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!

The Current RRH Race Ratings:

Senate

Governor

House

Row Officers

Q2 Fundraising


Political Roundup for February 27th, 2013

by: Daniel Surman

Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 08:10:28 AM EST


President

Rand Paul:
The curious breakdown of how Rand Paul became the only Senator to vote against cloture and ultimately for Hagel's confirmation.

Christie: The New Jersey Governor was not invited to CPAC.

Senate


Georgia: The Club for Growth recently released a scorecard rating different potential candidates in this seat. Rep. Paul Broun has the clear edge with a 100% rating this session and a 99% lifetime rating. The next closest Representatives, Tom Graves, has a 93% rating, but he is not likely to run. After that, Rep. Phil Gingrey boasts 89%, Rep. Tom Price 86% and Rep. Jack Kingston 85%. Will this trigger CFG money to go to Broun? The organization is mum so far.

Governor


Wisconsin: PPP finds Governor Scott Walker (R) in much the same position he was in right before the election, with 48/49 approval. Against a host of Democrats with a bit of a deficit in name ID Walker leads, the best known being Ron Kind who he leads 46-42. Former Senator Feingold (D), however, leads Walker 47/49 and has a bit higher approval ratings in the sample at 53/37. This isn't shocking- he has higher name ID than all of the other Democrats, and that is part of Walker's lead right now.

Kansas: PPP also finds Governor Sam Brownback (R) with some rough approval ratings in his state at 37/52. However, he still leads all comers, including his best-known potential opponent, former Governor Kathleen Sebellius 48-43. However, less known Democrats with less unfavorable baggage keep the race close as well, including 44-40 over Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and 45-39 over former Governor Mike Parkinson.

House


IL-02: ICYMI, there was a special election primary last night in Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s old seat. Michael Bloomberg Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly won.

PA-12: Former Rep. Mark Critz (D) may want a rematch with now Rep. Keith Rothfus, according to a source close to him. Back in December, Critz was still considering. Part of the decision has to involve how much tougher this district became for a Democrat after redistricting- there is a reason, after all, that Keith Rothfus (R) is now a Representative.

NC-03: Rep. Walter Jones (R) continues to ruffle feather on foreign policy, this time at a recent North Carolina YAL convention, saying that LBJ is"probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney." Jones gets some level of primary every couple of years and easily dispatches the opponent.

MN-05: Another meltdown from Rep. Keith Ellison (D), this time on Hannity, where he opened by attacking the conservative host as a "shill for the Republican Party" and proceeded to rant for most of six minutes relatively uninterrupted.

NC-06:
Rep. Howard Coble (R) is in the hospital after "repeated bouts of dizziness." Coble, who is 81, has been on retirement watch for some time as he faces recurring health issues.

TX-33: Former State Rep. Domingo Garcia (D) is considering another run in this Hispanic-majority seat. The tougher thing to figure out is why he htinks he would do better this time when his opponent, Rep. Marc Veasey (D), will have two years to entrench himself. Veasey is propped up by a relatively, compared to the Hispanic population, better mobilized pocket of African American voters in southeast Tarrant County.

SC-01: Roll Call gathers up new ads in the special election Republican primary here, with Teddy Turner turning in some digs against Sanford's past, Sanford running an ad highlighting how conservative he is with mini-testimonials, and Grooms saying everyone says they are a conservative and... well, he will be one, too.

Miscellaneous

VRA: Oral arguments on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act begin today before SCOTUS in Shelby County v Holder.

Gay Marriage: Interesting things to see here in the Republican legal brief in support of gay marriage. Our former CA-GOV candidate, Meg Whitman, has flipped to support gay marriage. Only two sitting US Representatives, Rep. Richard Hanna in NY-22 and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in FL-27, signed on as well. And former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is listed in support as a Republican- does this mean he is back in the party?

MN-SD-35: State Senator Brandon Petersen (R) became the first Republican in the State Senate to publicly support potential gay marriage legislation, drawing some significant flak in a district that voted yes on the marriage amendment by a bit over 50% (which he himself voted to put on the ballot). The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is threatening to spend heavily against Petersen and other Republicans who vote the wrong way on this issue, with several other Republicans still undecided at this point in both chambers.

Daniel Surman :: Political Roundup for February 27th, 2013
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

MN SD 35 / WATN
Former Auditor Patricia Anderson (R-Ramsey County) came to the defense of recently embattled senator Brenden Paulsen. I stand my assertion yesterday that the NOM will not be big players in the senate primaries which are still over 3 years out. However they will jump all over any state Representatives that cross them, as those caucuses are a little over 1 year away. And as most political junkies know, in Minnesota the caucuses are hugely important. This outside money is going to be vitally important because the state party is still broke, and leadership remains unsettled.
http://www.minnpost.com/politi...

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Caucus is key
Petersen is taking a lot of flack for his stance, especially with caucus-goers feeling like they were mislead when he initially ran for the Senate. Assuming the caucus system is still in place locally in four years, he may have to choose between a primary or his seat. Maybe- we are still so far out it is hard to say.

And Paulsen is the Paulite running for Chair of the MNGOP (Bill Paulsen, that is). Downey should have that race in the bag pretty easily.

libertarian Republican, TX-14/MN-04

[ Parent ]
I figured Downey was going to win
He has too much fundraising ability and outside conservative activist support to lose the nomination. I am curious if Downey, Hann, and Daudt go all "override six" on defectors on this issue. I could easily see Downey backing that move, and Daudt spearheading it, although I am not sure Hann would go along with that move.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
FL-Gov: Rick Scott Rebound?
http://www.politico.com/story/...

The survey, conducted by the firm Hamilton Campaigns and obtained by POLITICO, shows that Scott starts out his reelection fight tied with Crist and modestly ahead of other Democratic candidates. The poll was taken from Jan. 30 to Feb. 4, testing 600 registered voters.

In the survey, Scott's personal favorability is narrowly positive: 44 percent of respondents said they had a favorable impression of him, compared with 39 percent who had an unfavorable impression. He gets positive job approval reviews from 48 percent of Floridians and negative reviews from 43 percent - a narrowly positive split.

Will need other polls to confirm this...

19, Republican, KS-03
Standing strong with Senator Roberts and Governor Brownback.


100% garbage poll


25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I want to see some kind of confirmation


23, Democrat, CO-4 (home), MI-12 (law school) 

[ Parent ]
Confirmation
It is clear the message testing that works against Crist though.  He is a flipflopper who will do anything to be in power.  Scott's message needs to be that I am tolerable while Crist is the real SOB.  Meek needs to run as an indie to make this interesting.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
The next batch of youth vote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...

The good news for Republicans is that the new 13-18 year-olds don't seem to be like today's 18-32 year-old voters. As I noted last week, the men and women college freshmen of 2012 were 4-5pt less liberal than those of 2008, which brings them closer to middle-of-the-road freshmen of the beginning of the Carter and Clinton administrations.

Interesting set of numbers.

27, R, PA-07.


Consistent with many findings
What this article didn't discuss, much to my surprise, was the fact that the current 13-18 demographic is far, far more likely to have parents that were in 1984's 18-24 demographic (as my dad was) than today's 18-32 year olds. Knowing that people often mimic their parents' voting behavior, the overwhelming conservatism of 1984's 18-24 demographic would necessarily foreshadow a much more conservative bent among today's 13-18 year olds.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
^This
I wonder how the white population of each of these age groups votes (and will vote, in the current 13-18 population).

[ Parent ]
The unborn vote
I always laugh at the "Democratic dominance" is inevitable people. The idea that anyone can predict how people who aren't born yet will vote is silly. In 1980 Jimmy Carter indexed 112 with 18-29. In 2012, Barack Obama indexed 92 with 45-64.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
My parents were part of this group.
They and their friends were then, and are now, solid Republicans. Reagan was their hero. Obviously, they're both from a pretty right-wing demographic, middle-class (at times arguably upper-class) white Southerners who are college-educated. Still, my mother had a very Democratic upbringing.

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college), MS-03 (weekend)

[ Parent ]
Obama vs Bush
It's hard to underestimate how much damage Bush did to the Republican brand among a lot of groups, young people among them.

The current group of 13-18 year olds are really coming more of age under Obama.

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  


[ Parent ]
agree
After 8 years of Bush, no Republican had any chance of beating Obama - or Clinton.

50, Male, Conservative Republican, NJ-09, originally NY-18
Tell the "Food Stamps" President: self-reliance is a good thing!


[ Parent ]
This can't be emphasized enough
GWB hurt the GOP very badly not only among the 18-34 group, but also among the age group above that, the 35-50 age group.  The latter came of age under Reagan and Bush, and were initially very Republican, and are now more balanced.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
That poll is a mess
Given that only 80% expressed any sort of preference, and we don't have ideological breakdowns of "Others" and "wouldn't vote". Plus 13 year olds tend to have different views, and ones far closer to their parent's than 17 year olds.

I do think a big issue not being exploited by the GOP is that the changes in the jobs market for 20-somethings are no longer a consequence of the economy. The economy triggered the changes, but the changes were long overdue given the legal framework and brought America into line with Europe.

Basically, an Indian summer in Law and Finance during the early part of this decade made it possible for students at top 25 Liberal Arts Schools in the middle of nowhere to blow off life until the Spring of their Senior year and then to apply to 50K+ a year jobs with some expectation of success. That is no longer the case. You want a job at JP Morgan out of school now? Well you better do an internship at a local finance firm after Sophomore year instead of that summer camp, and then do a Summer Analyst spot the summer after Junior year. Ditto for McKinsey if your Harvard, Yale, Stanford.

Schools have been quite bad at getting this across to students, especially older ones, and are actively failing their students. Students are coming out an realizing this. In fact I suspect they realize more than people give them credit for, which is one reason why simply pointing out the existence of the phenomena and its correlation with Obama's presence in the White House was insufficient for Romney and Ryan to get much out of it.

That said there is another problem. Having discovered that they can get Masters students to work for free as interns for several months and make their parents pay for it, few companies and nonprofits have an incentive to actually restore low-wage entry level positions that vanished in 2008-2009. While this goes against a lot of fiscally conservative instincts, Republican should insist that jobs actually be paid. Otherwise, these companies are subsidizing themselves by stealing from what would be the retirement savings of a generation, and the government is going to end up having to cover the shortfall. Unpaid internships therefore are basically a de facto subsidy on companies.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Well they can't be any worse...
but I would say that it is really hard to say what the political orientation will be for this generation (born between 1994-2000).  It is even hard to completely conclude that the 22-32 age group you speak of will remain strongly liberal as they are today (after all the very Dem Greatest Generation did start voting GOP after the Dems moved further to the left on social issues in the 1960s.)

Back in 1999 I remember several surveys that suggested that the majority of the 11-17 age group (born between 1982-1988) supported the impeachment of Clinton.  That generation became, for the time being, rather liberal.  

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
Ellison is a complete joke.
HANNITY: Why are you so angry? You're so angry.

ELLISON: Why are you angry?

HANNITY: I'm not angry. I'm laughing at you because I think this is actually comical.

ELLISON: I'm laughing at you, and it's not the first time.

HANNITY: I've got it, I know you're a broken record. Now let me get you my question.

ELLISON: You're a broken record.

HANNITY: Is it immoral to put 16 ½ trillion...

ELLISON: You are immoral.



I'll leave it up to OGGoldy
To discuss Ellison.

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Is Mr. OGoldy
a fan of Ellison?  

He is one of my least favorite congressmen along with Grayson.

Republican Medical Doc from New York, NY


[ Parent ]
No


I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
My opinions on my congressman are well documented


I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Ellison
Why would anyone, let alone a congressman, do something like that? Is it a childish feel good moment to tell Sean Hannity off? If you agree to be on someone's program you show the host respect and he should show you the same. Which Hannity did. Second, he acted like a horse's posterior. I suppose that can work on MSNBC, but why do that on Fox? That's not how you make your point to a hostile audience. Of course I could imagine my congresswoman saying the same thing.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Resentment
I just get the feeling that Congressman Ellison is an extremely resentful and bitter person for whatever reason. He always just seems to act like he has a chip on his shoulder.

[ Parent ]
I get that
As I said, I could picture my own congresswoman saying the same things. What I don't get is doing it on Sean Hannity's show.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Ya gotta speak truth to power, man! (voice dripping with sarcasm)


21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college), MS-03 (weekend)

[ Parent ]
Helps his own fundraising
Ellison does care about making a difference in Minnesota elections- it's why he burned through his campaign account last cycle to help mobilize Hennepin against the amendments. But like many Congressmen, he is not a fan of call-time. Appearances like this help get around that problem.

libertarian Republican, TX-14/MN-04

[ Parent ]
We know by now not to believe, but here it is from NYT
Based on justices' questions today, the Voting Rights Act seems very unlikely to survive in its current form.

Justice Kennedy's q's suggest deep skepticism of current Voting Rights Act: isn't it "improper" for Congress to single out states?


25, Male, R, NY-10


NC-7; Can Bloomberg beat McIntyre for us?
Josh Kraushaar‏@HotlineJosh

Dem-on-Dem divide in #NC07? Rep. Mike McIntyre could be a top Bloomberg target http://watchdogs.blogs.starnew... ...

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3


NC-07
"Southeastern North Carolina's Congressman McIntyre is... PRO-GUN!1!1!"

Oh, no, what a travesty for ads attacking him about his pro-gun stances to be run against him in NC-07!/snark.

If he would survive his primary, which is very likely, that'd just help him in the general. Ugh. I think McIntyre is toast in 2014 against a good challenger, but let's stop Bloomberg from making him even more popular with conservaDems and with Republicans who cross the aisle to vote for him.


[ Parent ]
McIntyre
Won't even notice his primary, to say nothing of "survive" it.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
No no no, Joe Biden disagrees
For the first time since Newtown, voters sent a clear and unequivocal signal. The voters chose among a field of qualified candidates a candidate who spoke forcefully for national gun safety legislation.

http://www.politico.com/politi...

Anyone running for congress in 2014 who support the NRA will lose.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
LOL
McIntyre's district is 44% registered Dem, 33% registered GOP. The Democratic registration is only 35% black. North Carolina has a partially closed primary system, meaning that registered Democrats and Republicans must vote in their party primary, while Unaffiliated voters can select a ballot. What that basically means is that McIntyre was given a district where one thing he'll never need worry about is a primary challenge.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Very true
The point I was trying to make is that McInyre couldn't lose a primary and that a well-funded anti-gun rights campaign that blasts him for supporting gun rights would only help him in the general.

[ Parent ]
Whenever I see a news article about a conservaDem being targeted
for being pro-gun, I can't help but think of those "attack" ads that McCaskill ran against Akin before the primary.  

23, Democrat, CO-4 (home), MI-12 (law school) 

[ Parent ]
Except anti-gun liberals
don't make anywhere near a majority in a district like this.
It is similar to the discussion yesterday about Ashley Judd, and her chances even in a Dem primary in Kentucky.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
That wasn't what I was getting at
I meant that in theory these are attacks against them, but they'd probably be helpful to people like McIntyre and Barrow.  

23, Democrat, CO-4 (home), MI-12 (law school) 

[ Parent ]
FL-GOV; Putnam and Bondi both irritated with Scott
http://www.orlandosentinel.com...

http://miamiherald.typepad.com...

I'm thinking Bondi probably has the best chance of knocking Scott off. Putnam is probably not as well known and he has a voting record from congress that Scott could probably attack. Bondi on the other hand has been as solid as a conservative can be as an AG.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3


Scott has more money than God
I really don't see him losing his primary. The general election, however, is a different story.  

23, Democrat, CO-4 (home), MI-12 (law school) 

[ Parent ]
Huh? I think I stroked-out there for a second.
Kinzinger and Ellmers are RINOs? Riiigght...

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college), MS-03 (weekend)

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't say RINO
But Ellmers is a down-the-line establishment hack. I wouldn't mind seeing her primaried.

21, MN-05

[ Parent ]
Champ Edmunds for MT-Sen
My official announcement for US Senate will be at 12:30 pm, Thurs, Feb. 28, Bitterroot Motors in Msla! http://champ2014.com  #senate #mtpol

https://twitter.com/champedmun...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


*Crook County
It's Crook County, not "Cook" County. :p

Susana Martinez
Here's an interesting profile on Governor Martinez's executive skills from the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...


Great point
Halvorson 2012 Dem primary vote pre-Newtown: 24%. Halvorson 2013 Dem primary vote post-Newtown: 24% - Gonzales

25, Male, R, NY-10

When liberals scoff at charges of media bias,
or in this case, willful ignorance might be a better term, I sometimes question the concept. It certainly is often overridden by a desire for a juicy story. Then I remember what the media does when a Republican screws up in comparison, or it just gets plain bored.

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college), MS-03 (weekend)

[ Parent ]
IA-SEN
Latham not running. There goes any minimal senate majority hopes.

25, Male, R, NY-10

Well...
At least we get to get rid of Steve King? Alright, Michele Bachmann, go run into a buzz saw against Al Franken.

[ Parent ]
I don't mind King in his district
Bachmann on the other hand...

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
why latham why
His district is gonna be competitive every cycle.  Now who else can run and not King.

[ Parent ]
It's not competitive with Latham
He clobbered Boswell in a district that Obama won. The DCCC will flirt with targeting Latham again, but they'll pull out early in the cycle due to discouraging poll results.

When he relinquishes his seat, all bets are off. The NRCC should look for a candidate from Polk County for 2016 when Latham runs for the Senate (against Vilsack?).

Ryan/Kasich 2016


[ Parent ]
If I were a Republican
I wouldn't want Bachmann to run against Franken, or Dayton for that matter. A bid for statewide office would surely prompt a lot of money to flow her direction from across the country. This money would be more effectively spent in West Virginia, South Dakota, Alaska, and Louisiana. Bachmann running would be a distraction nationally to efforts of recapturing the senate. Everyone knows that senate races are nationalized in this day and age. If you thought Democrats hung Todd Akin around the necks of every Republican senate candidate in the country, just wait and see what would happen if Bachmann were in that same situation.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Al Franken is the worst senator
in a generation.  I want to find someone who would actually beat him, not a far-right moron who would be an embarrassment.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
Not happening
I want to find someone who would actually beat him

Paulsen and Kline would both more likely than not lose, and I don't want the MN GOP, which is in shambles, to have to defend either of their swingy, albeit Republican-tilting, seats when open. Remember, this is Minnesota we're talking about... it's not exactly easy for a Republican to win a Senate race, even against a clown like Al Franken.


[ Parent ]
Polling has shown that
Polls have shown Franken in positive territory And leading all camera. Kline and Paulsen are way to skittish to actually run a competitive race, although Kline hasn't said outright no yet. Paulsen has emphatically said no twice, then hedged it slightly, but he won't run either.

It is important to know that in the last decade, Democrats are 15-1 statewide in Minnesota if you count the 2012 amendments, and 13-1 if you only count candidates. I have heard some Republicans claim Minnesota as a swing state, but I just don't see it.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.


[ Parent ]
Franken is the worst of the worst
Here's an example I posted earlier about Franken about a month after he was sworn in :

   According to a source, the wealthy oil and gas magnate and author of "The First Billion Is the Hardest" stepped up to introduce himself to Franken in a room just off the Senate Floor after the lunch ended

   Franken, who was seated talking to someone else, did not stand when Pickens said hello. Instead, Franken began to berate him about the billionaire's financing of the Swift Boat ads in 2004.

   According to a source, the confrontation grew heated.

   Said Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh: "It was a lively conversation."

   Pickens was on the Hill to address the Senate Democratic Policy Committee lunch about his plans to use wind energy to lower the nation's dependence on oil and gas. But the thought of Pickens being invited to a Democratic event angered some on the Hill and in the liberal blogs.

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

The supposed victim of the Swift Boat ads, John Kerry, met with Pickens several times, and eventually got him to endorse his legislation.  The fact that Franken behaves in this manner, along with his previous record, especially his antics with Bill O'Reilly makes him unfit to be in the Senate.    

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
King and Bachmann retire and lose statewide
I guess that's a good thing in a way. Then again, King needs to lose the Republican primary. Hopefully Jim Nussle or Kim Reynolds will run.

As far as Minnesota, Franken will be tough to beat. Minnesota is a blue state and they have been trending more Democratic lately. So we either need to recruit a strong, moderate Republican (which will be pretty difficult). I wouldn't really mind if Bachmann runs, because quite frankly we aren't suppose to win that seat. But we should win Iowa's seat.

Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican


[ Parent ]
Not so sure
In 2012, Romney lost MN 52.7-45 and IA by 52-46.2, for a margin difference of less than 2%.  The IA GOP is much stronger than in MN, but it is far from a state that we "should" win.  All things the same, we're a slight underdog in IA, and a bigger underdog in MN.  Of course Latham would have been a better than average candidate, and King a less than average candidate.  

But with Franken as the Dem candidate, we should be competitive in MN.  But there appears to have been more outrageously liberal Dems being elected recently, see Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.


Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
Good points, but...

Minnesota is a more blue state than Iowa, despite the margins. Why? First of all, no Republican has won MN since 1972. Second of all, Republicans almost never win statewide by an outright majority of 50+%. In fact Republicans only win statewide when a third party candidate spoils the Democrat. The ceiling for MN Republicans is 46%, with only two exceptions: Bush in 2004 (48%) and Coleman in 2002 (49%). If you look at the table of presidential elections, only twice since 1976 has a Republican broken that ceiling: 1984 and 2004.

Third of all, Democrats re-took control of the state senate and HOR in 2012. Klobacher won re-election with 65% of the vote. Governor Dayton is extremely popular now. Franken's approval rating is close to 50%.

I would be very surprised if any congressman gave up their safe seat to challenge Franken. Since Allen West lost re-election, Bachmann is now the best Republican fundraiser in the HOR. Believe it or not, I actually think she would be a better candidate than some state senator who would have trouble raising money. She could raise $10-$20 million, and more importantly outspend Franken. I mean both Bachmann and Franken put their foot in their mouths, so a third party candidate could spoil Franken. Bachmann could actually be elected to represent the blue state of Minnesota.

And no Steve King doesn't have a chance against Braley. Iowa is a small state, which means we don't need some mega-fundraiser. Think about it, Iowa has 4 congressional districts while Minnesota has 8. Iowa doesn't have a history of giving third party candidates a significant amount of the vote. Braley isn't a bomb thrower and isn't a constroversial figure like Franken. But he is a liberal hack, and we need a mainstream Republican who is electable. That candidate is either Nussle, Reynolds, or Northey.



Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican

[ Parent ]
The problem with that plan is simple.
Franken hasn't been controversial, especially to Minnesotans since he got elected. He's been quiet, non-offensive. Yes, he's been liberal, but he hasn't been a bomb thrower like a Bernie Sanders like some expected him to be. Hell, some liberals are even upset about that fact.

OTOH, Bachmann has been a literal buffet of non-mainstream statements since she entered the national stage. Franken probably has a dozen odd Bachmann statements of positions in the past six months while Bachmann would have to go to ten year old radio shows that have already been debated to death in the '06 election.

If Bachmann got the nominee, I think the independent candidate would probably get 20%. But, most likely because Franken was getting around 45-50% and a lot of centrist Republican types would jump to the IP Party candidate since unlike in a lot of states, they're a "safe" third party choice.  


[ Parent ]
Franken would get 40%-45%
Based on history. I mean he only got 42% in 2008 and in 2010 Dayton got 44% of the vote. Ultimately it depends on how well the the third party candidate looks in the polls. If he/she gets 20+%, he might be seen as electable, thus giving him/her more momentum.

And yes Franken has been quiet since he got elected. But the fact is that he still has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. Bachmann would have more than enough money to expose that.

Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican


[ Parent ]
Well, that sucks....
A King nomination is just about certain.

[ Parent ]
Let me add a
"A king nomination WITH FAILURE TO WIN THE SEA GUARANTEED" and you're good to go. >_>

Why, Latham??

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
This is all over the top
Is King less likely to win the seat than Latham? Sure. Does he probably take it from Tossup to Lean D? Probably. But he doesn't stand no chance. Baldwin managed to win last year - if 2014 is a good year for us King could pull it off too.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
King's electability
Steve King won his district by 8 points, just as Mitt Romney did. He did so against a well-funded well-known former first lady of Iowa. In the past, he's always done very well electorally. He won in 2008 by 22 points. He did it against a nobody, but it was much better than John McCain.

That said, he could certainly put his foot in his mouth and he may be too conservative to win enough votes statewide. One of the selling points for Richard Mourdock was that he won statewide before and that didn't work out well.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
No King has no shot
2014 might be a good election cycle, but Iowa is still a swing state. King has already put his foot in his mouth, several times. He recently defended his friend Todd Akin. He doesn't have a chance. Just admit it.

Kim Reynolds for the U.S. Senate 2014!

Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican


[ Parent ]
He could
but he would need a good year and a good disciplined campaign.  The first is a possibility, but I have serious questions about the second.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
The biggest difference between King and Akin
From what I've seen of him, King is smarter, or at least has better political instincts. Does that mean he's not erratic? No. But at the same time he's controversial, he's also very strong on the issues that matter to his district, and we saw last year that he's a good campaigner.

Unlike Akin, I think King is capable of understanding that he'd be giving up a safe House seat for a very difficult Senate campaign. And he may not want to make that tradeoff.


[ Parent ]
It depends how badly King
wants to be in the Senate.  If that's his goal, he should run in 2014, because he would have no chance in 2016.  While there is a path for him, although narrow, in 2014.  

If he is satisfied with being a House lifer, or satisfied enough that he doesn't want to take a longshot bid, then he should stay put.

I'd put King's chances at winning in 2014 at about 20-25% if he makes it to the general.  I don't think King is Todd Akin, and he may well be able to run a disciplined campaign.  But we've seen too many idiots in the last two cycles that people are right to be concerned.      

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
Well King might as well run
He isn't going to get a better opportunity to move up.  A midterm is going to be better for him, and it is plausible that if 2014 is a wave election, King could well be elected.  Of course, that assumes that King runs a disciplined campaign, which is quite questionable.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
VRA
Section 5 did not fair too well and it sounds like we might be looking at 6 to 3 here.

28, Republican, PA-6

Hmm
What does this mean for the prospect of a mid-decade map in TX in 2014?

[ Parent ]
I think they are planning on one anyway
what they had for 2012 was only an interim map.

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

[ Parent ]
they already have one
Presumably they will simply file to get their original map reinstated.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
The DC court already rejected this map
Striking down Section 5 (which is regarding preclearance) wouldn't change that.  The VRA as a whole is not at issue here.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
that's under seperate appeal to US supreme court
and if the court is sweeping on section 5 it could incorporate that case.

(DC rejected under section 5; a different circuit had the section 2 challenge case)

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


[ Parent ]
Well, yes, but if S5 goes
That ruling would be moot. They would have no power to reject any map.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Section 2 still stands
A map that was illegal before is still illegal now. Its just the method for bringing challenges is altered.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Section 5 is outdated and unnecessary
The areas on it haven't been revised in 35 years. Thus, there's no criteria that these areas should be subjected to different rules. Had the Justice Department been revising Section 5 periodically it might stand.

I think Roberts summed it up:

"Is it the government's submission that the citizens of the South are more racist than the citizens of the North?" Roberts asked.

If Section 5 applied to the whole country they might have a leg to stand on.

As Gladstone points out, Section 2 is really the only thing that counts. The court doesn't appear to be considering it, and I don't see how the court could overturn it.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
There was a seperate section 2 challenge from the section 5 one
I'm not sure that the 5th circuit ever issued a final ruling on the section 2 one or if they simply put the case on hold after the DC circuit drew interum maps.

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

[ Parent ]
Which one of the liberal justices
do you think will vote to strike it down?

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
Breyer


28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
That would be quite useful
If a liberal justice joins in, it will be a lot harder to portray the Supreme Court and conservatives in general as hostile to minorities.

Otherwise we'll have another watered down version of Section 5 in Congress next year.

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
doubt either occurs
First I see this being a 5 4 and not a 6 3.
And in addition, the House would just send a bill to the normal committee responsible, which I see as doing nothing other than holding some hearings.

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

[ Parent ]
Not so easy
The Senate will pass a replacement Section 5 bill, and much like other legislation whose version that the House doesn't like (such as the fiscal cliff, Violence Against Women, immigration reform), there will be considerable pressure on the House to put out their own version.

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
which is exactly what committees are for
"We're studying the issue."

Also, the median US House seat is around R+3 (by 2012 numbers only)


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


[ Parent ]
You'll pay a political price for that
nationally with energized minority turnout.  Much like what Voter ID did for blacks who were not so enchanted w/ Dems due to gay marriage.  Nothing gets people up more than the insinuation that the other side wants to stop them from voting, even if entirely false.  The leadership have to pass something in the House, even if it doesn't enevtually become law.

And if it were that easy, why wasn't this done in 2006?  The House could have easily refused to re-authorize the VRA.  Yet only a handful of members voted against that.  

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
House Republicans would just let it die
Congress is great at doing nothing.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
As I said above
You'll pay a price for it politically with energized minority turnout if you just do nothing.  Because Obama and the Dems will keep harping on it.


Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
then I suspect they pay it
Anger only lasts for so long. I'm not certain I buy into that blowback theory on voter ID anyway.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Voter ID
This theory goes that Republicans passed voter ID laws and that should've suppressed minority turn-out. The opposite happened. The assumption that it was a backlash against the laws is a theory put out by Democrats so they wouldn't have to acknowledge that voter ID laws don't suppress the vote.

Most people, including Democrats, are in favor of voter ID laws and many of them think they've always been in effect. Work a precinct for an hour in a non-voter ID state and you'll find many of the people presenting ID.  For there to be a backlash you need to have a significant number of low interest occasional voters paying enough attention to politics for it to matter.

The backlash theory becomes self-fulfilling either way. If minority turn-out was up less in a voter ID state, Republicans suppressed the vote. If it was up more, then there was a backlash.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Agree
Based on the evidence we have seen, the Democrats should be encouraging voter ID laws.  The Democrats cannot produce one shred of evidence that minority voters have been disenfranchised in any state with voter ID.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
My Voter ID Theory
I don't really make a point of getting into this, since I've yet to see the idea advanced by anyone else, but I think Voter ID laws are more likely to suppress Republican votes. The reasoning is quite straightforward: The vast majority of people who don't have a qualifying ID are old, and old people are now the most reliable GOP voting block. Ergo, a law that makes it more difficult for old people to vote should cost the GOP votes.

Don't know if there's any empirical evidence to back it up, but that's my speculation for what it's worth.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
I suspect that to be the case too
I also think that this was the reason why the Voter ID amendment in Minnesota was defeated.
I'm sure it costs some minority votes, but the number of voters it energizes exceeds those it prevents from voting.  Under federal law, some form of ID is required for all first time voters.

I think one non-partisan way to do Voter ID is to require that everyone carry a tamper proof photo ID, that includes voter eligibility information (among other things like employment eligibility information).  There was some movement on this with a REAL ID and there is some discussion with regard to immigration reform.  


Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
No way Breyer stricks Section 5. . .
Not gonna happen.  

[ Parent ]
As noted by a few people above, I feel the need
to clarify a few things related to the VRA and the Texas cases and the VRA cases in the pipeline.

S5 is not needed except to make sure that states that are covered do not enact laws, procedures, and any voting-related thing that is harmful to minorities.

S2 and relevant jurisprudence is what mandates minority districts.

Furthermore, some people on RRH think that if S5 and the current formula is struck down that the Texas redistricting cases end. That's extremely false. I feel the need to repeat it: extremely, completely, and totally, and emphatically false.

In no instance does the San Antonio case abruptly end, because it is a S2 matter. S2 is not being considered here.

If pre-clearance itself is found to be unconstitutional, the D.C. case will end immediately which actually expedites the S2 case in S.A. because that panel of judges will not have to consider what the D.C. court does in its rulings.

If the current formula is considered unconstitutional (which is the likely outcome), the D.C. case will most likely be put on hold until a new formula can be devised. If that new formula covers Texas (which it likely will) then the case continues. If it doesn't, the case ends.

If the court upholds the formula, the case continues in D.C.

If the court punts on the question, as is a distinct possibility according to the very astute Lyle Denniston SCOTUSBlog piece, then the case in D.C. continues unabated.

In addition, as we saw from oral arguments today (also noted in the SCOTUSBlog piece), Kennedy very clearly supports S2. There are cases currently in the pipeline challenging S2, the problem is that Kennedy seemed VERY against any notion of ruling S2 unconstitutional. It will survive any challenge so long as there are 4 liberals and Kennedy on the court.

In fact, if the conservative four craft a ruling in this case that impacts the operability of S2 as well, Kennedy will likely bail on them and convince the liberals to allow S5 a new formula that will cover more jurisdictions. Look for places like Michigan, Tennessee, Arkansas, and others (perhaps Pennsylvania) to suddenly become pre-clearance states under any new formula.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
mostly agreed
except that if they say current formula is unconstitutional, they may also punt on "pre-clearance" per se rather than ruling on that one way or the other.

Also, it's frequently the case for a case to be assigned to the member of the majority that wants the decision written the  narrowest. (To avoid exactly things like the above)

In addition, given that the court can't assume that congress would pass a new formula (at least not in a timely matter), that would dismiss the current section 5 cases.

I can't see the current court imposing a new formula, because I can't see any 5 members agreeing on the same one. It may be difficult to even get 4 members to agree on what a new formula would be.

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


[ Parent ]
Do we disagree?
1) On the first point, I laid out a bunch of options. Maybe I wasn't clear, but the implicit point was that they either rule the formula unconstitutional or the idea of pre-clearance unconstitutional (they can't, obviously, do both). Which is also what you've said, unless you're getting at something else which I don't immediately realize.

2) Very true, but there are exceptions.

3) I don't believe that it would dismiss the current S5 cases, because S5 would still be operable and constitutional just with uncertainty for awhile about who it covers.

4) I didn't mean that the court themselves would draft the new formula, but that they'd require any new formula that congress would draft to be more broad.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
#3 & #4
On #3, I guess I was assuming that in the even that court says the current criteria is unconstitutional, they would say it's been that way since the last time it was renewed; and so the criteria was null and void during the entire round of re-districting based on 2010 census.
Your right in that they could give a different effective date if they really wanted to; but that wouldn't put cases on hold (they can't assume new criteria would be forthcoming from congress and it would likely be unconstitutional for congress to try to back date the start date of new criteria.)

#4 The court could go the following ways on guidance:
A) Give none at all.
B) State any need legislation has to include all 50 states.
C) State any criteria must be based on current election data.
[#C would give congress the option of picking thresholds that keeps new states from being covered which of course would cause some old states to not be covered]

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


[ Parent ]
Additionally
The action on the Texas cases is primarily on the S2 side (which is typical), which means on the S.A. court case side.

The interim maps were done by the S2 court in S.A. and the state must comply with the S2 rulings already given (which struck down the original state-drawn map), which means that they cannot use the original maps, regardless of whether or not S5 is totally struck down, S5 gets a modified formula, or S5 stays the same. Texas, if they do decide to stop using the interim maps, must go back to the drawing board and craft a set of districts that meets the minimum threshold that was originally decided by the San Antonio court.

In other words, the 23rd will not become more Republican (and is likely to actually become more Democratic actually given PPG's friendly connections to state level Republicans such as Larson, Bush, and Straus) and there will remain a new minority district in DFW (though I imagine that the state would like to make it a more effective vote-sink, which might actually make Veasey safer in a primary depending on how they do it) and there will likely have to be a retreat on the breaking up of Austin given the court's ruling on the old Doggett district.

Given that retreating the 35th (the clear successor to Doggett's old district) into Travis County alone in line with the court decision will leave a very substantial pocket of Hispanic population in San Antonio, the resulting shift means that either an additional Hispanic district is created somehow (there are numerous ways to accomplish this) OR the 20th and 23rd shift eastward and both become substantially more Democratic.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
The San Antonio interim lines were thrown out earlier by the Supreme Court
It's what led to DC drawing its own interim lines.


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

[ Parent ]
No?
It was referred back to the San Antonio court to draw another version of Interim Maps.


23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Well
I've linked to two things in that comment, but the link color isn't different:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
Huh?
"[T]here will likely have to be a retreat on the breaking up of Austin given the court's ruling on the old Doggett district."

That "ruling" was written by one judge (the Obama appointee), and not signed by the other two judges (a Reagan appointee, and a GWB appointee). Since a majority of judges did not sign that "finding," why would the state be bound to what is essentially a dissenting opinion?

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


[ Parent ]
This is wrong
The overall ruling was signed by all three justices, whereas this part of the ruling was signed by two of the appointees with a dissent by the third.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Here's the decision
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/red...

Just fyi.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH, in which District Judge HOWELL joins and District Judge COLLYER joins all except section III.A.3.

Separate opinion for the Court
with respect to retrogression in Congressional District 25 filed by District Judge HOWELL, in which District Judge COLLYER joins.

Dissenting opinion with respect to retrogression in Congressional District 25 filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH



23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Also
I don't think I was totally clear about the court that found this opinion, but it was the D.C. court.

The opinion in effect will stand regardless of whether or not S5 pre-clearance itself is found to be unconstitutional or, more likely, the particular formula.



23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
Except that it does matter
That was a ruling made in the Section 5 case. Now, if they denied preclearance of the map because they thought CD-25 was a probable S2 violation, that's a problem, because there have been several cases in which Courts have said that probable S2 violations are not cause to find a S5 violation.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
Except that it doesn't
The likely Supreme Court ruling is that the particular formula isn't appropriate and a new formula will be crafted (which I guarantee you will include Texas). Given that They have to draw a district which does not retrogress in the 25th in order to get pre-clearance then they have to...  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Umm...
The ruling you're referring to was made by the DC Court, which was the Section 5 case.

"Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH, in which District Judge HOWELL

joins and District Judge COLLYER joins all except section III.A.3. Separate opinion for the Court

with respect to retrogression in Congressional District 25 filed by District Judge HOWELL, in

which District Judge COLLYER joins.

Dissenting opinion with respect to retrogression in Congressional District 25 filed by

Circuit Judge GRIFFITH."



Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
Yes...
I said that. I wasn't clear in the first comment, and I'm sorry, but the D.C. court decision has the force of law regardless.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
So wait
Even if S5 is struck down, which is what this court ruled under, it still has the force of law? That doesn't follow.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
But S5 is likely not going to be struck down
Entirely. Almost everyone believes that S5's formula will be struck down and a new one will take its place, leaving this decision in place.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Okay
I made that comment in allusion to a scenario where S5 is struck down. I should have been more clear.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
That won't happen
All four liberals today were very clear that they did not support a total strike down, and Kennedy was basically just as clear that he preferred some method of pre-clearance by the federal government.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Fine
While we're at it, we both know that the state is going to draw a map similar to C185, and sue for preclearance under the new formula. In that case, the argument, which I will remind you, is going to be an entirely new legal case, the state will again argue that the Travis split is legal.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
the existing section 2 case would first happen
(With the comparison being the state passed maps)

And congress is not allowed to make retroactive punishments so  even if Congress makes a new formula quickly it wouldn't apply to that but would only apply if the state loses section 2 challenges and passes new map in response.

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


[ Parent ]
True
But that's just another piece of the puzzle, and not directly tied (contradictory) into anything I've said so far.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
That's probably not the case
But even if it does, the previous court decision will still have the force of law because the idea of pre-clearance will not have been ruled unconstitutional.

Because that ruling will have the force of law, the court in this new case will be compelled to say something like "look, stupid Texas government, you have to do it that way to get pre-clearance, now go back and try again".  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
Even if that's the case
SCOTUS has still not weighed in on the Travis County question...

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
True enough


23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
S2 litigation takes years
Remember the 2004 elections were held under the state map.

The obvious path is pass plan and deal with lawsuits afterward. In the meantime elections have to continue.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
there are more concerns beyond the congressional map
Voter ID, for instance, and the legislative maps.

That said, Perry is rumored to be planning some sort of redistricting in 2013.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
you could probably do it with 20 alone
And leave 23 as is. The remainder simply go into the safe 21 after 20 becomes a maxpack donut.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
The problem
Is that would probably be a no-go with regard to S2.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
i don't see how that can possibly be the case
A maxpack donut in San Antonio cannot be considered less valid than Maxpack donuts in Dallas, Houston, El Paso, and Austin. 21 ends up being roughly 58% McCain, 62% Romney or so.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Think of it this way
The court has between it three different options, one of which it has to pick and/or enforce through S2 of the VRA:

1) Shifting the extra Hispanic population into both the 20th and the 21st, leaving massive swaths of Hispanic voters "stranded" in the 21st.

2) Shifting the extra Hispanic population into both the 20th and 23rd, taking the 23rd out of competitive territory for Republicans.

3) Leaving the 23rd as is, while shifting the extra population into a new district configuration (dooming Farenthold).

The 1st doesn't carry out the intent of the VRA, whereas the 3rd is probably a non-starter for Republicans. Given the two extreme options, the 2nd is the most likely outcome.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
we can safely say that the section 2 case involving Texas will be appealed to US supreme court


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

[ Parent ]
Yes


23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
they already tried that bizarre 'stranded' argument
With Nueces County. It went nowhere (the proof is the current TX-27). TX-20 has a large portion of whites northwest of San Antonio that would be removed by picking and choosing the desred precincts.

TX-21 doesn't even end up stranding 'massive swaths' of Hispanics; in fact, it ends up with far fewer hispanics than several other current Texas districts.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
to be clear
I mean several other Republican held current Texas districts.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
That's not exactly true
The stranded argument works just fine for the "endgame" it just didn't work all that well from the standpoint of interim maps, which the Supreme Court ruled had to largely mimic the state-passed map.

In terms of what will eventually happen, however, the "stranded" argument works. Take, for example, the fact that they used the "stranded" argument to success with respect to the DFW Veasey district overall AND the inclusion of AAs in that district more specifically as well.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  


[ Parent ]
what possible endgame is there?
There are only 2 options.

1. The State passes a lawful map.
2. The State passes a map that much be largely mimiced with the exception of such violations that are found.

There will never be carte blanche to artificially create a random set of new districts. They tried that with C220.

The Democratic plaintiffs even suggested that the so called 'interim' maps were reasonably suited for a decade, ie, effectively permanent.

If one were to declare that a 60% white TX-21 (much higher by citizen VAP) is 'stranding' voters you basically make it impossible to draw any map in Texas at all.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
#3
Eventually the section 2 case gets to the US Supreme Court and it says the original state passed map already passed is lawful.

(Much more likely for Texas Senate than US Congressional)

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


[ Parent ]
3 is really 1, isn't it?
In Wisconsin the courts found a S2 violation in the assembly districts. The courts in question ordered 2 assembly districts redrawn while 97 were left intact.

The Supreme Court statements are as follows, and this was a 9-0 decision.

This Court has observed before that "faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by judicial order, a court, as a  general rule, should be guided by the legislative policies underlying" a state plan-even one that was itself unenforceable-"to the extent those policies do not lead to violations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act."

Where a State's  plan faces challenges under the Constitution or §2 of the Voting Rights Act, a district court should still be guided by that plan, except to the extent those legal challenges are shown to have a likelihood of success on the merits.

If the District Court did set out to create a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth, it had no basis for doing so.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Three things were going on there
1. The court was attempting to reign a rising tied of hostility towards gerrymandering in local Federal Courts that was causing many of them to use the VRA and population deviations as excuses to arbitrarily redraw maps without any clear standard. That lack of any clear standard, rather than a consensus on gerrymandering is the only commonality among the majority of the Court in that decision.

2. Three Justices, including Kennedy are on record believing that there could be some sort of constitutional limits on partisan redistricting if such limitations could be based upon a clearly definable legal standard. The courts current line therefore owes a lot to Kennedy's position which is that in absence of such a standard he does not want local courts under any circumstances imposing their own standards, which is what the San Antonio court did.

3. Given that four Justices, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are on record as believing claims of partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable, the goal of the pretty much everyone on the court has been to more or less freeze the involvement of the Federal Courts in issues of gerrymandering until such a time as one side or the other gains a predominance. As such, that 9-0 decision is significantly weaker than it seems, as the replacement of one or definitely two of the Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts bloc would likely lead to a clear break from the plurality based Perry/Vieth decisions in a direction likely to resemble Breyer's dissent in Perry.

    For another thing, the evidence to which Justice Stevens refers in Part III of his opinion demonstrates that the plan's effort "to maximize partisan advantage," ante, at 13 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), encompasses an effort not only to exaggerate the favored party's electoral majority but also to produce a majority of congressional representatives even if the favored party receives only a minority of popular votes. Compare id., at 20-22 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), App. 55 (plaintiffs' expert); id., at 216 (State's expert), with Vieth, supra, at 360.

    Finally, because the plan entrenches the Republican Party, the State cannot successfully defend it as an effort simply to neutralize the Democratic Party's previous political gerrymander. Nor has the State tried to justify the plan on nonpartisan grounds, either as an effort to achieve legislative stability by avoiding legislative exaggeration of small shifts in party preferences, see Vieth, supra, at 359, or in any other way.

    In sum, "the risk of entrenchment is demonstrated," "partisan considerations [have] render[ed] the traditional district-drawing compromises irrelevant," and "no justification other than party advantage can be found." 541 U. S., at 367. The record reveals a plan that overwhelmingly relies upon the unjustified use of purely partisan line-drawing considerations and which will likely have seriously harmful electoral consequences. Ibid. For these reasons, I believe the plan in its entirety violates the Equal Protection Clause.

That sounds very different from the clear 9-0 split.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Hmm
Are you suggesting that there may be multiple justices who would strike down Section 2 as well?

Christie 2016  

[ Parent ]
Scalia
For one.  

23, Conservative Gay Democrat, TX-17 (Home) TX-20 (School);  

[ Parent ]
Section 2
The only argument that I can come up with to strike down section 2 is that it's reverse discrimination. If you are White and a Democrat in Texas, Republicans can suppress your vote through gerrymandering but can't suppress someone else's vote because they're Hispanic. Why is the Hispanic entitled to the candidate of his choice but the White Democrat is not?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Section 5 of VRA
http://www.politico.com/story/...

The conservative wing appears united. As per usual, Scalia led the charge. He hinted at what the two main arguments will be in the majority opinion: 1) that the law is outdated because racial discrimination is less pernicious in the South than it was in 1965 when VRA was adopted and that 2) it's unjust to mandate preclearance for only a select few states. He also objected to the DOJ's justifications for preclearance, which he claimed are so vague that bureaucrats can arbitrarily choose which states to target.

Gerstein surmised that there's an outside chance that Stephen Breyer will join the conservatives. My guess is that there was pure conjecture. He didn't cite a single instance in which Breyer had challenged VRA in the past

 

Ryan/Kasich 2016


After the Obamacare ruling from last year....
I think it's premature to say how the Court will come down on any case.

[ Parent ]
agreed
I don't trust any.

[ Parent ]
KY-Sen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Even a Democrat is critical of Democrats being racist. They've always given each other a free pass on that.

http://mycn2.com/politics/ashl...

Here comes Ashley!

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


Rick Snyder appoints David Viviano to MI Supreme Court
GOP now has a 5-2 advantage there.

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/s...


Viviano
Good to see a second Hillsdale connection on the Michigan Supreme Court as Viviano is a Hillsdale alum and Justice Markman teaches Constitutional Law there.  Justice Markman actually wrote me a letter of recommendation for law school.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
IA-Sen; Reynolds seriously looking
@HotlineJosh: RT @jameshohmann Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds is "very serious" about running for Senate, a source tells me.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

KY-Sen; Judd making calls to state Dems
@HotlineSteve: Hmm. Ashley Judd is reportedly calling state legislators in Kentucky http://t.co/vHcjFXASSw

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

IA-Sen; King not sure yet
@JenniferJJacobs: Rep. @SteveKingIA: "Potential Senate race remains an analytical decision ... & requires deep conviction...Too big a decision to be rushed."

Maybe my prediction of Latham and King passing and Reynolds running may come true!

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3


I would LOVE to see that
nt

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
Any idea how well known she is?
Some Lieutenant Governors are quite well known, like Gavin Newsom. And others are completely anonymous to the voters of that state. The latter category is more likely in a state with a highly recognizable governor that just threw a name on the ballot because they had to

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
I'm not certain
But, imagine it is low, maybe 30-40% can identify who she is. But, running with Branstad in a mid term cycle, while having a limited public record and being female should set her up well against Braley's overwhelmingly partisan liberal record.  

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

[ Parent ]
Running with Branstad will work to her advantage
Especially she would have the easiest time hitching her wagon to his. But don't think that Braley is a pushover like your comment implies.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
He isn't a pushover, but he is vulnerable under the right circumstances
And against Reynolds I imagine he will be on the defensive a lot.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

[ Parent ]
I think it depends
A lot on what kind of cycle it will be.  From what I've read Reynolds is just as Conservative as Braley is liberal.  If its 2002/2010 again Reynolds could be in good shape, but if its not then I think Braley is a decent favorite.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Again...
The difference is that she is undefined and can define herself however she wants and at the same time because she doesn't have much of a public record it will be hard for Braley to define her. Now unless she's done a lot stupid things in the past (other than the DUI), I cannot imagine her being on the defense.

Braley on the other hand will have to defend a voting record that is almost 100% partisan.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3


[ Parent ]
Not sure, but Iowa has a weak Lt. Governor
The Lt. Governor in Iowa is not even the presiding officer of the Senate. So they don't have any real responsibilities other than what the Governor gives them. In that situation, generally a Lt. Governor isn't very well known. So she probably would have to earn a Senate win(and a possible primary too) based on her campaign and not what she has accomplished as Lt. Governor.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
Why I'd probably prefer Northey
He has some proven campaign chops. If he thinks Branstad is going to stick around for another 4 terms he might be willing to go for it and could probably win the primary if King stayed out.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
He's not running
Or else he would not have voted against the rule to bring the violence against women act on the floor today.

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

[ Parent ]
Rumor - Gomez paid $8+/signature
Obama v Woodward
The Obama administration has always tried to control the narrative in DC, even spinning things that aren't true. That's probably no different than other past Presidents, Republicans and Democrats. Any President is tough for the opposition to take on.

The opposition party, however, isn't Bob Woodward. Woodward has been writing insider tell-alls for 40 years. I don't think anyone has seriously pushed back since Richard Nixon. Did the Bush administration attack him over "Bush at War" or "Plan of Attack?"

You aren't going to win trying to discredit Bob Woodward.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


GWB admin gave a half hearted attempt
to attack him.  Didn't really work well, but it only mattered to the partisans anyway.  

It won't work well here either, but again I'm not sure it matters to anyone other than the partisans on both sides.  At the end of the day, the sequester will make both sides look bad if the effects are harmful, or be a non-factor if the effects turn out to be minimal.  The latter is what I expect.

   

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
IA-Sen: Bill Northey
He is the current state Secretary of Agriculture. I think he will be a strong candidate. He was elected with 51% of the votes in the Dem wave of 2006 and 63% of the votes in the Republican wave of 2010. I think he'll be better than LG Kim Reynolds.  

+1
He's my top pick right now, but word is he wants to run for Governor. Maybe if King passes and Branstad telegraphs that he's planning to stick around for a while he'll take the plunge.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Yeah but we need a women!
Plus, she will automatically have the support by ultra-popular Governor Bradstad and Sarah Palin. Northey will not have automatic support.

Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican

[ Parent ]
That's ridiculous
There's no reason that Branstad wouldn't endorse Northey immediately, especially to stop King.

[ Parent ]
Governors are almost always loyal to their LGs
Remember when Abercrombie appointed Schatz to the U.S. Senate?  

Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican

[ Parent ]
Oh yeah
I'm sure Branstad would support Reynolds, but its not like Reynolds is the only one who will get his immediate support. I think its pretty clear he'll do anything to keep King away from the race.  

[ Parent ]
Roll Call Previews 2014 Races in Arizona
http://www.rollcall.com/news/f...

Livingston reported what political junkies already know: Barber, Kirkpatrick, and Sinema are vulnerable; McSally is a star; Carmona is the Dems' choice for governor (side note: whoever his Republican opponent is, hire Flake's ad man).

There were two interesting tidbits, however. Livingston speculated about Kirkpatrick running for governor. Despite her victory in a district Romney won, I think she'd be unformidable statewide, unless she faced off against Joe Arpaio.

Livingston also mentioned that Ben Quayle is contemplating a comeback bid, only this time in the 9th. He'd be a strong recruit. However, the GOP should still be on the lookout for a moderate Hispanic with a compelling "only in America" bio.

Ryan/Kasich 2016


Ben Quayle
Why is he a strong recruit in AZ-09? That district is Dem-leaning. I prefer former Tempe mayor Hugh Hallman (he's running for governor though).  

[ Parent ]
Media is overblowing the IL-2 special election
Rothenberg, one of my favorite political commentators, wrote a very good article today about why the special election didn't mean anything. I mean the candidate who spends the most money will likely win. Robin Kelly and allies significantly outspent everyone else, most notably Halvorson. Not to mention it was a Democratic primary. Had Halvorson and allies spent as much as Kelly and allies, than it would kinda mean something. But again, it's still a Democratic primary.

Male, PA-15, Libertarian leaning-Republican

DKE take
I'll link to it because it's written in much, much more civil language than we expect from Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

I don't think they have a particularly convincing argument. You ended up with one strong black candidate taking on one strong white candidate and the vote almost exactly mirrored the district's demographics.

Related note: Suppose there was a pro-choice Republican who ran in a special election in TX-13, but lost to a pro-lifer supported by NRL, the SBA list, and others. Would that be considered a defining moment and a shot across the brow of Planned Parenthood? And if not, how is this election all that different?


[ Parent ]
They know better than that
Jesse Jr had an F rating from the NRA and Halvorson received the same 24% when she ran against him in 2012 before Newtown. No A rated NRA member of Congress holds a 80% Obama district nor anything close to that.  

SC1-Charleston

[ Parent ]
I think the argument that should be made
isn't that Kelly defeated the NRA and all their money.  That's mainly BS; the district is and always has been pro-gun control.
What should be made is that gun control is becoming an issue that once again, like 20 years ago, riles up Democrats.  Democrats will begin voting on it, and that may affect primaries in other areas where there is a pro-gun candidate in a blue or purple district.

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 ]
Agree in that
its a big liability for a Democrat in a heavily Democratic district such as Baca and Halvorson. I dont think there are more than a couple of Democrats with friendly NRA ratings left that represent heavily Democratic districts. Dingell is the only one that comes to mind. So being pro gun in a one party D district being a liability is nothing new nor does it have any effect on changing the dynamics of the issue in relation to the NRA.

SC1-Charleston

[ Parent ]
Ron Kind


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 ]
But that's the thing
You take gun control away, and Kelly still wins by the same margin.

The entire issue of gun control in this election, IMHO, was astroturfed. The liberal establishment saw what was going to happen and framed it ahead of time so that it would appear that gun control all of a sudden became a huge issue for voters--which in return, would drum up base support for the Feinstein bill. But in reality, you just have a district voting the way it always votes.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps not
The X-factor in a race w/o gun control was Toi Hutchinson.  It is possible, even likely that she would have won a race where gun control and Bloomberg weren't around.  

I actually think the astroturfing of gun control was from a position of weakness.  The liberal establishment was scared to death that a NRA-backed candidate may win one of the most pro-gun control districts in the country, rather than hoping to use it as a way to drum up support.

Christie 2016  


[ Parent ]
I can agree with that
Chicago has always been one of the most anti 2nd Amendment areas in the country.

20 years ago, the 2nd Amendment was a regional issue. When CPL reform passed in Michigan, about 1/3 of the dems voted pro and 1/4 of the republicans voted anti.

The dems were largely from rural areas or white working class areas ranging from blue to purple. Suburban Genesee County and Saginaw County. Downriver. Bay City. North Michigan. Lenawee County.

The republican anti vote largely came from parts of West Michigan where there still was (and is) a Gerry Ford wing of the party. Two old timers there were more anti than most democrats. Term limits took them out.

Today, the republican anti vote is maybe 5-10%, partly because of the rise of conceal carry. 20 years ago, "Evil black rifle bans" (I refuse to use the term so called "assault" weapon) were supported 2-1 in the polls - and were political death even then.

I think the dem votes are regional again like it was 20 years ago. Probably less than 1/3 pro these days, simply because the dems have taken a beating in white working class areas. They had that big win in 06 in a lot of pro-2a areas, but the Heath Shulers were largely wiped out.

What will be interesting is to see if this gains in purple inner-ring suburban districts like it started to do in the Clinton years before CPL stopped the gun bleeding outside of New York/California, etc. Are these votes going to give people like Mike Fitzpatrick, Erik Paulsen, Frank Wolf, and Steve LaTourette's replacement heartburn? Or will it give Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Mike Michaud, Colin Peterson, Kurt Schrader and Tim Walz heartburn?

That's the question, and right now I don't know the answer.  

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  


[ Parent ]
CA-35
In California's 35th Congressional District, two Democrats were squaring off in the general election under the state's unusual "top two" system: Rep. Joe Baca and state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod. Negrete McLeod was a serious underdog, but Independence had a real issue with Baca's views on guns, including his "A" grade from the NRA. They launched a punishing, multi-million dollar campaign attacking Baca over guns, unquestionably leading to his shocking defeat.

DKE remembers things the way they want to remember them.

McLeod wasn't a serious underdog. She was a well-known established state senator. She finished second in the primary to Baca 45.0%-36.3%, with the third candidate being a Green. A number of candidates overcame larger margins. She was an underdog but not an overwhelming one.

Yes, Independence launched a a punishing, multi-million dollar campaign attacking Baca but guns were never mentioned. They accused Baca of being for polluting drinking water while McLeod was pro-business/pro-jobs. If anything, Bloomberg's commercial suggested McLeod was to the right of Baca. That was a wise strategy because when you're running two Democrats in a race where Republicans and independents have the vote, the candidate closer to the center should win.

I'm guessing that they didn't mention guns because Baca's "A" rating from the NRA might've won him votes, not lost them.  It certainly would've helped him with Republicans.

Perhaps DKE was shocked by Negrete-McLeod's win. After Bloomberg's smear job, I don't think many of us here were.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
On a side note
All 4 of the top tier Republicans up on TV in the SC-1 race (Sanford, Grooms, Turner, Limehouse) are advertising their A+ NRA rating or pro 2nd Amendment position. In a 58% Romney seat in the Republican primary being pro NRA is as important as being anti gun as seen in IL-2.

SC1-Charleston

[ Parent ]
How does
SC work its run offs?  Is it top 2 period or is it one from each party?

If its Top 2 period does Colbert have a chance or is it going to be 2 Rs?

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


[ Parent ]
R's will have a runoff (16 candidates)
nobody will finish with 50%+1 in the first round. Top 2 advance to the runoff 2 weeks later. D's only have 2 candidates running, so top finisher will finish over 50%. R and D meet in the general in May.

SC1-Charleston

[ Parent ]
Thank you
I have no idea why my brain thought they were all running in a LA style jungle primary.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Probably confused it with GA
I think some other Southern states use the LA system for specials as well.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
AR-01: Club for Growth to target Crawford
LOL
I especially like the "Why not my congressman?" target on their website. Sure, why not? Go ahead and target all of them. Get the GOP congresswomen too while you're at it. And don't leave out the senators!

It's amazing to me that CfG and similar right wing purist groups are so blind to the damage they're causing to the only party that will promote their priorities, not that I have any reason to complain.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
There's a reason why
Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review once called them the "Club for Shrinkage". I generally support their policy positions, but they don't seem to understand that not every district will support a candidate who agrees with their positions.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
AR-01
Given Crawford's statements over the past year, I definitely support a CfG-backed primary challenge here.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
This is still a Blue Dog district
Dem Prez may never win it again; but GOP brand there isn't strong enough yet to run any Yoho or Bemvenuito & win  

[ Parent ]
Bemvenuito
Lol

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox