Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

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: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. 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:

Senate

Governor

House

Row Officers

Q2 Fundraising


California congress 2014

by: Left Coast Libertarian

Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 14:48:11 PM EST


A review of 2012 and how it'll impact 2014.
Left Coast Libertarian :: California congress 2014
CA-1 - La Malfa 57.4%-42.6%, Romney 56.6%-40.3%
There isn't much of a chance this district becomes competitive any time soon, but a 15 point win in an R+10 district is a disappointment.

CA-3 - Garamendi 54.2%-45.8%,  Obama 54.1%-43.0%
Garamendi wasn't terribly impressive going up against a lesser opponent. This district could conceivably be competitive in a mid-term and Carly Fiorina did win here in 2010. Yet I wouldn't put it on the Republican priority list. Assemblyman Daniel Logue would be the best recruit.

CA-7 Bera 51.7%-48.3%, Obama 50.8%-46.8%
Bera had a weak primary and came way back to win. This is an even PVI district, so Bera's win against an incumbent is impressive. It may have something to do with 7 outside Democratic groups spending in the district. This should be a high priority district for Republicans in 2014, although I haven't found a deep bench to challenge. Sacramento County Supervisors Susan Peters and Roberta MacGlashan may be the best candidates, although candidates from outside this district may consider running. Another possibility is former congressman Doug Ose, although he was last seen losing an ugly primary to Tom McClintock.

CA-9 McNerney 55.5%-44.5%, Obama 57.8%-40.1%
While McNerney underachieved the President by quite a bit, this district was always fool's gold to the GOP. Carly Fiorina lost it and Steve Cooley squeaked out a victory. Republicans have a deep bench here, with possible candidates including US Marshal Tony Amador, Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, and several Stockton city councilmen, but it's not a real good shot for 2014.

CA-10 Denham 52.7%-47.3%, Obama 50.6%-47.3%
Obama got a similar percentage to the nearby CA-7 and Democrats spent heavily here. In this instance the one-sided primary result did hold and Jose Hernandez wasn't Ami Bera. Jeff Denham is a strong incumbent but he is vulnerable. Hernandez wants another shot but even he thinks he's better off waiting for 2016 for that. Democrats don't have a deep bench, so Denham should be in good shape for 2014.

CA-16 Costa 57.4%-42.6%, Obama 58.6%-39.4%
The Central Valley can be wacky for Democrats. They have a 15% registration advantage here and Costa won by slightly less than that against an opponent who spent little money in a Democratic year. I don't think the GOP could win here, however, even with an a-list recruit like Assemblywoman Linda Halderman or Assemblyman Jim Patterson. It's just too Democratic.

CA-21 Valadao 57.8%-42.2%, Obama 54.6%-43.5%
Democrats look at this being a D+4 district with a 15% registration advantage and the Democrat being a non-entity and see a possible win in 2014. That shows a lack of understanding about the Central Valley. Democratic strength is mostly a mirage and this district can't be thought of the way other D+4 districts are thought of.

1. This was the only district in California that didn't become more Democratic with on-line registration.
2. The district was 434th out of 435 in ballots cast in 2012.  
3. This was the only congressional, assembly, or state district where the Republican won by a greater margin in the general election than his party won in the primary. That was hardly a fluke. The same thing happened in 2010.
4. Jim Costa barely won that district in 2010 even though Barack Obama won it 59%-39% in 2008.  
5. Valadao's win was by a greater margin than wins by Doug La Malfa or Buck McKeon and was by a similar margin to Darrell Issa and Ed Royce.

This Central Valley district has a White population that is largely rural and votes very Republican. There are the fewer swing voters here than you see elsewhere in California. The Democratic rolls have low turn-out transient Democratic Hispanic farmworkers, some of whom probably don't live in the district in November, let alone vote. There are certainly Democratic votes here and Republicans will need to defend, but they should be able to do that.

CA-24 Capps 55.1%-44.9%, Obama 54.1%-43.1%
The Obama numbers are similar to CA-3, but Capps did better against a better opponent. Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian and former senator Sam Blakeslee might be possibilities and it's possible it could be vulnerable in a mid-term since Fiorina did win here in a mid-term. I wouldn't put this one on a priority list.

CA-25 McKeon 54.8%-45.2%, Romney 49.7%-47.8%
McKeon's win is underwhelming and should be cause for concern. The district, however, was R+3 in 2008 and remained R+3 in 2012. Because Obama did worse in 2012 that meant it went from an Obama win to a Romney win. I've had personal experience with McKeon during campaign season and he spends his time and money campaigning for other candidates. I don't think McKeon will be vulnerable in 2014 but it's worth watching for 2016.

Similar to CA-10 and CA-21 the Democrats don't have much of a bench here, but we should keep in mind that they didn't have a bench in CA-7, 26, 36, or 41. They won all of those seats with non-politicians or, in the case of CA-26, importing a candidate from outside.

CA-26 Brownley 52.7%-47.3%, Obama 54.0%-43.7%
This district is only slightly less Obama than CA-3 and CA-24 but both Fiorina and Cooley did better. Brownley didn't do as well as Garamendi or Capps. That's either because this was an open seat or because she isn't as strong. This is a second tier GOP priority and I think Tony Strickland should it another shot. He's a great fundraiser and popular in the district.  

CA-31 Gary Miller no Democrat, Obama 57.2%-40.6%
Can you name another district held by a Republicans where Obama got 57% of the vote? [toe tap toe tap] There aren't any. Democrats aren't going to blow the primary the way they did in 2012. I don't see a path to victory for Miller in 2014.

CA-36 Raul Ruiz 52.9%-47.1%, Obama 50.7%-47.5%
No result surprised me nearly as much as this one did. Democrats had never won a congressional seat that was primarily in Riverside county. Yet, with the mass influx of Democrats into the county, winning one was inevitable. It was just a question of when and where.  

I wouldn't have thought that where would be CA-36. Mary Bono Mack had withstood previous challenges and her 2008 percentage exceeded McCain's by more than many of her California colleagues. When Bono Mack won her primary by 16.2%, her victory seemed assured. The district had a Republican registration advantage until the October report, although it doesn't now.  

Ruiz's victory was even more impressive when you consider that he exceeded Obama's percentage by more than any other Democrat in a competitive senate, assembly, or congressional district. This is clearly a swing seat, but Ruiz shouldn't be dismissed as a fluke. It'll be a top priority.

The bench is really deep here, with a bunch of candidates waiting for Bono Mack to retire. Senator Bill Emmerson is the most prominent, but he'll be 69 in 2014. Assemblyman Brian Nestande  and Hemet mayor Robert Youssef are younger up and comers. Riverside Supervisor John J. Benoit and Indio mayor Glenn Miller are also possibilities.

CA-39 Ed Royce 57.8%-42.2%, Romney 50.8%-47.1%
Jay Chen and his brother's SuperPac threw a ton of money at Ed Royce and they barely made a dent. The district went from R+5 to R+4 and Chen was second to John Hernandez in Democratic underperformers compared to Barack Obama. So it's doubtful it'll flip any time soon. I'm perfectly happy if Democrats think Royce is vulnerable and want to put more money in here,.

CA-41 Mark Takano 59.0%-41.0%, Obama 61.5%-36.3%
Do you want to know how a political outsider wins in an area that doesn't elect Democrats? Register so many Democrats that candidates don't matter. Republicans never had a shot here.

CA-45 John Campbell 58.5%-41.5%, Romney 54.8%-43.0%
The district went from R+6 to R+8, but Democrats apparently are salivating at taking another shot at Campbell. This was Meg Whitman's second best district in the state. Mimi Walters won it by 17 points and she was the worst performing Republican candidate in a mid-term since 1986. Again, be my guest.

CA-47 Alan Lowenthal 56.6%-43.4%, Obama 60.0%-37.5%
Lowenthal underperformed Obama by 5 points two party, although I think Gary DeLong being a strong candidate had a lot to do with that. A district with Long Beach looked like an attractive steal for Republicans but it's too Democratic to win. Of course Orange County congressional seats don't come open often and Supervisor Janet Nguyen may give it a try.

CA-49 Darrell Issa 58.2%-41.8%, Romney 52.3%-45.7%
Obama won the district in 2008, but it was something of a fluke, because both Whitman and Fiorina won the district in a landslide two years later. This year, the district went from R+3 to R+5 and it'll be more Republican in a mid-term. Democrats can still dream of taking out Darrell Issa.

CA-52 Scott Peters 51.2%-48.8%, Obama 52.1%-45.7%
This is a bit of a perplexing district. Republicans have a registration advantage here, but Obama did better than he did in districts where Democrats have a registration advantage. That's not a complete shock, however, since the district was D+3 in 2008, but only D+1 in 2012.

I can make a long list of possible candidates Supervisors Pam Slater-Price and Ron Roberts, Poway Mayor Don Higginson, and Assemblyman Brian Maienschein are all possibilities, but the best candidate would be 2012 mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio. Obama won the city of San Diego 61%-36%, but DeMaio lost narrowly 52%-47%. He'd be a formidable candidate in a mid-term.

Republicans didn't do well in 2012 but this election had a great top of the ticket for Democrats. Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein are certainly most popular politicians in the state in the last 25 years. Not having them on the ticket and a different mid-term electorate should help the GOP.

Republicans should lose CA-31 in 2014 regardless of how the environment looks. They do, however, have multiple opportunities to pick up seats, but none is anything certain. There are reasons to think the Presidential election in 2016 could be better for Republicans and reasons to think it could be worse. That election is still four years away and we should learn a bit from 2014.

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

The Goal for California Republicans in 2014 should be to break even
Go full out against Bera, Ruiz and Peters, and hope we pull through in one of them to make up for Miller.

The second goal should be to primary Calvert out of Congress.

Baker '14
R, MA-3


Goal?
Maybe you'd consider breaking even successful, but our goal is to win some seats. You set the bar awfully low.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Sorry
I don't have much faith in California anymore. Certainly, 2014 will be more favorable to the GOP just based on turnout, but 2012 was unique in that we had new district line and many open seats. It opens things up a bit more than usual.

2014 will be more normal, and I just don't see a tide for either party. It's going to be trench warfare. We aren't going to pick up seats D+5 or higher without a scandal or open seat. I'm a little skeptical we could win D+3 or higher. If we go with D+5 as the cut off, I guess we could throw Capps, Garamendi and Brownley in the mix, but I just don't see us flipping any of those three. Capps is pretty entrenched, our top Ventura County pol came up short, and I'm not sure how we could improve on candidate recruitment against Garamendi.

D+3 and better is our realistic playing field, and that gives us Bera, Ruiz and Peters. It's going to be tough to knock off any of them in an neutral year, but 1/3 is very do-able. I think running DeMaio against Peters is probably our best shot. Ruiz scares me a bit, and the bench in Sacramento County doesn't seem to be very good.

Problem is we are going to lose Miller one way or the other. Breaking even would be a win in my opinion.  

Baker '14
R, MA-3


[ Parent ]
Look to Fiorina numbers for what's possible
Fiorina did about average and ran in a mid-term. If she won it, it's possible for Republicans to win. If not, it probably isn't. She won CA-3, 7, 24, 26, 36, and 52. These are Obama D+4, E, D+4, D+3, E, and D+1.

I think any of these districts is a fight, but all should be considered. Of course districts that are D+3 or D+4 are likely to be lost in 2016.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Bera, Ruiz, and Peters need to be the priorities
Those are races where Walden needs to be on the phone early and we'll preferably have a well-funded candidate in place by the end of the year. The others are third-tier targets and will only be in play with an exceptional candidate or in a 2010-type year.

[ Parent ]
Eric Swalwell is the model for how to beat Calvert
Republicans will have to stomach the fact that to beat Calvert, they must run someone to his left, not to his right.  Otherwise many Democrats, especially highly partisan ones who view all Republicans as the same, will go with the devil they know.  If the Republican running is stylistically moderate (they can still be conservative on most or even all issues), they can pick up Democratic votes.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Swalwell doesn't apply
He didn't win by going to the center. He won by not being hated by Republicans and by not being 80 years old. A better example might be Gloria Negrete McLeod or Paul Cook.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
No, untrue
Swalwell came across as a thoughtful, reasonable Democrat, albeit still a liberal one.  Stark came off as a jerk who was unfit for Congress.  Temperamentally, Swalwell went to the center, and as we know with Michele Bachmann vs. John Kline, temperament is as important as ideology in terms of how voters see you.

A challenger to Calvert wins by coming across as a thoughtful, reasonable Republican, albeit still a conservative one, while Calvert comes off as that guy who's only accomplishments are a blowjob from a hooker and a B-level corruption scandal.

Negrete McLeod won because she took liberals from Baca over the gun issue and united them with good government Republicans.  Ideologically, she was to his left, but temperamentally she was to his center.

Cook didn't challenge an incumbent, so it doesn't apply quite so well.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
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 don't see where you contradict me
Stark, as you and I both said, was perceived as a jerk who was unfit for congress. Swalwell didn't need to run to the center. He just needed to be seen as likable. Stone can't win based on Calvert being a jerk because Calvert doesn't generate animosity.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Calvert generates plenty of animosity
the only reason he hasn't lost yet is nobody has seriously challenged him in the primary since 1994; the lean of the district has carried him through in the generals.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
exactly
If someone ran ads reminding people what Calvert has done (no legislative accomplishments in 20 years, but multiple scandals), Calvert will generate Stark-like animosity.  And considering the district is only around R+10 as opposed to Stark's D+20, a Republican opposing Calvert from the temperamental center in the Top Two would have a base ten points larger than Swalwell did.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
What scandals?
I thought maybe I was unfamiliar with these scandals. So I Googled. I got a weak sauce six year old article on Think Progress and a rather muddled three year old article on Huffington Post.

http://thinkprogress.org/polit...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

If two far left websites can't come up with more than this there's not much there. CREW's report from several years ago includes some questionable deals but nothing you can really sum up in a sentence.

http://www.citizensforethics.o...

I can't find any record of the House Ethics Committee investigating him. The Political Guide has nothing.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.c...

The sexual incident you mention was from 20 years ago.

Yes, Calvert has no legislative accomplishments. Since when has that a) sunk a congressman b) got him hated by the opposition. Calvert was in an Obama 2008 district and actually had a tight election in 2008.

Gary Miller has an unethical reputation and was running against a well known Republican in a D+7 district. Bob Dutton lost by 10+ points. Calvert and Miller are generic Republicans to most Democrats, not Pete Stark or Michele Bachmann.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
CREW has stuff on him
http://www.citizensforethics.o...
The lawsuit being settled rather than thrown out implies guilt. The sexual incident is secondary, but it further helps to define Calvert as a sleazy Congressman who doesn't care about his constituents.

If Calvert is attacked for a combination of ethics and ineffectualness, he could lose.  I don't think it's likely, but he could, and that's more than I can say for any other Republican incumbent in California.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Issa
Democrats generally dislike Darrell Issa due to his investigations. In the right circumstance he could be beaten. Can you really differentiate Calvert from the other California Republicans? From Gary Miller?  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
$$$$$
Miller and Issa have a lot more. Calvert's not poor, but he's no self-funder, and both Miller and Issa have bottomless pockets.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
as Shamlet said Issa is very wealthy
But besides that, Issa is very well-liked by the GOP base.  I can't say Calvert inspires any loyalty from them.  He's kind of just...there.  The base doesn't dislike him, but they wouldn't refuse to consider someone else.

Other than Gary Miller who is doomed anyway, and Jeff Denham and David Valadao who could lose to Democrats, there is no Republican more vulnerable in 2014 than Calvert in our state.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
He'd never get in
You'd basically have to ask the Democrats nicely to not run any candidate at all, or run such a highly fractured field that no Democrat can wins more than 15%.

Remember, its common wisdom among the CA Democratic party that they will win every seat in the state eventually, particularly the Southern California ones.  Why would they bother playing nice with Republicans to replace a weak Republican incumbent they expect to be able to beat in 10 years or so?

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Calvert's seat would likely be one of the last five to fall
LaMalfa, McClintock, Hunter, Rohrabacher, and Calvert probably have the five safest seats (not in any particular order), because all of them are quite White and quite Republican.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Interesting list
I'm curious about why. Whitman's top 5:

Hunter
Campbell
Nunes
Roharabacher
McCarthy

Mitt's top 5

McCarthy
Hunter
McClintock
LaMalfa
Nunes/Calvert

The two safest to me are Nunes and McCarthy. The Democrats haven't fielded a candidate against McCarthy since 2006 and didn't field one against Nunes in 2010. While Democrats have certainly struggled in a number of places in California, they are virtually non-existent here. On the other hand, they've made in roads in Riverside and Orange counties and nearly won 2 of the 3 largest counties in La Malfa's district.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
This is my list for safest in 2020
The Central Valley is getting bluer at a faster rate than any other part of California. 4 of the 5 on my list were in Mitt's top 5; the other is the Whitest (I believe) Orange County district, which has strong ancestral GOP leanings.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
While the Central Valley is getting bluer
It's not getting that blue and Democrats literally have no candidates to run in McCarthy's district and only had one against Nunes when someone from the outside decided to run where he grew up. I don't see Democrats winning any of your districts but these are the safest.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
well
Nunes had an R+9.5 district this cycle.
McCarthy had an R+14.5 district.  I didn't realize McCarthy's was so red.  I was probably wrong not to put him on the list.

But Calvert and Nunes had identical districts, and I think Nunes is getting bluer faster than Calvert's is.

Cook maybe should have been on the list as well; I forgot about him and that district is very White still.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Democrats and primaries
Remember that Democrats don't do well in primaries.

Democrats don't bother trying to get credible candidates in most non-competitive races. CA-8 went 41.7% for Obama and CA-42 went 41.4%. Two Democrats split 24% in the CA-8 primary and neither finished top 2. In CA-42, two Democrats split 25%. They got 14.3% and 10.7%. The two Republican challengers to Calvert split 17.5%. The NPP got 6.2%.

If Democrats field two candidates in 2014, along with only Calvert and Stone it's not hard to see Republicans both finishing top 2.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
eh
I guess we got unlucky in 3 close races but how do we hold any of those for more than 1 term?

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Find a moderate
All three are still winnable for the GOP, but you need someone pro choice/civil unions to beat Bera or Peters, and someone moderate on immigration to beat Ruiz.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Bono Mack and Bilbray were the moderates
Looking closely at Peters's district it looks like he got a bunch of white liberals on the coast while entirety of conservative San Diego went to Hunter.



27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
what issues was Bilbray moderate on?
And Bono Mack was moderate on the wrong issues.  Other than Palm Springs, this isn't a socially liberal district like Ventura County or Sacramento County.  It's very Hispanic and not that wealthy.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
That reminds me
Anyone know the Hispanic %s for the SoCal districts?

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
here you go
http://www.mpimaps.com/mapanal...

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
mostly fiscal ones
He's not been a huge spending cutter.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/p...
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/a...

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
DW Nominate has Bilbray at .393
similar to Frank Lucas, Pat Tiberi, and Jaime Herrera Beutler.  They aren't moderates.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
well in terms of House Republicans
Or in terms of SoCal House Republicans, he's a generic Mainstream Partnership guy. I don't know the bench here or if they can find anyone better.

I don't think Peters can be seriously challenged. Saldana might have been though.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
The bench is deep
Listed above. There should be no shortage of candidates for CA-36 or CA-52. While I don't know either personally I favor Poway Mayor Don Higginson or San Diego mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
These are Federal races
I don't see either coming heavily into play, although certainly wearing either pro-life or pro-marriage on your sleeve are questionable strategies. CA-7 has a lot of state government employees. Whitman's pension reform platform was a reason CA-7 had one of the largest Whitman/Fiorina disparities in the state. You won't get elected here if you're perceived as anti-union.

CA-52 contains a lot of precincts where neither candidate got 60%. You don't usually see that. Bilbray did top 60% in most of Poway, Coronado, Pomerado, and parts of Rancho Bernardo. You'd expect Escondido in there, but they've separated it from neighboring areas. For years San Diego has had a North County-South County voter divide and this district has a little more of South County than I'd like. A Republican needs to do better in the North County part of the district, while holding their own in South County.

Brian Bilbray hadn't lived in the district until 2011. He grew up in Imperial Beach and represented the 49th there. Then he moved to Carlsbad to run for the 50th. You'd hope that a Don Higginson would have a base in Poway to enable him to ring up good numbers there.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
you can't win a suburban D+ district
in California while being socially conservative.  You just can't.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Gary Miller begs to differ :)


[ Parent ]
okay fine, absent craziness :P


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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Strickland won SD-19 in 2008
It was even, so maybe it skates by.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Just Curious but what's your beef with Calvert?
He was my congressman for the last 20 years. He has had his fair share of scandals and what not, but always seems to survive the electorate.

[ Parent ]
Unaccomplished, shady business deals, personal issues


From IL-09, Living in PA-07.

Carl DeMaio for CA-52!


[ Parent ]
ah so just the usual stuff I've heard about him
It always surprised me that he never really got any strong primary challenges.

Now that he's in an ever safer R seat, the GOP really has nothing to lose anymore by giving him a stiff challenge.


[ Parent ]
2012 results against old lines
Has any analysis being done to see how 2012 results would have panned   against old Congressional lines?  I am thinking Lungren and  Bilbray would have survived, Gallegly might have been still around, while Valadao might not have made it.  


42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10

[ Parent ]
Strickland
Has someone polled his popularity? I see you've mentioned that he's popular quite regularly.  

Personal experience in Ventura County
Strickland has been elected four times to the assembly and state senate and his wife Audra was elected three times. In all my experience at events, making phone calls, and knocking on doors I haven't seen another politician who is more liked than Strickland.

He was endorsed by the Humane Society.
http://www.hslf.org/press-rele...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
My two cents
CA 21- I still treat the Dem in that race as 4th tier candidate. All the big names gave this race a pass. Hernandez had literally no money for his campaign, which makes it next to impossible to win a congressional race in this day an age. This seat is far from what one would call safe R. I'll agree with you that 2014 will be tough for Dems to win here, due to the drop in minority turnout. But lookout for 2016 where this seat will be a sure fire target for the Dems.

CA 26- Personally I feel Strickland is not the best candidate to run here. He may be a good fundraiser but his support has been waning. He barely won his senate race against Hannah-Beth Jackson back in 2008 and probably would have lost had he run for reelection this cycle.

CA 41- Takano is no ordinary candidate. He pulled of a near upset back when he first ran for congress in 1992. That year he lost by a mere 519 votes against Ken Calvert in a much more Republican district than the current CA 41. Changing demographics have basically moved this seat to safe D


CA-21
Hernandez was a non-entity, but was he any more of a non-entity than other Democratic candidates running Darrell Issa or Doug LaMalfa? Valadao got 57.8% of the vote. They got 58.2% and 57.4%. The Democrats ran a bunch of non-entities and they got 38-43% of the vote even in the most Romney districts.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
1 off from worst case
http://www.mpimaps.com/map-ana...

This was the GOP worst case map I found, 11 + 1 swing seat that was similar to old CA 3 minus south Sac burbs like Elk Grove, don't think Lungren would have survived it last year if he had ran.

Funny that we ended only 1 off it, with Miller gone next cycle we will get at the worst-case scenario anyway, Without any democratic gerrymandering.

Looking back a decade, it's hard to believe that a republican congressperson once represented places like Pasadena, San Diego city, Beach cities in LA, eastern suburbs of SF. I really think that the CA seats lost this cycle are gone for good, barring a major economic meltdown in the state which convinces new Hispanic and Asian voters about the fallacy of D economic policies.  All the while I see a steady stream of Republican voters moving out of California (which by itself may not be a bad thing if they help solidify the ranks in AZ/NV/WA/TX.) which will exacerbate the problems of the state party, the current state party head actually pointed out that he was seeing loss of current members who were moving out of state.

42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10


[ Parent ]
This was worst case
A Democratic map would've almost surely been better for the GOP because there's no chance any Democratic incumbent would've accepted having their district compromised in any way. CA-03, CA-09, CA-16, CA-21, CA-24, CA-31, CA-41, CA-46, and CA-47 would've been made more Democratic, and most likely CA-33 and CA-53 as well, with the result that the GOP districts in near proximity would've been more solid. The most likely result would've been a D+3 map, not the D+6 map that was drawn by the Commission (though the GOP is temporarily holding on to two extra seats).

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
You might be right
I'll set aside the idea that Republicans are temporarily holding CA-21, because  of what I wrote above.

In 2002 Democrats did Republicans a huge favor because the incumbents were all so selfish that they drew a map where Gore won every Democratic district outside the Central Valley by at least 57%-43%, two party. And if you could draw a 67%-33% Gore district instead of a 57%-43% they did that. Republicans got all the areas Democrats didn't want and got fairly safe districts as a result.

Of course in other states most reps didn't act that way and the legislatures drew maps to maximize gains.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Not to mention
There would've been a huge, acrimonious battle over CA-29 and CA-51 at the very least, with Berman and Filner wanting to protect their seats versus Latino challengers. Just about any which way you look at it the GOP did the Democrats a great favor by pushing the Commission initiative.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Um what?
You do realize the Democrats could have drawn a 45-8 map, and probably even more than that right?  Republicans still represent most of CA's Republican territory, and Democrats could have drawn the seats they did win as Safe D.


23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Yes
I'm saying that what Democrats could have drawn and what Democrats would have drawn are not the same thing.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
More possible in 2010 vs 2000
2000 redist politics would not have played out in 2010, there would have been enormous pressure put on CA legislature by national party/bloggers/PAC's to draw something like the 45-8 maps, IL/MD/PA prove that general public does not hang map prints in their living rooms and as such don't care how they look. This would have been a third of what D's needed incrementally for the house.

As to how the incumbents would have reacted, you need to realize that the democratic transformation CA is going through is only partially done, a R+1 district today might be D+1 in 4 yrs, just need another concerted registration drive by the D's. This trend will continue and only get worst with uptick of R's moving out in faster numbers, until the politics of Hispanics and Asians change at least at state level.  Now that will happen at sometime in future and is the subject of my upcoming diary on immigration, until that time R's will continue to shed seats.


42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10


[ Parent ]
The blue trend
We saw Democrats in Missouri (Clay) and Pennsylvania (Brady) collaborate with Republicans to protect their districts and we saw a Republican (Shuster) in PA insist that his district maximize Republicans. The California legislature deferred to the Democratic delegation in 2000 because those Democrats were powerful and brought home the pork.

I remain skeptical about the Democratic transformation of California for the following reasons:

1. Between 2/10/09 and 9/7/12, Democratic registration fell from 7.714 million to 7.479 million. That drop of 235k was greater than the Republican drop of 194k. When you're trending you don't spend 3.5 years shedding party members and do it faster than the other guys.

2. Online registration picked up the low hanging fruit. It's unlikely Democrats will find a similar surge.  

3. Obama probably gained about 350k votes due to online registration. If online registration doesn't happen the state goes from D+8.6 to D+9.0. Your trend is a one time event. Even without that Obama got a lower percentage of votes than he did in 2008. If there's a big trend, you get more.

4. Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein were on the ballot in 2012. Both of them were enormously popular in California. They won't be on the ballot in the future.

5. Where do you get your idea that Republicans are leaving the state but Democrats aren't? If you listen to any Democrats it's only unemployed low wage workers who are moving out. They tend to vote Democratic.

I have no doubt that some areas of California are getting bluer and the state as a whole may be getting bluer. Democrats had a major confluence of events this year with online registration, Dianne Feinstein, and Barack Obama all present. Now it's possible there are more Democrats in waiting and that Californians will vote for the 2016 nominee like they voted for Obama. I think the debate is whether California is getting slightly bluer or increasingly bluer.

Also, the idea that every district in the state is getting bluer is silly. Some counties got a lot redder.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Latinos
You left off the Latino factor. Latinos turned out better than ever in 2012 and they were more Democratic than ever. Surely California Democrats would realize, as you regularly point out, that this is not a reliable factor, particularly for midterm elections.

McCain, and especially Bush, made a special point of courting Latinos. Romney made a special point of antagonizing them. Well, maybe not a special point of it, but an awkward, clueless fumble into antagonizing them nonetheless.

There is as of yet no reason to think that Latinos will turn out similarly en masse in a midterm, and much reason to think otherwise, and there is also much reason to think that (eventually) the national GOP will realize that it must court the Latino vote.

So, this may surprise you to hear coming from me, but in my view Republicans can win any California seat that Boxer lost, under the right circumstances. That includes CA-03, CA-07, CA-16, CA-21, CA-24, CA-26, CA-36, and CA-52. She also barely won with a plurality in CA-09 and CA-31. She had a somewhat larger plurality win in CA-41, CA-46, and CA-47.

My basic premise is that this is not how these seats would've been drawn if Democrats were drawing the lines. Certainly not those that had Democratic incumbents in 2011 (and that includes CA-21, which would've been Costa's seat). So, yes, you can spread Democratic votes out of the Bay Area and LA more efficiently, but most of these would've been used to shore up seats like CA-03, CA-24, and select targets like CA-31, CA-41, and CA-46.

Now, turning to other states, Republicans had no choice but to be aggressive in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio because they had a bunch of incumbents in marginal seats, in states that were losing seats, and the only other alternative was to throw some of them under the bus. I think Pennsylvania in particular could prove to be quite a dummymander again, despite the self-satisfied glee I see in comments here, which sound exactly like what I heard back in 2001 and 2002.

Virginia was a similar situation, though without the seat loss, but with a twist due to major population disparities in the old districts, and the Fair Districts statute put Republicans in a comparable situation in Florida, where they had to work with relatively slight GOP margins in a number of districts.

As for North Carolina, the long legacy of Democratic gerrymanders made it a rather simple task to flip the tables. The map is not so much aggressive as it is obvious. Georgia is much the same, though it only involved the Barrow seat, but there was zero risk involved for GOP incumbents in the map that was drawn.

The two aggressive Dem gerrymanders, in Illinois and Maryland, were done without putting a single Democratic seat in any avoidable risk (IL-12 is marginal, but that's really unavoidable due to the geography).

So, ultimately, I disagree that California would've been different if they protected incumbents first. That's what every partisan redistricting plan did to the best extent that they were able to do so.

Finally, it's worth noting the simple logistics between having to defend a a district in Santa Barbara or the Sacramento Valley versus the Philly suburbs. No California incumbent wants to be flying back and forth every election year to defend his or her seat. It's such a bother!

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
CA-46
That shouldn't be on the 'select targets' list, but Democrats would've surely made it even more Democratic. In other words, yes, in theory, you could split the Orange County Latinos into two Democratic leaning districts (the other would've been Campbell's seat) as part of a 45-8 map, but there's no chance the Democrats would've actually done so. LULAC would've cried bloody murder at the mere idea, and that would've been the end of that!

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Don't forget NV and CO
The Latinos played along in NV and CO to screw themselves out of 2 seats to help the D team, While they are more established in CA, I do believe they would have come on board eventually, maybe not 45 - 8 map but something like 43 - 10 map.

The big gorilla in the room stat you need to look at CA is the difference between Latino CVAP and overall population. In my home district CA - 10, it's as much as 15%, matter of time before it eats into Denham,s 4% margin.  

42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10


[ Parent ]
NV and CO were decided by courts
The Latinos didn't have a choice about the seats. In the redistricting process with the commission here getting Latino and Black seats was more important to each group than getting Democratic seats. Better to have a Latino Democrat and a Republican than two White Democrats.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
2014
One thing that's consistent with my analysis is that I'm a big "show me" guy. I like trends, but I'm not sold until something happens. I knew Democrats could win in Riverside county, but wasn't convinced they would until they did.

I believe Republicans can pick up more Latinos, but I'm skeptical they will until they do. The one caveat I put on that is George W. Bush really connected with Latinos. So it's certainly possible. I'd love to have a nominee like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio who speaks fluent Spanish. I've been working in Hispanic marketing for years and you connect with Hispanics by showing that you value them and understand where they're coming from.

You're right that Hispanics are unreliable voters. I doubt that changes with one year and it especially is questionable for a mid-term. I agree that Republicans could win any district Boxer lost in 2014, and I don't understand why people think that Democrats will do as well in California in 2014 as they did in 2012.

On the other hand, 2016 could be a year to win any GOP gains back.

We won't know what a California Democratic gerrymander would've looked like. They didn't need to give Matsui or Capps as many Democrats as they did in 2001 and certainly wouldn't have need to in 2011.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
CA 2014
There is one obvious factor that will play a role in 2014 such that it may very well compensate for the usual drop-off in Democratic voters, which is that CA-07, CA-26, CA-36, and CA-52 now have Democratic incumbents. So, while Democrats probably won't do as well in general, that doesn't automatically mean that the narrow 2012 margins will be repeated.

To put it differently, had Bera, Brownley, Ruiz, and Peters been the incumbents in 2012, they would've all but surely won with greater margins. That's the hypothetical baseline from which the drop-off should be measured, but there's not really a good way to factor it out.

In any event, I've said before that the California maps should result in swingier districts. That's hardly a daring statement of course. I think the bigger issue will be what the national political landscape will look like. If it was 2010, for instance, all four districts would probably flip (and a couple others besides). If it was 2006 or 2008, you'd probably lose at least a couple more Republicans.

I guess we'll just have to see. What I'm pretty confident about though is that, besides the obvious CA-31 district, the next decade will see a lot more seat changes in California than did the last decade.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
Dems as incumbents
Either the districts are swing or the Democrats will get better and hold them. Even if that's the case I don't see Democrats picking up more and more seats as the decade wears on. Certainly CA-31 will flip and CA-10 and CA-21 are likely to do so if the Central Valley moves further left.

Bera, Ruiz, and Peters beat incumbents, so clearly being an incumbent in these districts wasn't that good. Each might be a strong incumbent or they might be a weak one. We had plenty of weak Republican incumbents this year. Chris Gibson wins a D+1 district by 6, but Nan Hayworth loses an E district by 4.

I think you're probably in good territory to predict that a district like CA-7, which was R+1 four years ago and E this year will flip some time this decade.

I'm not ready to predict whether the GOP can win Democratic seats in 2014, but I do predict that Democrats will only take one Republican seat, CA-31.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
you weren't the only one
I mean the Republicans still had a bench and decent party apparatus for Riverside. The Democrats were outsiders who were only winning interms of registration and partisan voting.

DKE went and even changed CA-41 to tossup from lean Dem because they too weren't happy with the primary returns.

I had myself giving Takano no more than a 60% chance of winning. But in the end it was rout that none of the Dems needed to worry about.

I think one reason Bush faired decently well was because of his support for a guest worker program.
While Latinos tend to be socially conservative you can't always count on that to be their first priority when voting. That's how Imperial County, CA can end up voting overwhelmingly for both Obama and Prop 8.
Prior to Wilson's second term, most Latinos were only slightly more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.
I feel once the issue of Immigration is solved you may some latinos return back into the R fold. Much in the same way once gay marriage issue done, some of old former Log Cabins will return back to the party.


[ Parent ]
the initial statement by Patrick Henry was that NC was to be a 9-4 map
And he specifically named Shuler, Kissell, Miller.

I wonder what went on in their minds to try to go for the extra seat.  

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Would have been crazy not to
You weren't putting anyone at risk by going after McIntyre.

[ Parent ]
Give me 9-4, or Give me death!!


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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
HAH!


From IL-09, Living in PA-07.

Carl DeMaio for CA-52!


[ Parent ]
hmm
1. Voter registratition may not be the best way to measure party trends. As you can alter the end points and get a different picture. If you looked at voter Reg from 2000 to present I'd bet you'd find the GOP bleeding more voters than the Dems.

2. I don't see any signs of online voter registration going a way so the there could still be another surge.

3.Honestly there's also the fact that Same-day voter registration should be in California by 2014, so the state could potentially trend even more D in the coming elections

4. Depending on what some of the termed out state wide electeds do, you may still have some popular dems on the ballot.

5. They've been leaving the state ever since the state moved away from the defense industry and more towards the tech industry. I think the state's shifting demographics more than make up for any of the Dems leaving the state. How else did CA 41 get even more democratic this cycle than the 2008 cycle.

I guess the way I think of CA trending blue is just looking back how some Republicans treated Clinton winning the state as fluke but now we all consider it Safe D at the presidential level. I guess its easy to paint a picture of CA geting increasingly blue when you look at how well Dems did in the state (winning 2/3rds control for the fist time since the late 19th century). But I think the true test will be how state does in the coming cycles. Will the Dems hold onto their 2/3rds? will they expand them? Will R's win a statewide position?



[ Parent ]
Same-day voter registration
You make a fine point bringing that up. It could be a Democratic silver bullet in 2014, although it's tough to know. Online registration benefitted Democrats not because the party did a great job registering them, but because people did it themselves. I wouldn't doubt that same day could be huge for Democrats. Has it been big for them in other states?

Why would there be another online surge? You got the low hanging fruit. I could see it as being a Democratic advantage that gives them an extra edge, but not a big edge like they got this year.

I think Harris, Lockyer, Newsom, Chiang, and Brown will be on the ballot. Will that help down ballot? I think overall environment will matter more than whether the Democratic treasurer candidate gets 54% or 59%.

Republicans are unlikely to win any statewide position, even in a good year. You don't beat incumbents here. So they'd have to have a good SoS candidate to win one.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
I guess it depends
I mean for the most part same day voter registration ends up boosting turnout which usually helps dems. Looking at states that do have it there are a two red states on there(Idaho and Montana).

Well I was thinking that Dems only got what? a few months to register voters online for 2012, whereas in 2014 they'll get two years to do online voter registration and same goes for 2016.  


[ Parent ]
Registering Online
Parties do registration drives by going to a location and registering people.  People who registered online were those who either never saw a registration drive or avoided and chose to register themselves. So the Democrats didn't have anything to do with it. It's certainly possible there are more online registrants for Democrats but it's not like there's anything the Democrats can do to register them. Online registration likely will give Democrats an additional boost but I don't know how we can predict how much of one.

I'd guess that people who move are more likely to do so and those are usually younger, especially those in college. Is there any actual evidence that same day registration helps Democrats or is purely anecdotal? I prefer what I can prove to what my gut tells me. Has anyone done a survey?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
While I do think that was Possibility
I don't think the Dems had the fire in the belly to replicate a burtonmander of the state again.

I'm of the belief that the Dems drew an incumbent protection map because they were afraid of what happened in 1994. They were scared they would lose a majority of the house delegation, so rather have a map to expand their numbers they opted to shore up there own members and show a 1994 wave would not happen again.

It's rather unclear what they Dems would have done this time had they had a free hand to draw the maps. While the 2/3rd budget rule was gone they still needed 2/3rds vote revenue increases and therefore would have needed a few Republicans. In that sense they may have opted to protect some Republican in exchange for support in the legislature. Of course all of this is moot now.


[ Parent ]
Looking at the districts
Here is the swing district PVI trend. The number is how much it moved from 2008 to 2012. For example, CA-3 went from D+2.8 to D+3.8, a D+1.0 gain.

CA-3 D+1.0
CA-7 D+1.0
CA-9 D+2.8
CA-10 D+2.2
CA-16 D+2.6
CA-21 D+4.4
CA-24 R+0.6
CA-25 D+0.5
CA-26 R+0.8
CA-31 D+2.4
CA-26 D+1.8
CA-39 D+1.0
CA-41 D+4.0
CA-45 R+2.1
CA-46 D+4.6
CA-47 D+3.3
CA-48 R+1.6
CA-49 R+2.2
CA-52 D+1.2

What I like about this comparison is that it compares Obama to Obama, apples to apples. It isn't pretty for the GOP. While I think some of these changes are minor, the changes in the Central Valley and Riverside counties aren't. I can see why Democrats would be encouraged by the CA-21 numbers.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


thanks for this
great chart, interesting, and haven't seen it before on here.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
It's good for Democrats
The areas that trended most to Romney were in CA-1 and CA-4. Republicans didn't need more votes in Placer county. Romney won it by 19%, while McCain won it by 11%.

Democrats most likely won't have to worry about CA-41, 46, or 47 in the future and the Central Valley may go their way even if they can't find candidates there who can win. And they have to shake their head about CA-31.

I missed CA-36, which moved D+1.8. What's a big worry for Republicans is that while most of the swing districts didn't move a lot left, they moved left.

The only good news for Republicans is Orange County, North County San Diego, and moderate good news on the Central Coast.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Republicans had good news in White areas, Democrats
everywhere else.

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

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
True nationwide
California reflected the country this way. Obama improved most everywhere in minority districts. His top improvements were included AZ-7, CA-34, NY-14, and AZ-3. Romney had a lot of improvement in Utah, West Virginia, Missouri, and Indiana districts but also showed it in very white WI-7, WI-8, and PA-11.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
California congressional district swing
27 districts out of 53 swung left to some degree. Based on current numbers Obama seems to have gained in roughly 100 congressional districts (93 based on current data) and declined in 335.

CA-06 Matsui, Doris 1.8
CA-09 McNerney, Jerry 2.7
CA-10 Denham, Jeff 0.6
CA-12 Pelosi, Nancy 0.6
CA-13 Lee, Barbara 1.5
CA-14 Speier, Jackie 1.6
CA-15 Swalwell, Eric 1.2
CA-16 Costa, Jim 2.2
CA-17 Honda, Michael 5.4
CA-19 Lofgren, Zoe 5.7
CA-21 Valadao, David 5.1
CA-27 Chu, Judy 1.6
CA-29 Cardenas, Tony 5.5
CA-31 Miller, Gary 1.6
CA-32 Napolitano, Grace 5.7
CA-34 Becerra, Xavier 10.9
CA-35 Negrete McLeod, Gloria 4.8
CA-36 Ruiz, Raul 0.2
CA-37 Bass, Karen 1.2
CA-38 Sanchez, Linda 5.9
CA-40 Roybal-Allard, Lucille 7
CA-41 Takano, Mark 4.2
CA-43 Waters, Maxine 5
CA-44 Hahn, Janice 6.1
CA-46 Sanchez, Loretta 6.2
CA-47 Lowenthal, Alan 3.5
CA-51 Vargas, Juan 7.5



27, R, PA-07.


Obama better and worse
PVI moved to GOP: 197
PVI moved to Dem, but Obama did worse: 123
Obama did better: 115

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
i took the 2012 delta and compared it to the 2008 delta
There are a couple districts where Obama got slightly more of the vote, but so did Romney. Thus it technically swung right.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Latinos again
A number of those district moves are easy enough to explain. It's worth remembering, as most people evidently did not during the 2012 campaign, that Latinos were skeptical of Obama in 2008. He was not especially popular among them and they voted heavily for Hillary in the primaries. This was a point that came up in discussion a couple times last spring, but I wasn't motivated enough to really push the issue.

Anyhow, the elevated 2012 Latino turnout and Obama's increased margin among them largely explains the 2012 shifts in those California districts. It may account for just about all of it.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
You're right
Obama improved most in AZ-7, OH-3, NY-8, CA-34, NJ-8, NY-6, NY-7, FL-27, AZ-3, TX-28, and TX-29. These are mostly Hispanic and African-American districts.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox