Red Racing Horses

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?


Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog. Please read our site Terms of Use.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: We check it often!

RRH's 2014 General Election Preview Series:

Part 4 - Northeast/South House

Part 3 - Midwest/West House

Part 2 - Row Officers

Part 1 - Legislatures and Local

The Current RRH Race Ratings:




Row Officers

Q2 Fundraising

California Wrap-up

by: Left Coast Libertarian

Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 10:25:06 AM EDT

I'm going to take my victory lap just for calling the CA-31 results. I predicted the top two correctly in 45 congressional districts, 42 in the correct order. I got the winner in 7 others. I only missed both in CA-8. Recount!
Left Coast Libertarian :: California Wrap-up
Let's start with the legislature

Senate - The people who said this redistricting will lead to more competitive races were wrong wrong wrong. The senate will be 27 Democrats and 12 Republicans. The 27th district will be the only competitive race. The Democrats get their 2/3.

Assembly - Democrats didn't do as well here. I see 48 Democrats 28 Republicans and 4 competitive. Three of those districts were ones I thought were Safe Democratic. So I reserve judgment that they'll actually be competitive.

AD-8 is likely to be competitive. Republicans won 52.8%-42.7%. I'm assuming elevated Republican turn-out makes it competitive. This might be Safe Republican.

The Republicans fell short of what people thought they'd do in the state senate. And expectations were low. They did better in the assembly than expected and Democrats will only get 2/3 in the senate. And the GOP will pick up at least one senate seat in 2014.

I'm going to do another diary with more races. I'll start with the races people thought would be competitive. The ratings I'm comparing to are the consensus from the forecasters.

CA-3 - Garamendi got 52.8% of the vote. If Republican turn-out is as elevated as the absentees were, he's got this one. Right now I'll stick with Likely Democratic. (was Lean Democratic)

CA-7 - Dan Lungren exceeded expectations and won by 12 points. This district could be safe, but for now I'm going with Likely Republican. (was toss-up)

CA-9 - I predicted a number of incumbents in the 40's who didn't finish that way. Jerry McNerney only got 48.4%. This is more competitive than people thought. Toss-up. (was Lean Democratic)

CA-10 - Jeff Denham only got 47.7%, so you can't put this one in the vault. He beat Democrats 47.7%-34.0% with the rest going to NPP.  It's tough to see Hernandez getting that many votes. Likely Republican.  (was Toss-up)

CA-16 - The Democrats won this district 51%-49%. That's way more competitive than Democrats thought it'd be and will still be so with better Democratic turn-out. Lean Democratic (was Likely Democratic)

CA-21 - If there's a theme here, it's how disappointing this day was for Democrats. They didn't get their preferred candidate and he wasn't much anyway. David Valadao got too many votes to overcome. Safe Republican (was Lean Republican)

CA-24 - Lois Capps' total ended up dropping as the night wore on. The Republicans beat her here 51.2%-46.5%. That sounds better than it is, because absentees indicate Republicans turned out en masse.  Still it's a toss-up. (was Lean Democratic)

CA-26 - I expressed disappointment last night, even though Tony Strickland exceed my expectations dramatically. I thought Linda Parks wouldn't get that many Republicans, but I think they all abandoned her. Strickland did beat the Democrats by 7 points, but I'm hesitant to put it in the Republican column. Toss-up (was Toss-up)

CA-31 - If the results hold, Republicans picked up a district they wouldn't be favored in and is trending so far left that it's bound to go Democratic eventually. If Democrats can actually come up with a candidate who can finish Top Two. Safe Republican (was Toss-up)

CA-36 - Yes, Mary Bono Mack won 58%-42%. I thought the turn-out would put her at 64%. Pending the turn-out numbers I have to put it as Likely Republican. (was Likely Republican)

CA-41 - Another district where Republicans exceeded my expectations. I saw this as going 50%-50% or 51%-49% Republicans. Instead the GOP got 54.8% of the vote. Lean Republican (was Lean Democratic)

CA-47 - Steve Kuykendall cratered. I'm not going to go too indepth here, but I wrote up a series of recommendations for him. He said he gave them to his people. I never heard from them after that. I don't think he listened to any of my recommendations. I didn't expect him to get Top Two, but I didn't think he'd do this bad. Democrats won the district by a little less than a point. Absentees were 42%D-41%R. The district is 42%D-31%R. I think it's safe, but I'm going to make it Likely Democratic until I see turn-out. (was Likely Democratic)

CA-52 - I know Brian Bilbray exceeded my prediction, but Republicans overall fell 6.5% below what I expected. What's more Democrats exceeded my expectations by 9.6%. The difference was disappointing NPPs. It isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be, but I think it's Lean Democratic pending turn-out (was toss-up)

Overall a great night for the congressional GOP. I think 8 districts moved right, 2 went left, and 3 were as expected.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

California Wrap-up | 123 comments
As much as I'd like to call it Safe R, I'll stick with Likely. Valadao did awesome here, but this district is both rural and heavily Hispanic - which probably means it contends with 41 for the competitive seat with the biggest turnout disparity between June and November.

R - MD-7

I'm going to reserve judgement there
Heavily Hispanic districts don't get good turn-out. Take a look at CA-20 in 2008.

There was 125,000 votes. CA-4 had 370,000! CA-52 should have somewhere around 175,000 to 225,000 more votes. CA-21 will likely have 100,000 more. Of course a district that goes from 100,000 votes to 300,000 is probably more stable than one that 36,000 to 136,000.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Great comments
and great predictions.  I puzzle about CA3 & CA52's relatively strong D turnouts. I am sure about but that as it could be turnout noise.

We are seeing that CA redistricting commission members were fools (my opinion)we mislead by D consultants. The consultants told them that the races would be competitive and I say look at the state senate. One race out of 20 that will likely be hard fought. In 2014 maybe 2-3. Perhaps one or two more competetive state house races. Their defination of what a tossup race looks like would make Gail Mathis blush. What a disaster that commission was.

Congressional wise who knows? I remain hopeful about CA10,  CA26 & CA52. We got our gal on the D side in CA26. I like that matchup. I think CA21 is looking really good for a variety of factors. I wonder about CA9, CA41 and CA47. I think CA41 is looking matchup wise for the GOP.

I can see all GOP incumbents winning plus CA8 & CA21 going GOP.  Plus CA31. Capps could be upended as well.

So I remain hopeful for 19 CA seats. How would rate the GOP house chances as of today? Yes the mix of voters will shift in Nov but by how much?

19 seats? You're shooting low
The commission's objective wasn't to make competitive seats. There were a number of places where they could have done that and didn't. They made geographically compact seats including communities of interest. It's not the commission's fault they aren't competitive. It's the people who drafted the law who thought the races would be more competitive.

By my ratings there is a 55% chance Republicans will gain seats in November. There is a 21% chance Democrats will gain seats.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
CA rule of 19
can be quickly sized up per various ratings on races.

GOP started with 19 but Drier and Miller were cut of seats but CA8 & CA21 are new places for GOP to compete in. So it is back to 19 with these provisos.

1st the GOP needs to hold CA7, CA10, CA26,CA31 and CA52. CA26 and CA31 show long term incumbents retire while the GOP was weakened in CA7-CA10 and CA52. Plus CA21 is no gimme. I feel really good about CA31 plus much better about CA21, CA26 & CA7. I also feel CA10 & CA52 are still lean R or better. So 19 is looking a lot better.

2nd what about CA3, CA9, CA16, CA24, CA41 and CA47? Can we hold the 19 plus grabe one or two more? I think we got good candidates in place and would be surprised to see one or two pickups there. So yes feeling good and California dreaming.

[ Parent ]
Bottom line
For now, it seems that the quite CW of doom for Rs after the redistricting map came out wasn't really true.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Uh, Does No One Read My CA-52 Comments?...
For the third time, Bilbray spent no money in June, and Peters spent a ton. In addition, there was a San Diego Mayors race that undoubtedly drove D turnout (D's need to come out to get Filner across the line).

Now you can quibble about whether Bilbray's strategy to spend nothing in June was the right one (personally, I would have told him to at least drop an ad), but clearly their internal polling showed that Bilbray was safe to advance, so they husbanded their resources for Nov.

But, anyway, the point about this is that it explains the high D turnout now.

And the real point is - this isn't like CA-41: there aren't a bunch of hidden Dems in the woodwork ready to come out in Nov. This is it in terms of San Diego Dems - they won't go higher from here in Nov.  

I read your CA-52 posts
What would your initial prediction be?

Bilbray 55, Peters 45?

[ Parent ]
Maybe Lower
53-47. 52-48.

I'm not saying it won't be somewhat close. I'm just saying that Bilbray has the clear edge here.  

[ Parent ]
Assembly Follow-Up
What are the 4 Assembly districts you think could be competitive? Are there any other ones that are outside shots at being upsets?

(And, if it's not too much trouble, what are the 28 districts you think the GOP will win?...)  

Could be competitive
Three of the districts AD-9, AD-48, and AD-49 were thought to be Safe Democratic. The fourth is AD-8.

GOP wins: 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 23, 26, 32-36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 66-68, and 71-77.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Take a Look at AD-61...
Dem got 44%. Combined GOP vote was 51.2%.

Looks like a "Lean GOP" seat to me...  

[ Parent ]
Also, AD-65...
Chris Norby (R) is the incumbent.

So is the GOP Assembly base actually 30?!

I'll keep checking...  

[ Parent ]
Great catches
For some reason AD-65, which I know is Safe Republican, fell off my list. I took the GOP and competitive seats and gave Democrats the rest.  I'm not willing to put AD-61 in the safe GOP column but I will move it to competitive. So we're talking 46D-29R-5 up for grabs.

I think it goes to show you how much the commission and the supremes stuck it to the GOP with the senate map. Republicans will probably get 30-31 assembly seats, and maybe more, and won't get 14 senate seats.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
OK, I Get 29 GOP ADs(?...)
You list 27 above. Plus AD-61 and AD-65, that gets me to 29.

So it looks like the GOP floor is 29.

Getting to 30 seems definitely possible. Getting to about 32 seems like an outside shot.

So the new Assembly map does seem to benefit the GOP over the old map.  

[ Parent ]
Craig Huey
How'd Huey do last night?

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.

Carl DeMaio for CA-52!

Pretty well
He took 39, with the lone D getting 41 and another R getting 21.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Looks I'll be volunteering for Huey again
A friend is going to be running his campaign.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Huey & LCL
What do you think his chances are?

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.

Carl DeMaio for CA-52!

[ Parent ]
He's going to win
Republicans won this district 59%-41%. Muratsuchi can't make that up.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Rothenberg Ratings Changes

Rep. Dan Lungren (R) and Dr. Ami Bera (D) move on to November in a rematch of their 2010 race. The congressman received about 52 percent of the vote on Tuesday, compared to about 42 percent for Bera, confirming the race's toss-up status.

Lungren actually won 52.9%-40.7%, by 12 points. How does a 12 point win "confirm toss-up" status? What would Lungren have to do to be favored?

I don't know how he can have CA-41 as "toss-up/tilt Democrat."

Republicans only lost CA-16 51%-49%. And it's still "Safe Democratic?"

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Is Rothenberg high?!

You know, I knew he tilted slightly Dem, but this is ridiculous! I used to respect the guy, but if this is still his take on CA-07, my opinion of him just went in the toilet...  

[ Parent ]
Sabato changes his ratings
With all the positive Republican results last night, how many do you think he changed? One. He moved CA-31 to Safe Republican. Wow. Amazing analysis.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

No he moved a number of races the R direction
Look in the morning roundup thread for the changes.


[ Parent ]
New CA ratings: #CA9-->D Favored to Lean D; #CA16-->Safe D to D favored; #CA21-->Lean R to Safe R; #CA26-->Tossup/Tilt R to Lean R (1/2) #CA31-->Lean D to Safe R; #CA41-->D Favored to Toss-Up/Tilt D; #CA47--> D Favored to Lean D (2/2)


[ Parent ]
Sabato not Rothenberg
Rothenberg did a number in the GOP direction. Sabato moved just the one.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Misread Sabato for Rothenberg
Agree about Sabato though.


[ Parent ]
That CA-21 Rating's Gotta Hurt The Most
DKE thought they had a shot at CA-21. Now Sabato's just told them it's off the table. That's gotta hurt.

And the CA-26 shift shouldn't make 'em happy either.

Of course, the CA-31 SNAFU goes without saying...  ;)  

[ Parent ]
The funny thing is
We're the opposite.

No one here thought Brian Whelan had a shot, but now we believe he does.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I Think You & I Were The Only People Talkin' CA-16... an outside shot. But it was always there - it's less D than Costa's original district (D+4 vs. D+5), and he's basically carpetbagging there.

The problem in my view is that 2012 is likely not the year to try and take this one - unless Obama's support among CA Hispanics craters, he should carry Costa across the finish line.

But this primary result just confirms what you and I thought - that Costa's probably weaker than "generic D" here...  

[ Parent ]
From when the map was released
Dems are down two seats from the CW. CA 21 was tossup to lean D with Rubio, now Safe R. CA-31 was lean D, now Safe R. Huge fail for the Democrats.


[ Parent ]
Stae Sen. Michael Rubio
was originally running for CA 21 and was a star D recruit.


[ Parent ]
Still Shocked About CA-03
Anyone wanna try and take a shot at explaining what happened there?

I certainly did not expect Garamendi to outperform McNerney. I wonder if it's simply a 'Name ID' effect. If so, Kim Vann is going to need as much ca$h as Gill apparently has to make CA-03 even slightly competitive...  :(  

Vann is Supervisor from Colusa
small county. I think national people like her profile, but she is not well known in the district. Maybe this accounts for her underperformance. R's overperformed across the state, except here. If she raises her name ID and raises money, she still could have a shot, though it moves down the list some.  


[ Parent ]
The answer is rather obvious: It's simply a 'low Latino turnout' effect, which explains virtually all the California results, including CA-31. CA-03 is 28% Hispanic, 51% White while CA-09 is 37% Hispanic, 37% White. That's the difference.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
I can never recall
any primary election, and June 5 was a primary and not a GE, where the hispanic vote was over represented in turnout numbers. I think its a given or an old saw or a political axiom that hispanic voters turn out less in primaries.

I wonder how hispanics voted when this election process was on the ballot?  It puts them at disadvantage as their turnout is always lower then in GE. Of course as they lean towards Ds in primaries their % would be greater in a closed D primary as opposed to a top two system. I also wonder as this passed VRA V muster as it clearly puts hispanics and one can argue AAs at a disadvantage in getting into GEs.

[ Parent ]
That's basically why at-large elections have been suppressed in many Southern jurisdictions, and closely related to why shifting from partisan to non-partisan elections has also been suppressed.

With California, it may very well have had to do with how it was deemed to affect the four Section V counties specifically. For instance, San Bernardino isn't a Section V county, so whatever happens there wouldn't make a difference so far as preclearance.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
It isn't just Hispanics
CA-3 is 41D/33R and was 44D/39R in absentee. CA-9 is 44D/37R and was 45D/41R in absentee. If that held up how Hispanic a district is doesn't matter. Republicans got less votes in CA-9 than they did in CA-3 also.

Republicans had a larger than expected wins in CA-8, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, and CA-50 and those aren't districts where Hispanics not showing up would make a big difference.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'm gonna bet
That the absentee vote bore little relation to the election day vote, since that's typically the case. I guess when we get the final turnout statistics we'll see for sure.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
You can't make a statement like that
And not back it with data. Here's what I know:

Registration D+8
Primary D+1.6
Exit poll Nov D+6
Competitive race D+5.2

Registration D+13
Primary D+8.3
Exit poll Nov D+12
Competitive race D+11.6

Registration D+13
Primary D+2.3
Exit poll Nov D+12
Competitive race D+10.4

Note that a D+10.4 means that Democrats went up 3.6 points and Republicans went down 6.8 points. So a 51R-49D race would be adjusted to 52D in 2006, 55D in 2008, and 54D in 2010.

Registration D+13
Primary D+6 (absentee only)
Exit poll Nov

It fits previous years that the primary electorate is somewhat more Republican and then the November exit poll is a touch closer than registration. I don't know if you think the number will be different than that.

So what I'm doing is taking the turn-out numbers and converting them back to registration. For example:

Registration D42-35
Turn-out: D44-42
Add to D/subtract from R: 3.5 points
Result: R54.8-45.2
Expected result: R51.3-49.7

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I may be misreading you, but it seems as if you misunderstood my statement. I'm saying that the absentee vote in the primary will bear little relation to the election-day vote in the primary. I'm not saying that the primary vote will bear little relation to the November vote.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
You are misreading me.

Republican primary turn-out has exceeded registration in each of the last three elections. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that this would happen in 2012. The absentee numbers and the primary results suggest that this is true. So there's every reason to believe that the primary difference is somewhere around D+6.

We also know that the exit poll numbers are close to registration numbers and Democrats gain points in competitive races. There's no reason to think those things won't happen again too.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'm confused
I don't disagree with what you're saying so I'm obviously unclear on what we're supposedly arguing over.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
That's why I've been consistently saying that Garamendi is safer than McNerney, though evidently no one pays me any attention. The CA-03 Democratic vote is clearly far more white than the CA-09 Democratic vote, and that means the Democratic 'floor' is clearly far more reliable.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
I didn't see you post that, but
I thought that CA-09 would be as competitive as, if not more competitive than, CA-03 for a long time. Then three California people (LCL, IJB, CoD) convinced me that I was wrong. Now I may be returning to my first opinion.

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college)

[ Parent ]
Might I add
That's also why all this handicapping of the general election based on the primary results is premature. The proper way to do it is wait to see what the racial turnout was in the primary and then model the contests based on the typical general-election racial turnout.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
I'll be happy to do that whenever the SoS releases the turnout report. I don't know how long it typically takes, but I'll be keeping an eye out for it in any event.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Is there an SoS report on race?
I'm not familiar with one. There is an SoS report on party. We just need to compare June party turn-out vs what we expect in November. Democrats are Democrats in California, regardless of whether they are White, Hispanic, Black, or Asian.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
They classified absentees by race IIRC

26, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Umm, no..
Democrats are nothing in the California election results if they don't turn out.

And, you're right. I just checked the SoS reports and they don't include turnout by race. I thought they did.

Hmm.. That makes modelling on that basis a lot more complicated. I'll have to think about what might be the best way to approximate it.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Obama CA ground game
failure was epic. Talk about asleep at the wheel!! Oh yes the President is back is CA to raise money:

I believe he was in CA twice in the last month or so for fundraising.  Did he stop in a D phonebank to try to gin up folks to turn in absentee ballots?

Lets just say DNC sent out postcards asking D absentee voters in CA7, CA9, CA10, CA16, CA21, CA24, CA26, CA31, CA41, CA36, CA47 and CA52 to vote for Obama and congressional candidates.  Would that have mattered? What if Obama campaign had made an effort to get some of their 100K in volunters to make 10 calls to D voters in these districts to turnout and vote? So for 800K (my guess) they could have impacted 12 congressional race turnouts. The phone calls would have been free and certainly could have impacted turnout. D's are dreary in CA as CA31 was epic fail. Plus all these GOP candidates get boosts towards their fall campaigns.  I think Gill or Strickland or candidates in CA41 or CA24 or CA47 will find it easier to raise money.

Of about the DCCC?  They are booking 3.6 million for TV ads in Boston? 100K in postcards could have saved CA31. Just mail them in and ask democrats to vote for anyone D in CA31. Now the preception is that CA is dragging the D chances for the house down.

Howard Dean in 2005 said that the D's would build the party in all 50 states. Obama said he would campaign in 57 states in 2008. I am waiting for any campaign from Obama in 2012. So far it has been all fundraising. I do not get it.  

Maxine Waters

Oh, Maxine, we just can't quit you. Even though the Ethics Committee is competing for your affections. Your new district only gave you 65% of the vote against someone who has no paperwork at the FEC and has this fancy website.


Maxine, the people of Los Angeles will always love you and someday, if you ever get a real opponent, you'll lose an election and we'll have you all to ourselves.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

What are the demographics of Waters' district now?
My impression is about 60% Latino and 30% Black.

Age 44. Location: GA-04 & GA-05.

[ Parent ]
That's misleading
Many of the Latinos are aliens, legal or otherwise
Many of Latino citizens are under 18
Many of the adult Latino citizens are unregistered
Many of the registered Latino voters can't be counted upon to show up

Meanwhile, blacks have a citizenship rate of nearly 100%, and while they don't have the turnout rate of whites, they respond very well to ground game. I wouldn't be surprised at all if more blacks than Latinos voted in that district yesterday.

[ Parent ]
The district has a CVAP of 33% Black/29% Hispanic/12% Asian. While it's heavily minority, the district has Torrance, which leans Republican. John McCain got 27% of the vote in this district, but only 17% and 14% in two neighboring majority minority districts. So there are Republican leaning voters to go after.

If she had an opponent who was more than a name on the paper that person would out lefty her with Democrats and then tell Republicans that he wasn't Maxine Waters. Then she could be beaten in November.

I honestly can't tell you anything about Bob Flores that you can't find on his website.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I've always been amazed
at how a 33% black CVAP and 24% black overall population congressional district can reliably elect a black congresswoman.

I mean, how low will the black population go before Waters is beaten?

[ Parent ]
my guess is
That unless she retires first, she has the seat for the rest of this cycle.

But if she were to retire, there would be a decent shot at a Hispanic winning instead of another AA.

That area in addition to becoming less AA & more Hispanic has not been keeping up with population growth in California as a whole, so her district is likely to undergo major changes in 2021. (That might do something like combine the largest AA portion of this district with the largest AA portion of a neighboring district.)

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
Blacks and Los Angeles
After Jim Crow and the fight for racial equality Blacks developed an us vs. them mentality. The system was rigged against them, so any triumph for any Black is a triumph against the odds. It's a blow agains the man.

It doesn't matter it the person is OJ Simpson and you know he's guilty. OJ is standing in for all the Black men who've been treated unfairly by the courts. White people, on the other hand, get all the advantages. OJ's not guilty verdict was a blow for racial equality. Sending a guilty man to jail isn't as important as advancing an entire race of people.

Maxine Waters may be corrupt, but an attack on her is an attack on all Blacks. If Waters falls, it's a blow against all Blacks. If you admit her guilt you expose a line of attack that Whites have been waiting for. So they stand behind her.

And if she took a few liberties, well good for her. White politicians have been doing it for years and her getting away with it is a sign of strength.

Los Angeles has a history of strong Black politicians. They know how to get people to the polls and how to deliver for their constituents. Hispanics haven't had that kind of power, although some of the older neighborhoods started getting their local leaders elected in the late 1980's.

The 1990's and 2000's saw a tremendous influx of Latinos to many of the neighborhoods that used to Black. Some of these people were non-citizens and most of them were poor. So it's not like a strong politician is suddenly going to emerge.

Politicians like Maxine Waters and Diane Watson have been good for the communities and are unlikely to be challenged. Candidates struggle to raise money in such poor communities. Karen Bass has raised $450k this cycle, but $267k comes from PACs.Without PAC money, any challenger is going to struggle to raise anything.

So it's going to take time and I doubt no serious challenger comes in until after she retires.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
All true.
I doubt Waters will ever be beaten at the polls, mostly for the reasons you described above. But sometimes even people with racially-gerrymandered, one-party districts can wear out their welcome (Rangel and Towns in NY, the immortal Gus Savage in Chicago, and America's Sweetheart Cynthia McKinney here in Atlanta are some examples). The fact that a somedude who (apparently) didn't even file with the FEC and had such an awesome website still raked in 35% tells me there is, at least, a critical mass of voters in CA-43 who are open to the idea of voting for a not-Maxine candidate. It'll be interesting to see what the #s and %s are for this district in November.

Age 44. Location: GA-04 & GA-05.

[ Parent ]
Encouraging Results from CA
Especially CD-31, of course.

I think that of the 4 Democrat incumbents who seem vulnerable to some extent (Garamendi, McNerney, Costa, Capps), probably at least 3 of them will actually be re-elected when it's all said and done and maybe all 4 of them. The GOP has not actually defeated a California incumbent-Democrat member of Congress since 1994, when Dan Hamburg (North Coast), Richard Lehman (Fresno), and Lynn Schenk (San Diego) all went down in the anti-Clinton tidal wave. It was Brian Bilbray who defeated Schenk that year, and now of course he is in a tight scrape to hold the new CD-52.

Age 44. Location: GA-04 & GA-05.

Beating the incumbents in question
will not be easy. They are all proven winners but I do note that all of them face some new territory.  Having new area can stir the pot up a bit. I note that CA budget woes will continue and that the Obama frenzy is waning in the state. NO worry about losing it but volunteers are certainly not storming the gates this year.  

[ Parent ]
I've heard this fact before and think it's not worth much. After the 1994 election Republicans and Democrats each had 26 seats. Republicans were holding some vulnerable seats while the Democrats mostly held safe seats.

This is an easy state for the Democrats to gerrymander and the Democrats did that in 2001. They drew districts for every incumbent that Al Gore won by at least 13 points. That's a D+7. Have Republicans knocked off an incumbent in a D+7 anywhere?

And the Democrats didn't win anything less than D+7 until 2006, when McNerney beat a scandal plagued Richard Pombo. He defended it in the very Democratic 2008 and only won in 2010 because of the presence of an A.I. Dems were knocking off a lot of incumbents in Obama seats in 2008, but went 0 for 8 in California. If Democrats had won 2 or 3 of them, as they did elsewhere, Republicans would've beat an incumbent in 2010.

The Democrats couldn't win a seat Obama won by 5 points. The Republicans couldn't win one that Obama won by 20 points. I'd say the Democrats look like the failures here.

Now Democrats are in tougher districts. John Garamendi barely cleared 50%. The other three Democrats didn't get that. If two Republicans can beat Lois Capps and Jerry McNerney in June they can do so in November. Keep in mind that all 4 Democrats have spent over $500k so far, with Capps spending nearly $1 million.

Jim Costa outspent his 3 Republican opponents $609k to $186k and managed to get beat by them 49%-41%. Loraine Goodwin, a fellow Democrat, spent $2,132 and managed to get 10% of the vote.

Do you think Jim Costa will spend more than 3x what Brian Whelan spends?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I agree 100%
with your points. I am not writting off the seats that you mentioned even CA3 where the D% this week surprised me. Local factors or even the congressman's campaign could have an effect on ballot returns.

That is one reason I berate the Obama campaign, DCCC and DNC for the failure to gin up D turnout this month. Local elections in Sacremento and San Diego area certainly pushed up turnout. So democrats could made an effort. The D's in these congressional races look more vulnerable because D turnout was weak in numerous races. So the D's allowed this to happen IMO and showing weakness is never good.  

[ Parent ]
CA-07 vs. CA-52
You bring up a good point in these two seats - local factors drove up D turnout in both of these seats in the Primary. Now, I dunno if Lungren advertised prior to the Primary - I know Bilbray did not.

But the point is that D turnout (as a percentage of the electorate) was likely maxxed out in both seats. It's not going to get more D (as a percentage of voters) in November.

Which is what makes Rothenberg's failure to move CA-07 out of "Tossup" so odd - if all Bera can do with ginned-up D turnout is 41%, he ain't winning this seat in November.

You can may argue about whether Bilbray's vulnerable or not. But, after this, I really don't see how anyone can argue about Lungren being particularly "vulnerable".  

[ Parent ]
Over $500k
Brian Bilbray and Dan Lungren have both spent over $500k this cycle. If they're not spending it on advertising they're spending it on something they hope will get them votes.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I Have No Idea What He's Spending It On, Then
Bilbray didn't buy ads. I don't think I got a robocall from him. He has signs, but fewer than Peters, or most of the SD Mayoral candidates, had (Bilbray and Saldana probably had about the same number of signs...).

So if Bilbray has already spent $500k, I'd love to know what it was spent on. I can guess internal polling (I suspect Bilbray didn't advertise because internal polling showed him that he had 40% no matter what, and so didn't need to advertise...).

I'm very curious to see what Bilbray's Fall strategy will be.  

[ Parent ]
Here you go!
The parentheticals are the number of payments. I've included descriptions for recipients that might be unclear.

Dorsee Productions $113,804 (21) ~fundraising firm
Revolvis Consulting $96,149 (24) ~campaign consultants
Morgan, Meredith & Assoc $63,792 (20) ~fundraising firm
First Bankcard $33,139 (43) ~expense card
Budget Watchdogs Newsletter $16,514 (1) ~crazy right-wing non-profit special interest group
Phoenix Direct Mail $16,161 (9)
Bilbray Tax Service $16,000 (16) ~his wife's business - sketchy!
AM Management $15,973 (1) ~probably rented space - Bilbray HQ?
Tarrance Group $15,870 (1) ~GOP pollster
Streeter Printing $15,254 (6) ~probably mailers & posters & other campaign materials
Mathew, Nithin $10,137 (7) ~vice-chair of California College Republicans?
Aristotle $10,053 (51) ~demographic data firm
California Voter Guide $9,168 (1)
Completecampaigns.Com $8,772 (35)
National Tax Limitation Cmte Newsletter $8,292 (1) ~crazy right-wing non-profit special interest group
Bali Hai Restaurant $5,998 (1) ~Pacific cuisine, evidently great mai tais!
Capitol Hill Club $5,869 (14) ~GOP hangout spot in DC
United Airlines $5,722 (9)
San Diego County Republican Party $5,250 (2)
Magma Creative Inc $4,850 (2) ~web designer

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
To be fair, those are evidently boring run-of-the-mill right-wing non-profit special interest groups.

And provides tailor-made campaign organizing software.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Bali Hai Restaurant
Hmmmm. I've never heard of that one before. It's down at Shelter Island. Maybe I can con my (richer) brother to go down there next time he's in town...  

[ Parent ]
Cook Ratings Update

Almost as underwhelming as Sabato. Rothenberg reevaluated every district. While I disagree with several of his evaluations, he did work. They only move CA-3, CA-24, and CA-31. It's hard to believe that he got nothing more than that from the primary. Republicans had decisive wins in CA-7, 10, and 21, beating the Democratic totals by 12-14 points. Yet neither he nor Sabato made any changes in them.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

CA-31 Update
CA-31 - Aguilar picks up 1,400 votes, but still loses ground to Dutton, who picks up 1,900. Now down 1,500 votes.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

I Think Bera (CA-07) Is Losing Ground Too...
He's now down to 40.7%. Lungren's up to 52.9%.

Again, I'm amazed that no one has moved this race to "lean R". It's mind-boggling...  

[ Parent ]
That happened on election night
Must've been updated late, as some people had it closer. No new CA-7 numbers.

CA-1, 3, 8, 17, 18, 19, 27, 31, 35, and 39.

The three San Bernardino and three Santa Clara county districts are on here.

Phil Libatore gained 0.3%, but so did Greg Imus. Paul Cook and Jackie Conaway dropped, but that doesn't help Libatore. Libatore now trails 2nd by 203 votes and 1st 326. I assume he'll want a recount.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing
It probably has to do with the fact that the district cast about 200,000 more votes in the 2010 and 2008 general elections. Since Bera would only need to win the additional voters by 52% to make up the difference, most of the political analysts probably think the 2010 and 2008 election results are a better guide than the 2012 primary results.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Most political analysts have no idea how to do statistical analysis. Expecting them to take actual votes between the two candidates in actual districts would be too much to ask.

Two years ago I learned on Swing State Project that Washington state November results would be very close to the primary. And sure enough, they were right. That's because primary turn-out for a top two is going to be a small subset of the general with some variation.

That should apply here. The one difference with Washington is that California has elevated Republican primary turn-out and Washington doesn't.

I don't know what in 2008 and 2010 they're basing this on. Presidential and gubernatorial races are a guide, not a predictor. The primary is a predictor.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
doesn't have significant low income minorities like California does.  In 2014, I'll trust you if 2012 goes the way you say it will.

But for now, I'm skeptical because of minority turnout which is really only a factor in WA-4.

Actually, you could look and see if WA-4 is consistently further off the mark than, say, WA-1 or WA-8 which are both wealthy and very White.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.

[ Parent ]
You have yet to show me evidence that minorities are absent from the primary and that impacts the numbers in some way. We know that Democratic turn-out. What difference does it make if a Democrat is a minority or not? White Democrats vote for Democrats the same as Black Democrats do.

In Washington, the 7th district has the most minorities. But here is Republican change in 2008 and 2010

WA-1 -1.4%
WA-2 -0.1%
WA-3 -0.5%
WA-4 -3.7%
WA-5 +0.1%
WA-6 +1.8%
WA-7 +1.5%
WA-8 +3.7%
WA-9 -0.7%

WA-1 +2.4%
WA-2  +1.2%
WA-3 -0.6%
WA-4 +2.4%
WA-5 +0.1%
WA-6 -1.4%
WA-7 No Republican
WA-8 -6.0%
WA-9 -0.2%

The only district that wasn't within +/- 4% was WA-8 in 2010. So the very wealthy district was the one that was most off.

This was also true in legislative elections.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I don't have evidence
That's why I'm making no assumptions about November from this week.  You're the one doing so, and I believe it's flawed.

In 2014, I'll look at the 2012 data and figure out how to adjust properly, but since it's the first time, we shouldn't do so.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.

[ Parent ]
You believe it's flawed?
I'm presenting evidence and your refute it by saying that you believe it's flawed? Do you have anything to back that up other than a feeling?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
To respond to both of your responses
1. I believe it doesn't make sense to make assumptions from June to November other than figuring out relative competitiveness.  e.g. McNerney's in more danger than Garamendi.

2. I believe this because, as with science, you need evidence, and I don't think the overwhelmingly White, vote by mail state of Washington is evidence for the diverse, partially vote by mail state we live in.

3. IF I were to make further extrapolations, I'd take into account the Presidential numbers, which to me show a GOP-skewed primary turnout (which also makes sense considering low turnout elections generally skew that way due to age and race)

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.

[ Parent ]
Your assumptions
Washington didn't become an entirely vote-by-mail state until 2011. These elections were prior to that. California is 45% vote-by-mail now.

Washington isn't overwhelmingly White. It's 72% White. This isn't Wisconsin or Vermont.

You show no evidence that 1) the primary electorate is any more or less White than the general election 2) why this would matter. 3) That Washington's election doesn't have a statistical relationship to California's election.

Why would you use Presidential primary numbers when neither primary was competitive and the primaries had certain restrictions? Presidential votes don't show you GOP turn-out. You know what does? Getting actual numbers of Republicans and Democrats who turned out. Those would be good numbers to use.

Your assumptions are erratic, disregard actual data, and choose data that has a poor relationship with the actual vote. I've never met any statistician who does what you do.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'm not a statistician
Statisticians use data, and as of now, we have no data in California.

72% White is a huuuuge gap from California's percentage, which is somewhere  in the mid to high forties.

Why would this matter? If you don't know why high White turnout matters in California, you obviously aren't looking at any election results. Minorities are overwhelmingly Dem, Whites lean GOP.  That's why.

I have no evidence WA has no relationship to CA, but you have no evidence WA does!  And that's the whole thing I'm saying!  We have no data.  Therefore I'm ignoring any assumptions anyone makes about Top Two in California.

What actual data from California do we have, since I'm obviously disregarding it.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.

[ Parent ]
I work with statistics
I have for a long time.

Even though you're not a statistician and don't understand statistical analysis, you've chosen to make a statistical argument. Are you at all familiar with correlation and causation? Have you done statistical modeling? You're discounting my modeling as if you know statistics, but you don't possess any knowledge about statistics.

Minorities don't matter. It's people who vote Democratic who do. There is no difference between a White Democrat and a Hispanic Democrat.

What actual data? We have congressional race primary data and general election data going back through the last five elections. We have turn-out in both primary and general elections. We have congressional race data on each incumbent. We have Tuesday's electoral results in an election that has the same structure as the actual general election.

I predicted the winner in 48 of 52 primaries and the correct 2nd place in 41 of 52. In 3 I had the correct top two in the 44 of 52. I'm the only person that I'm aware of that predicted Miller and Dutton would finish 1-2 on Tuesday.

I knew this because I've spent the last year analyzing voting patterns, election turn-out, and voting results. in California. I've written numerous diaries covering all this data. I'd hope that this would earn me a little trust that I have some idea what I'm writing about.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Where Is This Hidden Store of Minority Voters... CA-07?!

If you and RM want to argue that the GE turnout in someplace like CA-41 is going to be significantly different than the Primary turnout, you may have a point.

But that argument does not apply to CA-07 (or CA-52).

There is no "magical" store of hidden D votes in these districts...  

[ Parent ]
is a place where Dems did decently.  As was pointed out on DK, primary turnout was Obama 51, GOP 47 in terms of presidential votes.  I'd expect a couple percent of Dems used write-ins or skipped Obama's name, so let's say Obama 53, GOP 45.

I'd expect Obama to get at least 58% in November, so then you can add five. That would put Bilbray down and Bera/Lungren at Tilt R, both of which seem very believable.  In fact, it makes every race seem very believable:

Garamendi at Likely D
McNerney at Tilt/Lean D
Capps at Lean D
Taviglione/Takano at Tossup  

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.

[ Parent ]
This Assumes an 'Even' Increase in D Turnout...
...across all districts in Nov. But that's not going to happen - where you're going to see the big increase in turnout is in non-(Primary)-competitive districts like Karen Bass', and possibly in Hispanic-heavy districts like CA-41. That's not going to turn out more Dems in CA-07 and CA-52.

The reason the statewide turnout for the Primary was 51 Obama/47 GOP is because a whole bunch of districts like Karen Bass' had no reason to turn out. So that'll help Obama in Nov. It's not going to help Democrats in the suburban districts.  

[ Parent ]
I don't follow your reasoning
Are you saying that Obama got 51% of the Presidential vote in the district compared to 47% for Republican candidates? And you're using that as a way of judging the district? There are numerous flaws with this 1) Only Republicans can vote in a Republican primary 2) Most independents or third party members don't vote in the Democratic primary. 3) The primary had no impact on either nomination.

Now you're saying that instead of 51-47 it was really 53-45, but that in November it'll be 58-40? Do you have any data to back that up? Where do you get 58%-40% for the district? Why do you think that if Obama gets more votes they'll go to the Democrat?  Obama won Bilbray's district by 4 in 2008, but Bilbray won by 5.

You're making up numbers for the Presidential race and extrapolating them onto the congressional race and saying the congressional numbers are less important than the Presidential numbers you just made up.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Yes, well
That should apply here. The one difference with Washington is that California has elevated Republican primary turn-out and Washington doesn't.

That one difference is a significant enough difference that that should not apply here.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Baby meet bathwater
You want to throw out what has been an extraordinarily high correlating statistic because there's another factor in play. That doesn't make sense. You adjust that correlating statistic with the factor.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Of course I agree
Evidently so do all these political analysts who aren't moving CA-07 out of Toss Up. If we disagree on anything, it appears to be on how much of an adjustment is appropriate.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Brownley lives
outside of CA26. Her assembly district covers much of this seat but she apparently lives in Santa Monica in LA?

I guess the voters in Ventura will understand?

I imagine it'll be easier for Ventura County voters to understand a candidate from Santa Monica than it was for McClintock's voters in the northern Sierra Nevada to understand a candidate from Thousand Oaks..

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
has a very rich tradition of intrastate carpetbagging, far more so than your average state. The golden example is Jerry Brown, who went from the Bay Area to LA and then back to Oakland over his career, but at least 5 current reps have undertaken carpetbagger campaigns that don't just involve moving a few miles across town.

It's really weird given how huge and diverse the state is.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
I don't know who the five are
As I said below, McClintock was living in Elk Grove when he ran for congress from there. If he ran in Thousand Oaks, that would've been carpetbagging.

Dan Lungren moved to the Sacramento area when he was elected attorney general in 1991. He continued to do so after he left office. He didn't need to move to run.

Carpetbagging is what Jane Harman did. She was born in New York and lived in Los Angeles for high school and left for 30 years. She was living in Washington when the 36th opened up and moved to Venice to run for office.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
It's working pretty well for Miller
Given the hand he was dealt when the map was unveiled, this is the best possible outcome he could have hoped for. Is he even going to move to San Bernardino, or just keep living in Diamond Bar?

[ Parent ]
The way I define it
is a politician who has already been elected in one area moving a significant distance (let's say, more than ~10 miles) and running for an office there that they could not have held while living at the previous location. By that metric, my five would be McClintock, Lungren, McNerney, Gary Miller, and Bilbray.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
*Baca, not Bilbray

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
also, Napolitano
guess that makes six.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Bilbray would work too
He was mayor of Imperial Beach and represented San Diego and the extreme southwest before losing to Davis and then getting elected to CA-50 a few cycles later.

[ Parent ]
Was when a yankee would come to a southern state to run for office during reconstruction. He had no ties to the area and arrived with only a carpet bag.

Moving more than 10 miles hardly meets this definition.

In California the districts are so small geographically that many congressmen will be drawn out of their districts every ten years.

In addition to McNerney, Bilbray, and Miller, Laura Richardson, Mike Honda, Joe Baca, Maxine Waters,  Jeff Denham, Jim Costa, and Tom McClintock don' t live in the districts they're running in. I'm not sure if Henry Waxman does.

I don't know where Gary Miller lives in Diamond Bar but Diamond Bar is about 10-12 from Upland. Miller has a home in Rancho Cucamonga and is going to move there. It's nice being wealthy.

Few people care whether a congressman lives in the district or right outside of it. I'll bet you many of the people in Jim Costa's new district think he represents them now. He's a Fresno area politician. It doesn't matter where they draw the lines.

Jose Hernandez has never lived in the new CA-10. He lived in Houston for 10 years before moving last year. Is he a carpetbagger? Neither Democrat who ran for CA-21 lives in the district.

I don't consider Julia Brownley a carpetbagger, although Santa Monica is a world away from Ventura County even if it isn't a long drive. But Santa Monica isn't like a lot of places. The northern part of Henry Waxman's district is progressive. The southern part isn't.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
What about Waters?
She lives in Hancock Park. Owns some rental dump in Watts..

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Hancock Park?
I had no idea. Hancock Park is currently in CA-33, Bass' district. I believe it's moving to Waxman. You don't really expect someone representing Inglewood living in Hancock Park.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
McClintock's residence
The reason some people live in Ventura County is that they don't like LA. Santa Monica isn't a place some people can relate to.

Tom McClintock wasn't from Thousand Oaks. He neither owned nor rented a home in the city. He used his mother's address as his "home." This created a major controversy in his primary against Doug Ose. California legislators get a per diem for their time in Sacramento to pay for living expenses. McClintock took it even though he was living in Elk Grove and had been for years.  

If you want to criticize McClintock do so for doing a Lugar and not actually living in the area he represented and for taking per diem for time he spent at his residence.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Wasn't Brad Sherman living in Santa Monica?
And then didn't he move out to the Valley when Beilenson announced his retirement in '95/96?

I admit I don't keep up with this sort of thing like I used to, so I could be all-wrong on this. But I thought I remembered it happening like that with Sherman.

Age 44. Location: GA-04 & GA-05.

[ Parent ]
I guess it'll be interesting then to see how well Brownley can bridge the vast cultural divide between Santa Monica and Oxnard.

In any event, I wasn't really looking to criticize anyone on this issue. I figure it's up to the voters to decide which candidate will best represent their interests, all things considered. I was mainly just pointing out how silly and hypocritical I found the comment to which I replied.

Might I add, however, that by your logic nearly every senator and representative could legitimately run in Maryland or Virginia, while running in their home states would be 'carpet-bagging'....

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
My Definition
My definition of living in Washington is owning a house in DC and neither owning or renting a home in their district. It's someone who spends weekends at their Virginia home and not at their home in the district. These people represent Washington to their district, not their district to Washington.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I have a new Twitter follower

You pick a guy to pull off a major upset and he'll follow you

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Race Ratings Updates
In addition to Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, and Stu Rothenberg, Around the Capitol has updated their ratings:

So have our friends at Kos.

I can quibble with some of their ratings, but overall they're okay. What I do find funny is that they have CA-39 and CA-45 on their list. Ed Royce won on Tuesday 67%-30% and the Republicans won CA-45 67%-33%. I suppose Kos has those on there because their candidates have raised some money. If a district where Democrats got 33% of the vote is in play I'd assume that districts where Republicans got 42% of the vote. CA-27, 32, 38, and 46 all fit there.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Kurt Bardella to work in CA-24

Maldonado wrote Top Two to give a centrist like him a chance to win. He can easily occupy the center and beat Capps there. He needs to get Mitchum voters to vote for him. Some dislike him so much they might leave the congressional race blank. I don't think the Flash Report will endorse him.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Flash Report will not endorse him
I just had a nice chat with Fleischmann and brought up your comment. He won't endorse Abel because of his tax votes in the Senate, his belief that he leveraged said vote to buy himself the LG appointment, and because he believes Abel would form a rogue band of moderates in the House that would torpedo legislation and play the parties against each other for their own benefit (sorta like Angus King).

[ Parent ]
Honestly, I Have Similar Concerns
Also, Maldonado's just not very bright...

[ Parent ]
rogue band of moderates?
Are there really so many of these "moderates" that'll buck the party and vote with Democrats? Ryan's budget got like 4 no votes from Republicans in 2011. All 0 who voted against repealing the medical device tax? The 0 who voted against repealing Obamacare?

What do they get by torpedoing legislation?

There are some people who'd rather have 190 conservatives in congress than 190 conservatives and 50 moderates. I'm sure Fleischmann is counting Lois Capps who got a 0.00 ACU score in 2010 and followed it up with 0.00 in 2011.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
There are some people who'd rather have 190 conservatives in congress than 190 conservatives and 50 moderates.

I'm one of these people!

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
You made me laugh
You and Jon Fleischmann can work together to get Lois Capps re-elected.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
His term, not mine
I wanted to follow up by asking who else would be in said band of moderates, but I didn't want to press my luck.

[ Parent ]
Updated ballots
CA-3: D-0.3%/R +0.3%
CA-7: D+0.1%
CA-9: D-0.1%/R+0.1%
CA-10: D-1.3%/R+0.8%

I don't have updates on other competitive districts. I'm not sure which county reported for CA-10, but that's a big swing.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

So Denham's Now Up To 49.1%?

Factoring in the two NPP candidates, it should be no problem for Denham to get to over 50%.

Combined the two Dems got 33%. If I'm generous, and give 80% of Condit's vote to the Dems, that gets them to 45.6%.

The Dems will be competitive here. But this looks like roughly a 53-47 outcome in Denham's favor in Nov.

So, "Lean R", and not "Likely R" like CA-21...  

[ Parent ]
It was 48-34
Now it's 49-33. He's at 49.1% now.

Democrats have to take the entire NPP vote to beat him. He could get only 25% of that vote and lose some with turn-out and still win.

I know some people will surmise that since Condit's father was a Democrat, his voters were too. His voters voted for him because they didn't want to vote for the Democrat. They want an independent. I doubt Dems have any claim on the vote. That disregards McComak's 2.2%.

In 2008, WA-5, the Constitution party candidate got 3.1%, while the Libertarian got 2.1%. The Republican went up by 1.9%. The Democrat went up by 3.3%.

WA-6 had a Green with 3.6%. The Republican went up 1.8%, just as the Democrat did.

In 2010 WA-4 a Tea Party candidate got 7%. A Constitution candidate got 3%. An indie got 2%. The Democrat bumped by 10%. The Republican by 2%.

I don't think it's predictable where the vote will go, but I'd expect some of it to go to each party.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Finally good news for Democrats
McNerney jumps by 0.4% to be up 0.3% since election day.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Jim Costa loves his absentees, but Lois Capps doesn't
They won it for him in 2010 and pushed him up 0.8% today. Dems up to 51.8%.

Lois Capps lost 0.4% of her total. Strangely, Abel Maldonado lost 0.6%. It all went to Chris Mitchum. He still lost. She's now more than 5 points behind the two Republicans.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
CA-52 Updated
I'm guessing Peters put some money into getting absentee voters - he's now moved to 0.8% ahead of Saldana. I'm ready to call it for him.

Bilbray's still at 41.2%. The combined GOP vote is 48.8%. The NPP vote is 4.8%.

Like CA-10, this looks "Lean R" to me.  

[ Parent ]
California Wrap-up | 123 comments

Advanced Search

(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox