to CA-10.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:08:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't CA-10's Democratic lean

less in PVI?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:14:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

But the Obama margin was almost identical.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:21:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA-10 was actually the inspiration of this diary.

In CA-10, you have generic Democrat versus generic Republican (I know some politics nuts might say John Garamendi is well known - but I had no idea who he was, and I live in the district and write diaries on swingstateproject).

So in CA-10 generic Democrat wins by 10 points in November 2009 when Obama won by 30. That obvious signifies a bad environment.

Then in FL-19, which gave Obama practically the same vote as FL-19, you again have generic Democrat versus generic Republican. And generic Democrat wins by ~27%. Now you can say that Deutch was a better candidate, or that Garamendi had less money.

But to me it does seem this signifies an improvement in the environment when you have two races as similar as you can get, and there's a 15 point spread in between.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:41:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The difference

being that the Republican challenger raised around a million and actually campaigned.  

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:24:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also there was a Dem primary

A pretty nasty one. I seem to recall a GOP internal poll remarking on how Garamendi's favorables took a beating during the primary.

---

by: panhandler @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 02:45:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I seriously doubt

That and the cash situation makes up the whole gap. Less than five versus more than twenty is massive.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:59:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Demographics

While FL-19 is heavily white and elderly, a lot of those voters are Jewish retirees (think Boca and the high-rise condos). So while the 2010 electorate will be older and whiter than 2008, this district is not really representative of that because of the large Jewish population. A more characteristic electorate of 2010 would be FL-05, a fairly Republican district in North Florida home to many retirees as well, albeit non-Jewish ones. While there are a lot of retirees in the U.S., only so many of them are Jewish.

Since this district is so heavily Democratic, I don't really think that it can gauge the national mood very well, as this district in its current form would elect a Jewish Democrat under nearly all circumstances. Also, the fact that the Dem presidential percentage has gone down since 2000 is attributable to:
1.)Middle class Cuban families moving into the district from Miami.
2.) Joe Lieberman's presence on the ticket in 2000, which drew a disproportionately high percentage of the Jewish vote for Democrats.
3.)A very small number of Jewish voters believing (incorrectly in my opinion) that Bush and McCain were tougher on Israel than Kerry and Obama were, although most Jewish voters did not believe that or base their votes solely on the Israel issue anyway.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:19:42 PM UTC

True again

But health care affects Jewish seniors as much as everybody else. And there are still large swathes of non-Jewish retirees down there. Palm Beach County may be 20% Jewish but that doesn't alone put the 19th second of all House seats for Social Security recipients.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:31:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do note that the district is heavily Jewish:

"As it turns out, FL-19 constitutes a reliable Democratic stronghold. Located in the Miami metropolis, elderly and Jewish voters compose much of the district's population."

Maybe I should have put the word out there more after that sentence; the reason I didn't was because then I would have been saying something like, "Jews have not all abandoned the Democratic Party" - which is fairly misleading, given that they are identified with a core Democratic constituency.

But given that FL-19 is heavily Jewish, that doesn't stop it from being relatively white and elderly. Jews, after all, are not commonly thought of as part of the Obama coalition. A result like Tuesday's indicates that Democratic white constituencies aren't voting Republican en masse.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 22:50:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes but

If you took most of the Jewish voters out of the equation, Lynch would have done much, much better in this election. Look at the other congressional districts in Florida where more than 20% of residents are over 64, and the 2008 results and PVIs for each:
FL-05 (Brown-Waite(R), R+9): 26% over 64, 56% McCain-43% Obama
FL-09 (Bilrakis(R), R+6): 20% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-10 (Young(R), R+1): 23% over 64, 52% Obama-47% McCain
FL-13 (Buchanan(R), R+6): 29% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-14 (Mack(R), R+11): 27% over 64, 57% McCain-42% Obama
FL-15 (Posey(R), R+6): 20% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-16 (Rooney (R), R+5): 25% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-19 (Deutch(D), D+15): 30% over 64, 65% Obama-34% McCain
FL-22 (Klein(D), D+1): 21% over 64, 52% Obama-48% McCain

So you can see here that out of all the districts in Florida with a significant retiree population, they all have Republican PVIs except for FL-19 and FL-22, which also have large numbers of Jewish residents and are both represented by Jewish Democrats. For the most part, areas with lots of seniors went for McCain in 2008 and will likely vote Republican in 2010 in even greater numbers, with the exception of the 19th and 22nd districts due to their large Jewish populations. So there is a difference to be made between the voters of FL-19 and the elderly voters in other districts and states.

I would consider Jews to definitely be a part of the Obama coalition. They voted 78% Obama-19% McCain, improving on Kerry's 74% share actually. Minus the support of Jewish voters, it would have been considerably more difficult to win in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, just to name a few states.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 23:43:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easier to read table

FL-05 (R+9):  26% over 64, 56% McCain-43% Obama
FL-09 (R+6):  20% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-10 (R+1):  23% over 64, 52% Obama-47% McCain
FL-13 (R+6):  29% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-14 (R+11): 27% over 64, 57% McCain-42% Obama
FL-15 (R+6):  20% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-16 (R+5):  25% over 64, 52% McCain-47% Obama
FL-19 (D+15): 30% over 64, 65% Obama-34% McCain
FL-22 (D+1):  21% over 64, 52% Obama-48% McCain  

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 23:47:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm...let me try to explain this a different way.

One of the fundamental laws of politics is that when a candidate does better than his/her predecessor, almost everybody is more supportive of that candidate - not just particular groups.

For instance, when Obama did ~10 points better than Kerry, almost everybody voted more Democratic (with the well-noted exception of parts along the Mississippi delta). Didn't matter if they were Republicans, evangelicals, southerners, Jews, blacks, whatever. They almost all voted more Democratic.

Now frankly I really could care less whether the district we're looking at has a PVI of +50 Democratic or +99 Republican, whether its FL-19 or FL-05 or CA-47, or whether its populated by Jews or Haitans or little green men from Mars.

What matters is the shift. Because of that useful property in a which a shift in support affects almost every group, we can then draw conclusions from it.

So therefore right now we can judge the national mood by comparing results to Obama's performance. What we find, of course, is that there's a uniform shift Republican.

This election is good news for Democrats because the shift is far less than in previous elections. It hints that the public mood is less hostile to Democrats. If it were more hostile, Lynch might have gotten 45% instead of 35%. This is especially useful in local congressional elections, where half the people have no idea who in the world the candidates are and thus vote based off the (D) or (R) next to their name.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:02:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is there any reason to assume

there has been as much of a shift toward the Republicans in every demographic group? I would suggest not. For example, is the percentage of shift to the Republicans among blacks (if any) the same as among whites? How about among Jews vs. Catholics, for example? I don't know the answers to any of these, but I do know that assuming is not wise.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:38:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Doubt It's Linear

I would think that some groups have moved away from Obama/Democrats more than others.

A lot of this is just conservatives and people who lean that way returning to their natural home in the Republican party in the face of Democratic rule.    

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 13:20:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think this is important

But also we have to remember that HCR is meant to be some sort of silver bullet for the GOP with seniors. Obviously we would expect Jewish seniors to swing less strongly but, again, not all seniors in FL-19 are Jews, not by a long shot.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:09:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

Of the 19th district's residents, 29.7% are over age 64 and 42.7% are Jewish. So imagining that of the Jews living in the district, 60% of them are seniors, that would mean that 25.6% of district residents are Jewish seniors. Of seniors in the district, 83.7% are Jewish. So the vast majority of seniors in the district are Jewish, which gives the district its Democratic character compared to the other senior-heavy districts in Florida that are more Republican.

A big part of Deutch's victory boils down not just to the fact that he had a D next to his name, but that he has a Jewish name. In what is, at 43%, by far the most Jewish congressional district in the country, many people probably voted not for generic Democrat as Inoljit proposed but for generic Jew. If it was Ted Deutch vs. Ed Leventhal and the Jewish factor was canceled out that would have been a more telling result about the national mood in my opinion.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 21:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough

But that still doesn't explain the lack of a crash with seniors whatever their religion. I agree it can't really be extrapolated to other districts fully but I still think its encouraging that there is a clear lack of a knee-jerk reaction to medicare cuts for example.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 22:48:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jews are definitely part of the Democratic coalition

n/t

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:50:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed

This is unquestionably so.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 02:24:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Definitely

Like I said above, without the support of Jewish voters, we would have had much more difficulty winning Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in 2008, just to name a few. Considering that 78% of Jews voted for Obama, they are as much a part of the coalition as any group. Also, Jews are very politically involved and have high voter turnout, which is part of why there are much higher percentages of Jews in Congress than in the general population, as well as possibly another factor in Ted Deutch's comfy win last week.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 02:45:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

With respect to Jews

In my opinion they're part of the Democratic coalition, but not the Obama coalition.

There's a fine difference between the two. A group may vote strongly Democratic but still not belong to Obama's unique coalition. Think of Massachusetts, where Obama did worse than Gore and Clinton - but which still voted strongly Democratic.

As for why I think Jews aren't part of Obama's coalition of minorities and youth - try google searching "Obama's Jewish problem" and you'll get what I mean.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:16:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now to be fair

Massachusetts is also John Kerry's home state, so the comparison isn't exactly fair.

Still I get the overall point you're making, and I tend to agree with it.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:20:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah

I think there is something in this too. Not massive but significant. Again, it isn't like Jews don't need health care or something.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:13:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jews are definitely in the Obama coalition

And I can tell you that as a Jewish person myself. There was and continues to be a tremendous amount of admiration and pride in Obama's campaign and presidency. Many Jews have even referred to Obama as the "first Jewish President", here is a nice story about that from Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/s...

Many Jews that I know personally volunteered for the Obama campaign and had a sense of enthusiasm about the campaign that was very passionate and intense. A number of Jews supported Obama during the primary as well, including Robert Wexler, the former FL-19 congressman.

In terms of "Obama's Jewish problem", I always found it ironic and perplexing that nearly all of the people claiming insight on this "problem" were not Jewish. The hypothesis of Obama having a Jewish problem is also based on an assumption that Jewish voters make their decisions based mainly on Israel issues, which is just not true. Social issues such as Social Security, abortion, and healthcare are just as important, if not more so, than Israel, to many Jewish voters.

But whether Obama had a "Jewish problem" or not was answered on Election Day when Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote. Many commentators ad predicted that McCain might even break 30%, but this was not to be. Any perceived problems in the media that Obama had with Jews petered out and did not really impact his actual electoral performance when it came down to it. And Jews helped provide a decisive presence in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Nevada, to name a few states, so they are defintiely part of the Obama coalition in my opinion for the reasons stated above.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 22:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think generally it was the younger Jews

 During the primaries, I remember reading something that said elderly Jews supported Hillary and younger Jews supported Obama. Also, I did read this article in the New York Times saying alot of older Jews were reluctant to vote for Obama. I even know one who did not like it that he was African American. Once McCain picked Palin she switched to Obama because...let's just say Palin does not appeal to the regular Jewish voter in Palm Beach.

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 23:37:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually

The opposite was true, older Jews were likely to vote for Obama and younger Jews were more likely to vote for McCain, for whatever reason. Both groups were still overwhelmingly Democratic. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/s...

I'm not sure why, although I would suggest that it is based on older Jews having a stronger connection to FDR and the labor movement, as well as to their immigrant parents and grandparents, who were more likely to be Democrats. Meanwhile, younger Jews may feel more motivated on economic issues like taxes and there may be more younger Orthodox Jews, who are more likely to vote Republican and have lots of children.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 00:03:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's interesting

I'm a young Jew (20) and I and pretty much all of my friends supported Obama enthusiastically. Whereas most of the people I knew who normally voted Democratic but defected to McCain were baby boomers.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 00:36:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am also

a young Jew and the same is true for me and just about every younger Jew that I know. I'm not sure, this must have been a weird sample, which the pollster even acknowledged in her poll that it didn't really make sense.  

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 03:25:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is not really a proper mode

Of argumentation:

As for why I think Jews aren't part of Obama's coalition of minorities and youth - try google searching "Obama's Jewish problem" and you'll get what I mean.

You aren't even willing to make the argument yourself - you just want people to see a list of Google results which will mostly reflect the views of delusional PUMAs and bewildered neocons.

Just look at the exit polls. Jews voted 74% for Kerry - and 78% for Obama. You also might want to check your math on those Massachusetts numbers, since you're wrong. Obama did better than Clinton and Gore there, and only did 0.14% worse than Kerry.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:30:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One Caveat

I did get the impression looking at the precinct return maps from New York and Maryland on the redistricting app that Obama was unpopular with Orthodox Jews, as places I knew were Orthodox enclaves in both states went for McCain as neighboring territories (usually also with sizable Jewish populations, but mostly non-Orthodox) generally went very strongly for Obama.

The Rockland County (NY) map is good evidence for this. Some of Orthodox-dominated precincts were giving McCain West Texas-type margins while their neighbors frequently were going 2-1 or more for Obama (and much higher than that if those neighboring districts had large black/Hispanic populations.)  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:44:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gotta find out how the Jewish enclaves in California went.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 15:12:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Jews in California

 Seem a bit more well educated and less religious, although in Los Angeles, there were some neighborhoods in Beverly Hills where Obama won in the high 50's. Many of those district might be Iranian Jews. I am pretty sure there are no big neighborhoods of really conservative Orthodox Jews like in New York. Up in the Bay Area, almost all the Jewish people I know are well educated Liberals and many of them are not too religious.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 22:22:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Orthodox Jews

Make up about 10% of the total Jewish population of the U.S. They are much more Republican than most other Jewish groups, although they still will vote for state/local Democratic candidates (these are usually other Jews however). There are a few reasons for this that I know of. The first is probably the social conservatism that is a part of the Orthodox Jewish religion, so that sets Orthodox Jews apart from many non-Orthodox Jews, who are very socially liberal. Nearly all Jews in America are strong supporters of Israel, but most Jews do not vote solely or mainly on the basis of the Israel issue, rather it is because of social issues. Since Orthodox Jews do not have liberal social views, they do not feel as strong of an urge to support Democrats and instead vote for Republicans, who they see as more pro-Israel than Democrats for reasons that I don't fully understand. Most Jews do not base their votes on Israel issues or consider the Democratic Party hostile to Israel, but this is the case for the Orthodox. Orthodox Jews will still vote for Democratic state or local candidates where the Israel issue is not relevant, but this is not always true.

The other really important issue to them is school vouchers, which Democrats generally oppose and Republicans generally support. Orthodox Jews do not typically put their children in the public schools, but instead send them to private Jewish day schools or yeshivas, which can be quite expensive as Orthodox Jews often have many children. So school vouchers are a big issue for them as it can make a huge difference for them financially. Thus, they often support Republicans who push for school vouchers.

The irony in the Republican leanings of many Orthodox Jews lies in the fact that a good number of them are very poor and rely on substantial federal assistance. This is in part because in many cases Orthodox men are rabbis who often study Talmud during the day and do not have a steady flow of income, and also because of the fact that Orthodox Jews have many children, which is quite expensive. Yet they often vote against a party that supports expanding social programs that would help them in meaningful ways and instead vote for Republicans who want to do the opposite.

These observations are by no means true for the entire Orthodox community, and very few non-Orthodox Jews vote Republican or have political philosophies like I described. But they are generally a pretty Republican group for the reasons I described above.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:51:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You left out LA-02

That trend would show the Dems are really in trouble.
Of course you also left out NY-23, where Owens did better than Obama.
And many of those races you listed are nothing like "generic Democrat vs generic Republican". An unpopular incumbent governor (NJ) is hardly a generic Democrat. In VA Tim Kaine could have won reelection if not for term limits, and in MA Capuano would have mopped the floor with Brown.
I certainly hope the Democrats won't be happy just to "retain control of the House". They barely have control of the House as it is. If the Dems end up with a 5-seat majority in the House then it will be so disfunctional, nothing will get done, and the Dems will take the blame because they still nominally are in control.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:33:08 AM UTC

Yeah, at first I was thinking of listing every race since Nov. 2008

But I was worried about forgetting one or two, like that Louisiana run-off. And things like the Georgia special election were problematic. Like: should I include NY-20, given its special circumstances? Or LA-02?

So in the end I just did the last five I remember, to keep things simple.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:13:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't Silver do some analysis

that we could lose up to like 20-some seats and the liberal nature of the House would not be affected. But after that point we start seeing a decline in how liberal the legislation can get.  

---

by: sulthernao @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:28:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That depends on the kind of seats lost

If we drop seats like ID-1, AL-2, TN-8, and MS-1, that's no big deal.  Bobby Bright and Walt Minnick barely ever vote with the democratic leadership anyway.  Even seats like PA-4, NM-2, AZ-1, CO-4, those wouldn't be horrible losses because people like Jason Altmire, Harry Teague, and Betsy Markey often defect depending on the issue.

On the other hand, if we're losing seats with D-leaning PVIs, we're in big trouble.  Looking at my current toss-up column, seats like OH-15, NV-3, PA-11, IA-3, these are the seats in which we have strong, down the line, liberal voices like Leonard Boswell, Dina Titus, and Mary Kilroy.  These are the types of seats that we really, really need to hold on to in November.  If we're losing conservadems in the south and elsewhere, fine.  It's those swing districts in the northeast, midwest, and west that Team Blue absolutely needs to throw every last resource into saving.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 14:28:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree

Democrats will lose a lot of seats in November. If, as i think now, they will lose 25-30 seats, numerically the situation will almost return to 2007, when Democrats had about 225-230 seats in House. In SUCH situation Democrats will obviously need every possible seat in House - including "conservatives" as conservative they could be - even such seats as Minnick's and Bright's. The only thing that's clear for me - Democrats will not have "luxury" to choose: "we don't want him, he is not real Democrat, he defects sometimes (or even often)" - they will need every single seat they can win.. Blue Dog or no Blue Dog - that will be of almost no importance.

---

by: smoltchanov @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:23:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm with you

Conservative Democrats are not my favorite Democrat, but they still are Democrats.  I'll take a Minnick or a Childers who will vote with us 50% of the time versus a Republican who will never vote with us at all.

Of course, I have more patience with Democrats like Minnick, Bright, and Childers who represent conservative districts as opposed to a Barrow who represents a mildy Democratic/swing district.  Some of these conservative Democrats have little wiggle room within their districts to support some portions of the Democratic agenda, while some (i.e. Barrow) could vote more with the party if needed.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:31:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree

though we discussed a Barrow's district (a Democratic in Presidential years, much less so - in non-Presidential or when Black's political activity is low by some reasons) in great details, so - it's not so simple here. But he could be at least somewhat more liberal..

---

by: smoltchanov @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:39:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure there's a distinction

there worth a whole lot of trouble.  It seems we will lose a large chunk of the remaining conservative Democrat-held seats and power no matter what we do.

It's clearest at the governor level, fairly so on the U.S. House level, somewhat so at the U.S. Senate level (i.e. Arkansas, North Dakota).  I'm having trouble coming to a view about the remaining D majority state legislatures in the key region (the Deep South) but at very least in the Texas state House it seems there will be a trimming of conservative Democrats.  

I like looking at it with a geographical eye.  And it seems to me the stronghold of conservative Democrats is contracting severely from safety in many patches south of a line from Colorado Springs through Kansas and southern Kentucky to North Carolina to a fuzzy zone made up of big chunks of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama this election and the year or two following.  How long that remnant will last I don't know.  Could be that Republicans formally complete their takeover of the Louisiana state legislature in November 2011, get complete majority in the state Senates of Mississippi and Alabama, etc.

I'm not sure it can be prevented given the many open seats and the very perceptible fading of the tacit political rationale (minimizing racial violence) and shrinking voter base of elected conservative Democrats (8-9% of self-identifying Democrats at present, in 1% decline per year since the early 1990s).  Conservative Democrats hold seats in substantial excess to their constituency, even gaining many in 2006 and 2008 despite their continuing decline as a partisan demographic.  Losing a third or half of the seats they hold is probably appropriate given that their base has shrunken by a third since 2005/06.

Democrats are hopefully going to make up for the losses in the South somewhat with gains in the Orange County/Maricopa County/Clark County triangle in the Southwest.  The old style Republicans who represent the racial economic exploitation system there are likewise looking at slow but fairly inevitable attrition.

---

by: Baystater @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 19:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree on almost every point

beginning with percentage of Democrats labeling themselves a "conservative" (according to Gallup research of last year - about 18% of white Democrats still call themselves a "conservatives" whith about 42% calling themselves "moderates" and 39% - liberals) and to their "overrepresentation" in House (that "overrepresentation" is, mostly,  at the expense of ultraconservative Republicans, whose seats were won in 2006 and 2008 by these "conservative Democrats"). And so on, and so on. But i don't have time to write detailed comments right now. I will repeat one thing only: after November and rather heavy expected losses Democrats will need every single vote "Blue Dog" or not "blue Dog". The remaining "conservative Democrats" will become even more important to party leadership even if they will lose in number - becausre Democratic majorityin House will be very tenuous itself.

---

by: smoltchanov @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:14:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good answer

Speaking for NC alone, I know there are many conservative Democrats, especially in areas where our Blue Dog reps represent (Specifically NC-11, NC-7).  Other areas like NC-8 and NC-2 have a lot of conservative Democrats.  These Democrats are socially conservative and are economic populists.  

If you look at the current Blue Dog Coalition, you will see many of the reps are actually representing districts that have numerous conservative districts.  There are, of course, exceptions, but overall it's quite true.

Also, you have a lot of conservatives registered as Democrats because 40 years ago, when they registered, their state was basically a one party state.  NC didn't really have much of a Republican party until 1972, with the election of Helms and Holshouser.  Even then, for every 1 registered Republican, you would find 3 registered Democrats.  Many of these Democrats kept their party affiliation.  Over time, many of these conservatives left the party, but many stayed but voted for most Republican candidates.  Luckily for my state, we've had a significant influx of voters from outside move into our state.

Many NC Democrats identify themselves as a conservative.  This group will vote for Democratic governors but will vote Republican in Presidential and Senate elections.  It's an interesting dynamic.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 14:25:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks!

I agree with almost all your conclusions. There was a lot of  interesting information (and even some new...) to me in your post. There is some irony that in 1972 Republicans ran 2 very different candidates for 2 highest positions: segregationist Democrat (until recently) Helms and very moderate (by southern standards) Holshouser. And both won...

---

by: smoltchanov @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 15:07:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Holshouser is a good man

I got to know Governor Holshouser about 10 years ago.  His mother-in-law lived on the same hall as my grandparents at an assisted living home in Southern Pines.  One time my grandfather, who was a die-hard Democrat, told Governor Holshouser in my presence that he remembered the 1972 Governor's race vividly.  My Granddad told Governor Holshouser "I proudly casted my vote for Skipper Bowles, and I have no regrets".  I was taken aback, because I thought that would spur up some animosity.  Governor Holshouser looked at my grandfather, smiled, and said "well, you voted for a good man.  Skipper Bowles was a friend of mine, and I can promise you he would have been a great governor".

I talked to Governor Holshouser about various political beliefs, and I honestly thought he would be better aligned as a Democrat than as a Republican.  He has a lot of Gerald Ford in him.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 19:30:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In 2008

I did some volunteer work going door-to-door for Kay Hagan. A lot of the people on my list were older white women and nearly all of them were somewhat hostile to the Hagan campaign. It turned out that they were all registered Democrats, but they had all registered 30 or 40 years ago, so they had likely left the party long ago but never formally switched registration for whatever reason.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 21:49:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A lot of it is from pride

I have a neighbor who is 86 years old who is a Fox News loyalist and a registered Democrat.  He always votes for Republicans that will go to DC.  However, he stays with the Democratic party so he can vote AGAINST certain Democratic candidates in the NC primary.  Although he could be unaffiliated and still vote in the NC Democratic Primary, his pride won't allow him to make the change.  Also, he's just old and doesn't have the energy to make the change.  I think that is a common theme within a lot of areas throughout the US.

As far as the older white women in NC, I could definitely see that.  Liddy Dole is from their generation, while Kay is much younger.  Liddy Dole is a known quantity, while Kay Hagan had to fight the "liberal" smear tactics that are thrown out all over the airwaves.  Truth be told, Kay is quite moderate, but maybe considered a liberal in NC.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 16:20:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I generally agree w/ your point but there are many

"loyal" Appalachian/Southern Dems that are in danger or out the door. Bart Gordon and Snyder were 2 that were quite loyal votes that are now gone and not coming back. Mollohan is endangered and Boucher could be in for trouble if a wave builds. Again I think that Dems should be especially worried if they start losing Northeastern and Western seats, I would just add there are also a few seats that vote against their PVIs were I would be worried if I were a Democrat.  

---

by: Jfindl1 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:45:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course, if Democrats start losing NorthEastern and Western seats

(and they undobtely will lose some) that will be more alarming then loss of, say, TN-07 or LA-03. And, may be,  greater "warning signs" of coming "wave". But all seats are equal when simple (but important) procedural issues are considered...

The greatest problem for Democrats i see now - loss of a lot of Independents. There are some apathy among the "base" - yes, very energized Republicans, who, essentially, have nothing to lose - yes, but the greatest peril - a very larhe chunk of Independents (in most cases - moderates, though that varies from state to state), who voted heavily and actively for Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008 now turned against party or, at least are very disappointed.

---

by: smoltchanov @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:58:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NY-23

Didn't Obama win it by 5 and Owens by 2 or are my figures wrong?

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:05:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know Owens won by 2%

I know that Obama won NY-23, but I'm not sure by how much.  5% sounds about right.

The big shocker with Owens is that some areas within this district has been represented by a Republican since pre-Civil War days.  Like about all races recently, there were some mitigating circumstances with this election, most notably the split of GOP support between Scozzafava and Hoffman, and Scozzafava eventually endorsing Owens.  However, this race may be a microcosm for other select races this year.  A mainstream, establishment Republican (whatever the hell that is today) and a Teabagger enthusiast may create similar general election results in 2010.  There maybe only a few of these races that will tilt towards the Dems as a result, but any amount will help our cause.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:24:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A litte bit of...

...history repeating.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 15:38:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The presidential and congressional margins

...are kind of apples and oranges.

Using that methodology, we can take two special elections from early 2004: Ben Chandler in KY-06 and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in SD, and it would imply the following:

Chandler won his special election by 13% in a district Gore lost by 14%, this implies a swing of 27% towards the Democrats.

Similarly, Herseth Sandlin won her special election by 3% in a district Gore lost by 22%, implying a swing of 25% towards the Democrats.

Needless to say, this didn't happen. While it is encouraging that elderly white voters in FL-19 didn't abandon us, I don't know how much it says about the nation. Maybe this is telling for elderly white voters in FL-20 and FL-22, but it's hard to say how much this would translate to unlike districts, let alone the nation as a whole.

---

by: jeffmd @ Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 18:27:45 PM UTC