Google Ads


Site Stats

AZ-08: Giffords Wins

by: James L.

Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 8:32 PM EDT


Another brick in the wall: Local media have been declaring Dem Rep. Gabrielle Giffords the victor over Republican Jesse Kelly tonight, and the Associated Press just made the call in her favor. A good save for Team Blue.
James L. :: AZ-08: Giffords Wins
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

AZ-08: Giffords Wins | 114 comments
Woo Woo
Maybe she has statewide potential some day.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
KO sure picked the right house races to donate to
Giving to Conway was a lost cause.
Giffords v. Kyl???
Could she win.

Also, am I nuts or do we have some legit pickup opporunities in the Senate in '10

1.Mass- any dem whose last name isn't Coakley has a fighting chance. It was not a good night for the GOP in MA on Tuesday. 0/10 in the House and Deval Patrick wins.

2.Nevada- Berkley could win. Will the GOP nominee be Ensign? Angle? Heller?

3.Maine- If Snowe retires/ is teabagged in the primary we could win.  Maybe Tom Allen or Congressman Michaud.

4.Indiana-If Lugar retires we could have a shot with Hill/ Donnelly or even Brad Ellsworth.  Especially if the GOP nominates someone like Marlin Stutzman.

5.Arizona-Gabby Giffords or Terry Goddard could be strong candidates.

If we could win MA + just one more it would go a long way towards holding the Senate.

No, you're not nuts.
The first two I'd give us moderate to good odds with.  The rest of them are more speculative at this stage, though I'd be skeptical of beating Kyl.

Though let us all hope that Snowe gets teabagged.

Frankly, it might make more sense for Giffords to wait for Johnny Mac to call it quits; she's got time.

[ Parent ]
I think snowe would retire
or go indie.  remember though, maine republicans now control Blaine House and both chambers of the legislature.  they could easily overreach and hurt the image of the tea party, republicans or both.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Snowe retiring is more likely than a DiFi retirement.
Snowe suffers from debilitating back problems, making campaigning and travel difficult.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Kyl
Obama needs to contest AZ in 2012. Not only is it winnable, but strong Hispanic turnout by OFA's ground game would be really bad for downballot Republicans.

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/
[ Parent ]
Absolutely.
McCain only won his home state by nine percent in 2008. Granted, there was some late advertising in the state during October, and there probably were some small scale efforts at voter registration and get out the vote efforts, but there wasn't anything nearly as big as the effort in, say, Colorado. Even Kerry only lost the state by about 10.5 points. I get why, but unless there was a bigger push to win the state than I realize, the margin for a Republican victory is shrinking naturally, it seems.

I still think they should make a play for Texas in 2012, but Arizona makes even more sense. If nothing else, registering voters then would be a good move for future races even if they don't win it that time. But as you said, it could also hurt downballot Republicans. Perhaps we could flip a few House seats and maybe even the Senate seat.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Trends are good for Dems in the west
I suspect AZ will be truly "swing" by 2016, with Texas following suit by 2020.
[ Parent ]
Georgia too
Obama only lost by 5 points despite abandoning it over the summer. If he stays there in full force in 2012 he could win, and possibly save Barrow and Bishop depending on what happens to them in redistricting.

As for AZ, you're right, a Rasmussen poll showed it winnable for Obama (oh the irony) in late October, so Obama made a last-minute push there. With no McCain on the ballot, a consistent effort in AZ, and a large Hispanic vote that a good ground game should be able to tap into, AZ is winnable on paper unless 2012 is also a Republican year.

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/

[ Parent ]
Depending on
the circumstances in 2012, I want them to make a push for, at minimum, all of the states Obama won in 2008, including Virginia, North Carolina, and yes, Indiana. But I'd also like them to try for any state that they lost by less than 10 points. That list includes Missouri, North and South Dakota, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, and Texas. Texas in particular hasn't really been competitive in decades and has millions of voters who aren't targeted and even more who aren't registered. If the Republicans have to devote resources to Texas, it'll probably kill them.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Barrow and Bishop's districts were created by GOPers
so you may not be able to do much to change them as is.
[ Parent ]
Well, now that Marshall is gone they can feel free to tweek that seat.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Too soon for Arizona and Texas......
White voters in Arizona are decidedly more conservative than white voters in Nevada and Colorado.  And New Mexico has a much larger Hispanic vote share than Arizona to offset white voters' conservatism, although in NM, too, white voters as a whole aren't as conservative as white Arizonans.

And Texas, well, forget it.  White Texans are Deep South conservatives, they won't vote for a Democrat for President.  Texas' electorate will have to be majority-minority before Democrats can win there, which eventually will happen, but it's still several cycles away.  The state's population already is majority-minority, but the electorate is NOT.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Another thing about New Mexico that makes it much harder for national Republicans
NM Latinos are more likely to have lived in the United States for many generations than other places, and because of that, Latino turnout in New Mexico is usually a lot closer to census than most places (and they are a Democratic group, look at the New Mexico county results for 2004 and 2010, Martinez's victory was premised on doing roughly as well as a Republican should do in given counties, I think a lot of people made some very faulty assumptions about her doing really well among Hispanics in New Mexico, especially given that there have been plenty of Hispanic statewide officials to choose from).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
That doesn't
make any sense. Obama kept both of those states relatively close without devoting that many resources to either of them. (It's unclear to me what sort of activities were going on at the ground level, but there certainly wasn't the same investment in those states as in Colorado, for instance.)

Arizona was McCain's home state, and he couldn't even break out a double digit win? It's ripe for investment to register new voters, or simply convince the ones who aren't being targeted. If nothing else, the presidential campaign investing and registering voters would help regain some congressional seats.

And while Texas is certainly a longer shot, in some ways, it's a better opportunity. It has about 18.8 million potential voters, but only around 13 million of them are actually registered. Surely all of them aren't potential Democrats, but is it that insane to think that there are more potential Democrats because those who aren't registered are likely young and/or a minority group member? Remember that Democrats haven't contested this state in a long, long time, so we haven't been talking to voters like Republicans have, and there simply wasn't nearly as much of a reason for a potential Democrat to register as there was for a potential Republican.

Sure, the Republicans have a leg up because there are a lot of white conservatives in this state, and in Arizona, but those aren't really the people the Democrats will win. They will win over the people that voted for John Kerry and then those that also voted for Obama the first time, in addition to others. Bush and McCain both received about the same amount of votes as each other, but Obama received about 700,000 more votes than Kerry in the state. He lost by about a 1,000,000 votes. That's a lot, but not that much.

Let's assume he'd need a lot more than that to make up for whatever Republican votes would be added to that candidate's side, for whatever reason. For a rough figure, think of 1,800,000 votes. Starting in January of that year, running up until the likely voter registration deadline of October, or nine months, you'd need to register an average of 200,000 a month. Sounds impossible? Get 10,000 people to work on registering voters, and they simply need to register an average of 20 voters per month, or one per day for a five day week. Does it still sound impossible?

And that's only if you figure that every single one of those votes he'd get would be new voters that he'd get to the polls. Surely he'd change some minds in the process of campaigning in the state.

Also figure that this sort of incredibly offensive strategy would be good for tapping donors in the state and around the country, would contribute to the congressional race efforts there, and would make a lot of Democrats around the country feel enthusiastic. That's no small thing, and in that case, the investment in Texas, as well as any other state, would really be like getting two things for the price of one.

I could go on, but you get the idea.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Dude, you're completely wrong on this
If you look at the exit poll, McCain's share of the white vote alone was more than Obama's total share of the vote (assuming, of course, that the exit poll is correct, and I see no reason to assume it isn't in this case).

In fact, I made a spreadsheet with the following assumptions:

In 2012, there will be roughly 9 million total votes cast for president. Of those votes, the electorate will be as follows:

58% white (down from 63% in 2008)
13% black (same as 2008)
25% Hispanic (up from 20% in 2008)
4% Asian or other (same as 2008)

I also made these assumptions about support:

White vote remains constant (Obama 26%, Republican 73%)
Black vote remains constant (Obama 98%, Republican 2%)
Hispanic vote becomes more Democratic (Obama 68% (from 63%) Republican 30% (from 35%))
Other vote assumed Obama 60% Republican 40%

Under these circumstances (which are actually pretty optimistic for Obama), Obama still loses by about 5% (47%-52%). And remember, this assumes that white turnout is under 60% and that Obama's position among Hispanics in Texas will necessarily improve by 10 points, neither one is a given. Texas will eventually become a state we can compete in, but that's still more than one presidential election away.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
Okay,
let me ask you this: do your assumptions include Obama campaigning in the state? If they do, then fine, but if they don't, you'd be nuts not to suggest that they (meaning Obama and the party as a whole) campaign in the state. If you are assuming that there isn't really much of a campaign in the state, and voters aren't being targeted like they are in Ohio and Florida, then Obama is within five points merely by being on the ballot. I almost have to think you are assuming that Obama is campaigning in the state. Do you think the Republicans would pass up an opportunity to grab California if they were within ten points merely by being on the ballot?

Also, you assume that the voting pool automatically goes up by one million votes. I could see that happening, if only because the state is growing. But imagine if Obama campaigned in the state and started targeting the sort of voter who might be open to voting for a Democrat. Unless he's so unpopular that he's probably down by 10 in Ohio, he's going to change the minds of a few people.

Or imagine if he registers a lot of new voters, so that there might be one million more voters who show up--on top of those who might show up anyway, because the state is growing--because the Obama campaign brought them into the voting pool. Getting that many voters would take a lot of time and money, but with enough people working, it seems doable. Question the underlying assumptions regarding how easy this would be, but like I said above, having 10,000 people register 20 voters a month each for nine-months would give you 1.8 million new voters. Just think of how that would effect the chances for the Democrats to the state's Electoral votes, let alone take House seats and the Senate seat.

Like I said, this would require a lot of time and money. But why not try it? Why not show the Democratic base that they are on offense and not on defense? Why not give them a reason to dump extra money into the Democratic coffers? Why not make them feel like showing up to vote would make even more of a difference this year?

You can always stop this sort of process if it's clearly not working, but there are millions of voters who are waiting to be registered in a big state with a lot of Electoral votes that also happens to have some potentially competitive House races and a potentially competitive Senate seat? Why not see if they are open to our message a little sooner than some say they will be?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I'm assuming extremely favorable turnout conditions for Obama
Let me put it this way, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are currently about 15.2 million eligible voters in Texas with about 3.8 million eligible Hispanic voters (or about 25% of the population). Assuming that there will be roughly 9,000,000 voters come 2012 (which is about 1,000,000 more than what turned out in 2008) (or about 60% of the eligible voting population) Hispanic turnout would have to be at least at 60% of their eligible vote (for perspective, the black vote in Texas was at 58% of their eligible numbers and the white vote was at 57%.

Of the eligible voting population (not registered voting population), Hispanics are at about 25%, Blacks at 12%, and Whites at 59%, with everyone else at roughly 4%. Even with a massive registration drive, you're never going to get to an electorate in 2012 that's going to be favorable enough for the Democrats to contest it.

And regarding California, yes, the Republicans would pass up said opportunity unless they were within 5 points because it is ridiculously expensive to compete in California (just like Texas) and they, like us with Texas, do not need the state to win the election. Targeting voters only gets you so far, especially when the demographics are still completely unfavorable to you.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
And 1.8 million voters aren't going to be nonwhite
And they aren't going to be uniformly Democratic (or even close to it).

If we assume that most newly registered voters are relatively young (let's say, for arguments sake 100% are under the age of 35) and that they are largely nonwhite (say 40% Hispanic and 15% black), the best you can get from "adding 1.8 million voters" (which is a ridiculously high number) would be like this:

Black voters: 100/0 (D/R)
Hispanic voters: 70/30 (D/R)
White voters: 30/70 (D/R)

Or, you've got a newly registered group that is roughly 1 million Democratic and 800,000 Republican (a net gain of roughly 200,000 voters for the Democrats, which falls far short of the roughly 950,000 deficit the Democrats would need to make up for it).

I stand by what I said, I would never advise a Democratic presidential campaign to spend money in Texas unless they had good polling showing them within 5% points (because it's expensive to even dabble in the state, and your assumptions are completely unrealistic).

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
I was wrong
in thinking there were that many black voters in Texas that weren't registered. There are still a lot, but not as many as I once thought. Along the same lines, I underestimated how important the white vote was.

But let's explore your projections just a little more. Let's assume that the racial composition is the same as you described. However, instead of assuming that Obama only gets 26 percent of the white vote, look at what happened in Virginia and North Carolina. In 2004, in Virginia and North Carolina, Kerry received 32 percent and 27 percent, but in 2008, Obama received 39 percent and 35 percent. Let's say Obama gets 30 of the white vote in Texas.

Let's say, as you did, that roughly nine million votes are cast and that any third party candidates have little to no effect. If 58 of the population (5,220,000 voters) is white, and Obama gets 30 percent of that pool, he'll get 1,566,000 votes. That's 208,800 more votes than if he got 26 percent (1,357,200 votes). If the Hispanic vote is 25 percent (2,250,000), and Obama gets 68 percent, he'll get 1,530,000 votes. If the black population is 13 percent (1,170,000) and Obama gets 98 percent, he'll get 1,146,600 votes. And if he gets 60 of the remaining four percent (360,000) of the vote, he'll get 216,000 votes.

All of this means that he'll get 4,458,000 votes compared to the Republican's 4,542,000 votes. That's about 49.53 percent compared to the Republican's 50.47. He'd still lose, but by a very small margin.

Now let's go back and change a few things. Instead of assuming that blacks make up 13 percent of the voter pool, still at nine million, they make up 15 percent (1,350,000 voters) and Obama still gets 98 percent of that vote. That means that he'll get 1,323,000 black votes. Let's say that the "other" population shrinks by one point and that the white vote shrinks by one more point, but that Obama still gets the same percentages of each type of vote that I used in my example above. That means he'll get 1,539,000 white votes and 162,000 "other" votes. The Hispanic vote stays the same.

So, now his total is 4,554,000, compared to the Republican's 4,446,000, or 50.6 to 49.4 percent. He then wins the state and its 38 Electoral votes.

You can question the numbers I used, but I don't think I've presented anything that is absurdly out of bounds.

Can he get these new votes? I think so. The link I provide below (it's big; go down to 535 to see statistics Texas) says that there are about 1.84 million eligible black voters in Texas, but only 1.356 million of them are registered. That's pretty high, actually, but that's still about 484,000 black voters are unregistered. They certainly won't register all of them, but why not 200,000? They already turned out at a very high rate without, as far as I know, an official campaign on behalf of the Democrats to get them to turn out.

Maybe he can't get a higher percentage of the white vote or register new black voters, but we'll never know unless he tries. You said the state will be competitive one day, but I think that day is closer than you think--if he works for it.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www... (Go to Table 4b.)

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Some responses
The exit poll from 2004 for North Carolina is wrong, period. The CNN poll shows blacks making up 26%, according to the North Carolina Board of Elections that number was only 19% (a 7 point difference). That turnout difference means that Kerry must have done better among white voters in North Carolina than the exit polls suggested (Kerry almost certainly broke 30% among white voters there, which basically means that Obama improved less than his national average).

On the other hand, in both Virginia and North Carolina, there is a larger persuadable white vote (DC suburbs and Raleigh-Durham) relative to the rest of the state than Texas (Austin). Most of the white vote in Texas is more comparable to the deep south than in Virginia and North Carolina. And btw, for Virginia, Obama doing roughly 7 points better than Kerry among white voters is about where he should be given that Obama did 5 points better than Kerry did (and again, the growth of the DC suburbs more than explains that one).

You're also missing that Texas was George Bush's home-state, Obama should have already done better than Kerry among the white vote based on that fact alone, but he didn't (Obama's improvement came entirely from nonwhite voters) and to be honest, that probably masks the fact that Obama probably did better among whites from, say, Austin while doing worse among whites from the rest of the state. More to the point, Obama outperformed (by a lot) compared to Kerry among white voters in other states that he didn't ever campaign in (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming) while similarly not outperforming among whites in states that he did compete in (most notably Georgia, where Obama campaigned and Kerry didn't). You just assume that there's enough of a persuadable white vote in Texas without actually explaining why, and remember, a Democratic candidate who should have been a perfect fit for Texas (Bill White) still only got 29% of the white vote (even if the 2010 election was poison, it's really hard to make the case that Obama is really going to outperform the former mayor of Houston among white voters).

And as I've said, that turnout model I gave is really favorable to the Democrats and assumes that Obama's share among Hispanics is necessarily going to rise (a net of +10 for Obama's margin among Hispanics) but if the Hispanic vote is slightly less than that (23% instead of 25%) and the white vote is at 60% (from 58%) and that's the ballgame.

You're making turnout assumptions that are unrealistic, even in very good circumstances for the Democrats. This is the biggest problem I have with what you're saying, you're scenario is absolutely pie in the sky, and just assumes that campaigning alone is going to deliver Texas to the Democrats, but to get there you'd have to have lightning strike not once, not twice, not three times, but four times and even then it's not a given that Texas is totally winnable.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
I don't know
much of anything about the state, so maybe I am being completely unrealistic in some of my assumptions. Then again, Democrats haven't made a serious effort to campaign in the state since at least Carter's time, unless Clinton or Dukakis made an effort I am not aware of. We don't know how any sort of voters would respond to Obama campaigning there.

A few things, in no particular order:

1. Where did you find out that blacks made up only 19 percent of the vote in North Carolina in 2004? I am trying to find it, but I can't.

2. Again, I don't know if there is a persuadable vote in Texas, but I am going to assume there is. Why? Because there's always a small percentage of the population that is open to having their minds changed, and Obama wouldn't have to change that many minds. But if there's not, we won't know until we try.

3. If there aren't that many current voters who are persuadable, find new ones to add to whatever ones you can persuade. Again, I don't know if it's possible to find people who will vote for Obama, but there are a lot of unregistered voters in the state. And there will be even more in a year.

4. Your theory that Obama did better in some parts of the state but worse in others makes sense. But is it true? Let's look at the county exit polls. I can't see any particular trend, although I haven't done any detailed analysis.

5. And you can find the real detailed data for Texas, please pass it along. I hate to think I am relying on data that is as possibly flawed as I fear it could be.

6. By the way, I don't remember Obama ever really campaigning in Georgia. I know some ads ran there, but I don't remember an actual visit after he won the primary.

Anyway, I'll try to find out a little more before I speak about this again, but suffice it to say that I don't think the case is as clear cut against it as you do. I don't see why we need to assume that there aren't any white voters in the state who are willing to hear Obama's arguments. Maybe there aren't, but maybe there are. We both think that it will go blue one day, but disagree on the time. Maybe it can be sped up, but even if it can't happen as quickly as I would like, investing in the state will make it easier to get when demographics finally do give us a natural advantage and could make more House seats and maybe even the Senate seats competitive. If nothing else, that's a good reason to drop some money in the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
North Carolina
It's buried under a lot of data that you have to download, but PPP did a post on it a long time ago (like mid-2008). It's really annoying to find.

In a large state, campaigning is running ads, a state like Texas (or even one the size of Georgia) would require it, which is millions of dollars that could be better spent in North Carolina, Virginia, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, etc.

I think I've made most of my points, and I'll just be beating a dead horse, but I'd like to add that the biggest reason why it makes no sense for Obama to compete in Texas is that he absolutely doesn't need it in order to win, and if he's in a position where losing is a decent possibility (say no better than 60-40 that he wins) it's almost a given that he won't be winning Texas anyways (remember, Obama lost Texas by 11 when he was winning nationwide by 7, even if demographically speaking Texas does better, its natural lean is still substantially more Republican than the rest of the country right now).

That said, if Kay Bailey-Hutchison decides to retire and we get a strong recruit to run for Senate, then the DNC and the DSCC should definitely dump some cash in Texas, I'm absolutely not opposed to that, I'm just saying that it's really weird to assume that a liberal black dude from Chicago with a funny name is really going to be all that successful in persuading white Texans to vote for him.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
I agree
that campaigning in Texas should definitely take a backseat to Virginia, North Carolina, and other states. He certainly doesn't need it to win. I also understand that it's very expensive to advertise in states like that.

But if we are competing there, Republicans will need to do the same. You can create all sorts of back-and-forth situations how this would be good or bad, but they aren't used to spending money in the state. Neither are we, but the pure imagery of moving the needle, even just a little, in our direction would be worth a lot, or so I think. It'd cement the image of the campaign being on the offensive, which would probably help keep enthusiasm on our side up.  

Again, yes, it's expensive. But Obama has a donor list that has at least two million names on it. Imagine if he asks each name to contribute just $10 a month for the specific purpose of registering voters and setting up a ground game. It wouldn't be this easy, but if at least two million of those donors gave $10 a month to turn the state blue, he'd have $20 million just for that state, just for each month by itself. You wouldn't come even close to maxing out the potential of the donor base. And like I said before, while the campaign was trying to work on the state for Obama, they'd be helping Democrats in other races.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Would Berkley
be seen as too liberal for statewide?

I was wondering about Tim Johnson. I don't know if he's running again, or if Herseth-Sandlin is going to run for the seat.

[ Parent ]
I don't think Berkley is THAT liberal, but I don't know much about her.
She's a Las Vegan through and through and is somewhat flamboyant as a consequence.

If Ensign or Angle run for Senate there, she will slaughter them.

I do hope Johnson stays on, considering the bench there is small (and he's not up until 2014).  Stephanie could run for the House again in 2012.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
Sorry
I thought it was 2006. I'd forgotten he hadn't been up until 2008.
[ Parent ]
It's generally understood that Johson's probably going to retire
considering his problems following the stroke.  As for SHS, who knows, but i think she'll wait for 2014.  she has a son (we all heard about his poop on TV, remember?) and might want to spend more time with her family before starting another campaign.  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
I do hope his health improves.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I hear he's doing well
Better than most people may think. We'll see how he is in a couple years but he could very well run again.
[ Parent ]
When I saw him on the
hill this summer he was always in an electric wheelchair. I am not sure why but he looked to be in good spirits.  

TX-13,22,Dem
[ Parent ]
I remember when Dodd announced his retirement
and Tim Johnson being the next down on the Banking committee, will be the next Chairman.  HuffPost did this exaggerated story on him, saying how he's supposedly in Wall St's pocket and would protect lenders over underwater homeowners.  It was so sensationalized, it made me slightly sick.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
My take on those.
If Heller runs and primaries out Ensign (if Ensign hasn't been dragged out of the Senate kicking and screamed by them), he'll be tough to beat, but not impossible.  Also, he's friends with Reid, so Reid might prevent any strong competition for the general, but who knows.

Meehan could run.  He still has a few mill in his federal account after he left the House.

ME: If the tea party has as much sway in the 2012 Sen primary as they did in the 2010 Gov primary, Snowe will be taken out by their small-witted hordes (if the tea party is able to zero in and back a single candidate instead of a multitude).  Michaud would be a great fit, though.  Snowe's best chance for survival is to do what Jeffords did, unless she plans to retire next year (which is quite likely, she has painful health problems).

IN: I like Lugar and hope he runs another term.  If he doesn't or is primaried out (very hard to do, considering he's so loved), it'll be an uphill battle unless the GOP opponent is Hostettler (sp?).

AZ: Too early to say for me.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
Heller
and Ensign are good friends I believe. So Nevada Republicans will have to find a primary challenger somewhere. (Hint: I heard Sharron Angle wants another shot at the senate.)  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I dunno.
The NV GOP will be scrambling to save that seat, even if it means breaking old alliances.  Heller is their most electable Republican right now.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I think Luger going would be easy
A lot of Republican voters might feel that just about any Republican can win in a general election statewide, especially now that the vacuous Coats won. They will probably happily replace Luger if they find a true believer. They can just tell themselves they're doing a favor to the party because he's getting up there anyway.
[ Parent ]
But IN SSPers gush about him.
and understandably so.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
If
Lugar was threatened in a primary and I lived in Indiana, I would register as a Republican to vote for him and then flip my registration back to Independent. (If that's possible in Indiana.) He's probably the best senator on both sides of the aisle when it comes to foreign affairs and nuclear disarmament.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Indiana has no party registration so you could do whatever you want
If Dems had a contested primary between fairly well known candidates that would hurt Lugar in his (hypothetical) primary.  Otherwise, a lot of Dems would likely vote to save him.

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Lugar
You should have seen his scary terrorists-got-a-nuke desperation ad that he ran when he was running for Prez back in 1996!

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22
[ Parent ]
I have a hard time seeing Harry
prioritizing his friendship with Heller over remaining Majority Leader.
[ Parent ]
Easier
than you think....

Reid did little to help either one, sentiment be damned. After all, Rory Reid was running against his father's wishes, and Titus has never been part of Reid's circle in state politics. Reid didn't mention either of them in his victory speech or postelection news conference. His operation maintained a ruthless, single-minded focus on one mission alone: save the leader. It didn't matter whom he had to throw overboard, even his own son.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
I'm not clear
are you implying that that shows he would prioritize Heller over being ML?  Because singlemindedly focussing on his own status suggests the opposite.
[ Parent ]
you are nutz!?! (numerically challenged)
   we have no chance left in '10. 2012 is another story; I like our chances in the first three races you mention. I am skeptical of IN and AZ, though we should certainly try for them.

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28
[ Parent ]
We have a great chance of holding on to the Senate in '10
I think I'll go place a bet on that on intrade.
[ Parent ]
Good idea !!!
LOL

52, male, disgruntled Democrat, CA-28
[ Parent ]
Mass should almost certainly be a pickup for Dems in a presidential year.
Nevada is a tossup/tilt D.  It depends on the candidate.  The GOP is probably going to boot Ensign long before the Dems ever get a chance.

Maine is safe GOP if Snowe is the nominee.  Dems get the edge if she loses a primary.

Indiana - Coloe me skeptical.  McCain ran an inept campaign in 2008.  The only reason Obama barely won the state is because the GOP decided (correctly) they were going to lose the national election anyway if they needed to spend resources on Indiana.  So they didn't bother.  Romney or Bush would never have made that mistake.  So I think Indiana's flirtation with Obama and the left was much more of a fluke than say, Virginia.

Bottom line is that Giffords won't be Kyl in a presidential year.  It's just not going to happen.  '12 is at best for Dems going to be a neutral year.  Even in a bad GOP year like 2006, Pederson never lived up to the hype.  Arizona is trending D - but much more slowly than Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

[ Parent ]
Oops
That should say Giffords won't BEAT Kyl...
[ Parent ]
not the worst letters
or LETTER you could have left off.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
She's
not stupid. Even if there's an open seat, I have a feeling the DCCC while pressure her to remain in the house. But Terry Goddard could run for an open seat here, if he wants.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Rep. Giffords has strong statewide potential
I think it'd be a tough task to take on Sen. Kyl in 2012, but she could win an open seat and if anyone can oust Kyl, it's her.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
But
a home state guy was at the top of the ballot in 2008. Kyl didn't win by that much in 2006 in a race that was, as far as I remember, not really contested. I'm not sure if Giffords if a good nominee (more on that below), but there should be somebody good as our candidate. Arizona is trending Democratic, and while it is still more of a conservative state, albeit an independently conservative one, it's not Kansas or Oklahoma. Besides, an initial investment in the state doesn't have to last if it looks hopeless in the fall of 2012.

As far as Indiana, I am not sure. Sure, McCain never really contested the state, but Obama did, and he made a massive investment in the voter information lists for the state. Those will need to be updated, but it'll be a useful tool for anyone in the state, I'd imagine. I'm not sure if it's worth if it Lugar runs, but if he doesn't, there's no reason not to try, especially if someone like Evan Bayh is the nominee for governor.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Wondering
In two states where there will be less seats, I wonder if an easy solution is for someone to give up their house seat to run for Senate.  In Mass, if one or two house members run at Brown, wouldn't this make things easy so nobody gets stuck being the odd man out?
Also, with OH, can't the GOP do the same thing?  Or would a congressman just not have the statewide name recognition needed in a place like Ohio?  Would Steve Chabot have any chance were he to run?

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22
[ Parent ]
both protman and brown
were house members before becoming senators, strickland before becoming governor, same for kascisc.  I think being a house member will work just fine for running for higher office, if they know what they're doing.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Silver Lining: GOP will have to sacrifice it's own Ohio house members
If they try to go after, say Sutton or Kucinich they might succeed in the short term.  However, they will end up creating like 10 R+1 districts with 2 huge D districts and 4 huge R districts.  Which means in a wave year we end up with 12 D and 4 R in Ohio!

My guess..Jim Jordan runs for the Senate and they screw Bill Johnson.

[ Parent ]
That
would be a roller coaster of epic proportions. Where can I get on?

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
Absolutely . .
the best GOP redistricting plan is to eliminate one Dem NE Ohio district (OH-13?) and disttibute its more Dem-leaning precincts to Kucinich in OH-13 or to Kaptur or to Ryan or to some combination of the above.  

Then eliminate one GOP seat -- either Jordan (if he runs for the Senate) or Tiberi (who has underperformed in OH-12).  

Outside of the district eliminations, I suspect that the GOP will try as hard as possible to shore up not only Chabot in OH-01 but also the newly captured GOP seats in OH-16 and OH-15.  But that will not be easy.  

[ Parent ]
Tiberi has overperformed his district recently
OH-12 has trended Democratic recently and went for President Obama by several points. Tiberi, however, survived 2006 and 2008 with little trouble and beat a good opponent in Paula Brooks by a healthy margin.

If Jordan runs for Senate, it would be wise to combine his district with Latta's or Austria's while also eliminating one Democratic seat. That would give you a 12-4 map with several Republicans in less than safe districts--probably about the best the GOP can do.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
Yeah, Tiberi is kind of like
a mini-Reichert/Gerlach. but I don't think two Republican seats in the Columbus area is sustainable over the entire decade.

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/
[ Parent ]
there are three
OH-7 has some Columbus in it.
[ Parent ]
Barely any
does it go into the city of Columbus at all? Thought it just had Franklin Co. suburbs.

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/
[ Parent ]
Yeah, they are already gerrymandered
to cut up Columbus and include the conservative suburbs in each one.  Sad, really.  Makes me pine for universal nonpartisan districting even more.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Great work
To hold on in this year, of all years. I hope that she can continue to thrive. I don't know whether statewide would work because AZ seems so hostile at the moment, but I guess it depends on whether she thinks she can stay in her district and win, or on the situation in the House climate in 2012.  
Reid v.Angle Part II
Rory v. Sharon.  Who would win if Obama carried Nevada by a similar margin to '08.  A father/son delegation- it'd never happen, but it would be fun to see the father and the son defeat Angle!
If Democrats nominate Rory Reid in 2012 for Senate...
They'd be mentally deficient. The GOP would be even worse for nominating Sharron Angle, the only politician in Nevada not capable of beating Sen. Reid.

I rather expect we'll see either Rep. Berkley or former Atty. Gen. Frankie Sue Del Papa take on Rep. Heller or Danny Tarkanian in the general election.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
NV
I am pretty sure it will be Miller.

29/D/Male/NY-01
[ Parent ]
What about Tarkanian?
Even the PPP folks think he could have beaten Reid.  Republicans should give Ensign the old pink slip and go with Tarkanian.
[ Parent ]
From PPP
Forgive me - I'm not quite sure what the rules are for copy/paste here but here's just a tiny snippet from the PPP website.

It's pretty much a given that the Tea Party cost Republicans the Senate seats in Nevada and Colorado this week. We have some data from our final polls in those states that sheds further light on that.

Our final Nevada poll found Harry Reid behind 47-46. It also found that in a hypothetical match up with Danny Tarkanian Reid would have trailed 54-39. Obviously we underestimated Reid's standing against Sharron Angle but given that he polled 14 points worse against Tarkanian it seems pretty safe to say that even with his 5-6 point victory Tuesday he would have lost by a similar margin had Tarkanian been the nominee instead.

The big difference between how Angle and Tarkanian would have fared against Reid is with independents. We found Angle leading Reid by 14 points with them...but we found Tarkanian up by a whooping 40 point margin, 66-26. There were a lot of independent voters in Nevada who were inclined to vote against Reid but just thought Angle was a step too far.

[ Parent ]
Oh, I HATE those types of things...
Tark probably would have won, sure, but obviously he looks golden after half a year of no one doing any oppo research on him or running any ads against him.

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/
[ Parent ]
Good point
He might have lost, but Reid played his candidacy against Angle's pretty adroitly, so it's not as if he'd just roll over. He'd find some way to make it a race.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
yeah
Tarkanian would have quite a bit thrown at him had he been the nominee.  Angle made it much easier of course, and I do believe Tarkanian was a better candidate, but there's no guarantee he would have won.  He certainly wouldn't have beat Reid by that kind of margin.
[ Parent ]
Ya never know
I think Reid needs to retire next time because simple people do not like him in NV.  If he had a squeaky clean record then attack ads can only do so much.
[ Parent ]
He'll almost certainly retire then
By then, he'll have been the Dem senate leader for 12 years, which would be the third-longest tenure after Mike Mansfield and some other guy whose name I can't remember. By then I'm betting he'll be pretty much burnt out from the job (can't be easy trying to herd cats like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson).

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL
[ Parent ]
Reid coasts during presidential years.
1998 and 2010 were difficult, 2004 was a romp.

Turnout is the problem in Nevada, especially for an uncharismatic candidate, and presidential races manufacture their own turnout.

I've heard this past election described as having given a 12-year term for Reid.  Especially when you consider the growing latino population of Nevada, it's quite possible that by 2016 Reid will have no trouble holding the seat.

Or not.  Six years, I have finally learned, is a lifetime in politics.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
Reid won in '04 not so much because it was a presidential year
His opponenent that year was essentially a sacrificial lamb named Richard Ziser, a guy who is as conservative as Sharron Angle, but did not try to hide it post-primary.  

Fun fact: Richard Ziser was a key member of Sharron Angle's election strategy team this year.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
If he wanted to, sure, 2016 might be easier
But I doubt he'll want to. He only may be a sprightly 70 years old now, but if he runs for reelection in 2016 he's committing himself to stay in the senate until he's 82, which even for a senator is old (currently only Lautenberg, Inouye and Akaka are older). And as I said before, majority leader is an exhausting job and Reid doesn't seem like the Byrd type to hang around after giving that power up.

As for whether 2016 is easier, the electorate would likely be friendlier than this year (though that's uncertain) and the population will be bluer, but he won't have the luck of running against Sharron Angle, which was the central reason for his victory this year.

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

[ Parent ]
I have a feeling...
This will be Reid's last term. And I think he's hoping he can go out with a bang. He certainly got it this year with health care reform and financial regulatory reform. And if President Obama can turn around his political fortunes in 2012, there may be more good things for Reid to work on.

There are already rumors SoS Ross Miller will run to succeed Reid in 2016 if he passes on 2012 Senate and the 2014 Gubernatorial race.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
And leaving the seat open
will be easier for us in 2016 then 2022 when it's an off-year.
[ Parent ]
There's no way to know for sure...
Especially since Team Reid didn't have to spend many millions of $$$$ this year making Baby Tark into Satan Incarnate like they did to Sharrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrron. Again, trust me, this guy has skeletons in his closet. If Baby Tark runs again (and there's quite a good chance he will!), it will all come out in the open (again).

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)
[ Parent ]
I remember hearing that Tark has more baggage than one might think
which is why he got passed up by NV Republicans when Lowden collapsed.

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/
[ Parent ]
so they went to angle?????
as they might say on weekend update: Really?

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Gotta love the Republican Party


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/
[ Parent ]
Three words: Tea Party Express
While Lowden's campaign was coming undone, they ran ads to sway the GOP electorate and it worked.

I actually am friended to a NV Republican on FB who sort of believes that Reid funneled money to the TPX so that they could make the weakest opponent win.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
No
the TPX are just a bunch of dumbasses. By the way Lisa Murkowski is laughing at you and Palin right now. They basically left Joe Miller out to dry while Lisa Murkowski nuked Joe Miller. At least with the Club for Growth they stick with you during the primary and the general election.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I know that, I didn't say I believed what he said.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
tark's possible baggage not withstanding
he kind of seemed like a candidate who was only there because he was a generic R.  his opposition in both the primary (Lowden and Angle) as well as reid himself seemed pretty weak, so he probably figured, "eh why not" and ran.  he'd probably be passed over (again) in a real race because he's not much of a candidate.  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Not happening...
Not now. Most likely, not ever. Seriously, don't worry about it.

If Rory had listened to his dad and ran for State Assembly in 2002 instead of Clark County Commission, now yes, perhaps we'd be talking about Rory for Senate today. But since he then got (unfairly IMHO) tarred and feathered by the overall incompetence of Clark County government, and ran what may have been one of the hottest messes of a Gubernatorial "campaign" in 2010, it would be pure lunacy if Rory were to run for Senate in 2012.

Frankie Sue Del Papa is a great person, but IMHO her time passed long ago. This is all about Shelley Berkley and Dean Heller at this point. If Heller stays out or looks vulnerable in the GOP primary, Berkley will run. And if Heller doesn't make it out of the GOP primary, Berkley will likely be the frontrunner in the general... Unless she still passes it up, then apparently current AG Catherine Cortez Masto and SoS Ross Miller are waiting in the wings.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
If Sharron Angle were the opponent, it wouldn't be a "worry," Rory would win in a landslide......
Angle is permanently damaged, she can't come CLOSE to winning ever again.  Rory would beat her handily, as would any other Democrat.  If Sharron runs, too bad you're not 30, atd, or you could roll her yourself!

Sadly for us, I suspect even the teabaggers will shun Sharron from now on.  They're still just as batshit crazy as she is, and they're still convinced someone just LIKE her can and will win, but she in particular will be persona non grata--they'll look back on this and blame her particularly.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
But
without Sharrrrrrrron, where will future comic relief come from? Maybe the DE Republicans will recycle Christine O'Donnell. (or probably not, since only liberals recycle.)

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/
[ Parent ]
What is so special about Giffords?
I'm curious to know why she is held in such high regard by so many. I know very little about her, so please, tell me something I can't learn from reading Wikipedia. It's nice to know there are talented politicians that weren't taken out.

I'd love nothing more to have her be a future leader of the party, because it'd prove my point that the Democrats, even after all of the losses on Tuesday, have a much deeper bench of future national candidates than the Republicans. Right now, off the top of my head, my list might include Mark Warner, Martin O'Malley, Maria Cantwell, Kirstin Gillibrand, Chris Murphy, and Jim Himes. There are others, like Tom Perriello, that lost Tuesday but who could easily have a future in politics. And those are just the relatively young ones. We've still got people like Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Jeanne Shaheen, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

She's young, occupies a swing district, and is great at raising money


21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Anything detailed
you can tell me?

You know, not that is this is the most substantive matter, but she's also easy on the eyes. And her husband is an astronaut? That's just cool.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Here are the details
AZ-8 is a Republican leaning swing district: it voted for Bush and McCain by 52% and 53%.  Giffords easily won it in 2006 and 2008 with about 55%.  This was especially impressive in 2008: she faced Tim Bee, the former State Senate President, and easily won despite McCain carrying the district.  While she had a close shave this year she outperformed several Democrats in friendlier districts.  

In 2006, as a non-incumbent, she raised $2,583,799.  (All data from Opensecrets.org)  That's a pretty hefty sum for someone not yet in office.  In 2008 she raised $3,303,130, a very good number.  This year she raised $3,151,929.  For comparison's sake, she out-raised every major party nominee for an Arizona House seat by about $1 million.  http://www.opensecrets.org/rac...

Additionally, she's very good at constituent service, yet manages to maintain a liberal voting record and still get reelected.  To some degree she's like Kirsten Gillibrand, in that she works very hard to get reelected, explaining in large part why she won this year.  Jesse Kelly being pretty far right probably put her over the top this year, but she would not have been in a position to win against any viable candidate if she wasn't very good at what she does.

That's why a lot of Democrats think she'll go far.  Personally, I think that while she'd be formidable one weakness is geography: she'll do well in southern Arizona but I'm afraid she wouldn't make the necessary inroads into Maricopa County to win.  If she runs a great campaign and gets lucky she could pull it off: however, I think a candidate better known in Maricopa would be better.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Luckily
the GOP primary voters shot themselves in the foot by nominating Kelly over Paton.  Paton could have been her downfall.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
What's our bench like in Maricopa?
aside from 2010 losers, all I know of is Ed Pastor (meh) and Phil Gordon (who seems strong on paper but whom the Arizonan SSPers strongly dislike).

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/
[ Parent ]
Terry Goddard isn't a bad choice
According to PPP's October poll his favorably rating was 46%-42%: not too great but he can recover, especially in a better electorate.  

Beyond that we're pretty limited.  If you shove ideology aside Phil Gordon is actually a very good choice, being popular in a must win area.  The problem is he's pretty conservative, backing McCain in 2008.  

Beyond that I'm really not sure who we have.  We're very deep in the minority in the legislature so who's ever left is probably from a very Democratic area.  Felecia Rotellini did decently running for AG this year, losing only 52%-47%, so she may function as a "just in case" candidate.  Still, we're pretty limited on our choices as far as I know.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Rotellini
seems like a strong candidate. problem is her name makes me hungry, now I really want pasta and I don't have any.

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/
[ Parent ]
Any chance . . . .
the redistricting commission creates a new Hispanic VRA district in Arizona that incorporates a fair amount of the Hispanic population currently in AZ-08?  Ironically, such a VRA district could hurt Giffords by making her district more white and more pro-GOP.  
[ Parent ]
Giffords
I like her because she voted for all four of TARP, the stimulus, health care reform, and banking reform despite being in an R+4 district. And she still has her seat, unlike my boys Pomeroy and Spratt.

41, Ind, CA-05
[ Parent ]
This
And she's also one of the biggest advocates for clean energy and energy independence in the House.

How did she win reelection this year, facing a Tea Party candidate in one of the biggest Tea Party-dominated states during a Republican wave in a Republican-tilting district? People just like her, I guess. And she works like hell to raise money, shake hands, and explain her record in a very persuasive manner to swing voters.

Rep. Giffords is one of the people I think of when progressives start bagging on the Blue Dogs. Sure, some of them are basically Republicans, like Reps. Boren and Taylor, but some of them are honest, pragmatic centrists who support their party and their leadership while taking the due diligence to review and be selective about what they vote for. Giffords gets away with a surprisingly liberal voting record (she's an immigration hawk, which is her only major position out of step with the rest of the party; it should be noted she nonetheless opposed Arizona S.B. 1070) because she's an excellent, excellent politician in the very best sense.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Absolutely...
And great list, by the way. I'm not a huge fan of Secys. Napolitano and Sebelius, and Secy. Clinton and Vice President Gore have both ruled out another run for office, but everyone else on there is someone who people should be talking about if they aren't already. Gov.-elect Malloy, Gov. Schweitzer, and Mayor Booker are three more I would add to the list, along with Rep. Giffords.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
One more Montanan you can add for the list
from whom we'll be hearing a lot in the second half of the decade- State Rep. and State Sen.-elect Kendall van Dyk. While the Montana Dems lost 15 seats in the 100-member State House and two seats net in the 50-member State Senate, he managed to unseat incumbent State Senator and 2008 GOP gubernatorial nominee Roy Brown by 16 votes in 2010- pending a recount, but pretty much nothing will happen there, there are only 21 provisional ballots left to count.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
Cory
Booker is an interesting case. Right now he might not win a statewide Democratic primary because he's good friends with Chris Christie. In fact he's one of Christie's important allies on the Democratic side. Though I believe one of our posters compared Cory Booker to the outgoing mayor of DC, meaning Booker looks more popular to outsiders than he is actually to the people who live in Newark.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
What about state sen. Jim Whelan?
Chris Christie won in large part by overperforming in South Jersey. Perhaps we could run someone from there.

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/
[ Parent ]
Right
now Chris Christie is a lock for reelection, mainly because he's turned key players and party machines in the New Jersey Democratic party into friends and allies. If Codey ran in 2013, I have a strong feeling based on today (anything could happen in 3 years) the party machines and key players in NJ would leave him hanging out to dry.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
They already stabbed in the back once
2013 is ages away.  Living in NJ, I think Christie's bully boy act will not wear well over the course of a three-year period.  But, we'll see.
[ Parent ]
South Jersey
It was Monmouth and Ocean counties, which start in the New York media market and end in the Philadelphia market, where Christie overperformed.  And where Runyan won, and Holt and Pallone were weakest.

Coming from AC, Whelan would not be a good candidate.  Rob Andrews, who representes a southwest NJ district, would be better.  He's run before for Governor, but lost in the primary.  I can't see any of the other congressmen as gubernatorial types.  I still think Codey would be good.  Other than that, they're going to have to reach for someone not in elected office, like a Lautenberg or Corzine.

[ Parent ]
In all fairness, Christie also won Atlantic Co.
although, of course, Ocean and Monmouth (is Monmouth really South Jersey?) were more instrumental. I admit I don't know much about Whelan. Andrews doesn't excite me though, he seems too old-school-machine-politician.

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/
[ Parent ]
That's something I've heard about Mayor Booker as well...
I have no way of knowing, of course, but I know from living very very close to the District of Columbia that Mayor Fenty is no great shakes, and I wasn't remotely surprised D.C. voters gave him the boot. Ditto Michelle Rhee, who was a great public schools chancellor only in the eyes of people who didn't live in D.C. or have their children enrolled in poor schools.

At least Mayor Booker won reelection, so that's something.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Thanks!
I forgot to mention the guys that you mentioned, but also Amy Klobuchar and Lisa Madigan. I don't really know much about them, but they are usually on those lists of people we should watch, so I will try to watch them.

Why aren't you a fan of Sebelius and Napolitano? I don't know that much about the latter, but the former was supposedly a great executive for the state of Kansas. Her speech at the 2008 convention wasn't anything inspiring, but perhaps she can be coached.

As far as Clinton and Gore, I believe them, but I also believe that they could easily reverse themselves. If in a year it looks like adding Clinton to the ticket would be a boon for the Obama administration, I don't doubt they will try to get her. A simple explanation of "I changed my mind, and here is why" would suffice.

Anyway, despite the large number of people that were wiped out last week, I think it's safe to say the bench is still pretty deep. And while the Republican bench is likely to grow because of all the gains they made on Tuesday, I think Lawrence O'Donnell was dead on when he said that Rubio receives so much attention because they really, truly don't have anyone. When your candidates are a disgraced former House speaker (Gingrich), a widely mocked governor who couldn't even complete a full term (Palin), a governor who changes every position at the drop of a hat and would have to run directly against his signature achievement (Romney), and a few "eh, maybe" candidates (Jindal, Pawlenty, Barbour), you really don't have anyone.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Regarding Secys. Napolitano and Sebelius...
I think Secy. Sebelius's deafening lack of charisma is her biggest weakness. She seems very intelligent, but she's dry as dust. She couldn't work the crowd if she leapt through a series of burning hoops.

As for Secy. Napolitano, I think she's bad at staying on-message, she's absorbed a number of body blows from the right-wing noise machine (Drudge's "clever" degrading moniker of "Big Sis" has become conservative pablum, as does most of what Captain Fedora comes up with to ridicule his political opposite numbers), and I don't see Americans as being ready to even consider electing a homely-looking, 50-something single woman nationwide. Again, she seems smart, but she's not a great communicator and she'd be running squarely against a patriarchal system that is barely ready to entertain the notion of electing a younger, slimmer married woman as president.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Surprisingly, I agree.
It's kind of insane that you can have two individuals who are, by most accounts, entirely competent who might not have a future in national politics simply because of their personalities, yet you can people who are little more than corporatists succeed. Oh well, I guess that's where we are.

Anyway, why can't they be senators? Not that Kansas appears ready to elect a Democrat right now, but if anyone can do it, Sebelius can. She's certainly the biggest name from the Kansas Democratic party, so why can't she challenge Roberts in 2014, if she's up to it?

As as Napolitano, I could see her being a senator. Arizona is trending blue, and while the state has a deep bench, it's always nice to have a name that already won statewide as an option. I don't know if she could defeat Kyl, but she's still pretty young, so perhaps she could take on McCain in 2016 if need be. Or maybe she can just run for governor again.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Two years ago Sebelius would've been great
but I'm worried that if she ran for Senate in Kansas she'd be too easily linked to Obama to win in a strongly anti-Obama state.

I wish she and Napolitano had received less prominent posts, like maybe ambassadorships, so they could have avoided the approval collapse that hit so many other governors while still being able to maintain their distance from Obama.

Can Napolitano run for governor again? I thought she was term-limited...

24, CA-14, previously DC-AL

[ Parent ]
AZ-08: Giffords Wins | 114 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox