Skip to main content

Graph of 2012 House race performance vs. presidential performance
2012 House candidate performance vs. presidential performance by congressional district
(click for larger | scatterplot courtesy Xenocrypt)
Last weekend—thanks to finally having 2012 presidential election performances for each of the nation's 435 House districts—we took a look at which were the most Democratic-leaning districts still represented by Republicans (and, conversely, which were the most Republican districts represented by Democrats). That told us half the story about what races might be most competitive next year: yes, it gave us the names of some Representatives who'll be facing an uphill fight if they want to come back (Gary Miller, for instance). But it also returned the names of some Representatives who—by virtue of moderate voting record, uncontroversial personality, weak Democratic bench, or all three—have been quietly surviving for decades in districts that should theoretically be inhospitable to them, and who aren't likely to get targeted in 2014 either.

So what's the other half of the story that's missing? It's one best told by focusing on who had the closest races last year. For every Frank LoBiondo ("who?" you're saying ... well, that's exactly the point) who's successfully camouflaged in a Democratic-leaning district, there's also a Michele Bachmann or Steve King, who manages to make a solidly-Republican district competitive simply by virtue of opening his or her mouth on a regular basis. For that matter, for every LoBiondo, there's also a Dan Benishek, too: in other words, a Republican who isn't at the vanguard of every conspiracy theory, but who manages to make a Republican-leaning district competitive in much subtler ways (more by virtue of a less-than-winning personality, and rigid tea party ideology in a far-flung district that likes its federal infrastructure).

Merely looking at a district's presidential performance doesn't point us in the direction of targets like Bachmann or Benishek. Of course, some of the names returned by a list of the closest races aren't necessarily the best 2014 targets, either. Many of them are on there mostly because they're red-district freshmen who either won an empty seat or knocked off a Dem incumbent; their numbers were sub-par because they didn't have an incumbency advantage. Once they're more entrenched in two years their performance might be more in line with the district's overall lean ... or they might continue to struggle. There's the difficulty: trying to identify who's simply finding their footing, and who has flaws that may point to longer-term troubles in holding what should be a favorable seat.

Let's take a look at the charts, over the fold ...

We'll start with the Republicans who had the closest races in 2012. (And in 2013... I'd be happy to throw Mark Sanford's special election in there, but with his 8.9% margin of victory of Elizabeth Colbert Busch, he actually narrowly escaped inclusion on the list.) The asterisks are for the winners who are freshmen (including, as we call them, "redshirt freshmen," returning to Congress after time away):

Dist. Rep. 2012 Result Margin
IL-13 Rodney Davis * 46.2/46.5 0.3
MI-01 Dan Benishek 47.6/48.1 0.5
MN-06 Michele Bachmann 49.3/50.5 1.2
IN-02 Jackie Walorski * 47.6/49.0 1.4
NY-27 Chris Collins * 49.2/50.8 1.6
NE-02 Lee Terry 49.2/50.8 1.6
CO-06 Mike Coffman 45.8/47.8 2.0
PA-12 Keith Rothfus * 48.3/51.7 3.4
FL-10 Dan Webster 48.3/51.7 3.4
NY-23 Tom Reed 48.1/51.9 3.8
KY-06 Andy Barr * 46.7/50.6 3.9
OH-16 Jim Renacci 48.0/52.0 4.0
NY-11 Michael Grimm 46.8/52.2 5.4
CA-10 Jeff Denham 47.3/52.7 5.4
FL-02 Steve Southerland 47.2/52.7 5.5
NY-19 Chris Gibson 47.1/52.8 5.7
NC-09 Robert Pittenger * 45.7/51.8 6.1
MI-11 Kerry Bentivolio * 44.4/50.8 6.4
OH-06 Bill Johnson 46.7/53.3 6.6
FL-16 Vern Buchanan 46.4/53.6 7.2
NV-03 Joe Heck 42.9/50.4 7.5
VA-02 Scott Rigell 46.1/53.8 7.7
NC-08 Richard Hudson * 45.4/53.2 7.8
IA-04 Steve King 44.8/52.9 8.1
MN-02 John Kline 45.8/54.0 8.2

As you can see, there's a high proportion of freshmen on the list, which will be a consistent theme throughout this story. They tend to be either candidates running in reddish open seats (like Jackie Walorski in IN-02 or Robert Pittenger in NC-09), or candidates who defeated Dem incumbents, most of whom got hosed by redistricting (like Chris Collins in NY-27, who defeated Kathy Hochul, Keith Rothfus in PA-12, who defeated Mark Critz, or further down the list, Richard Hudson, who beat Larry Kissell in NC-08).

The only Republican freshman who doesn't seem to fit either category is Rodney Davis, who ran in a nearly-even open seat, a former red district turned into a swing district by Dem-controlled redistricting and then vacated by veteran GOPer Timothy Johnson. Predictably, he had the most difficult time of anyone. (As you can see in the table below, thanks to it being a Dem-friendly year overall, most of the swingy open seats were won by Democrats instead.)

Let's return again to the list of Republicans in the 25 most Dem-leaning districts from last week. Note that there isn't much overlap: only eight names show up on both lists (Davis, plus Mike Coffman, Jeff Denham, Mike Grimm, Chris Gibson, Joe Heck, Scott Rigell, and John Kline). These races, where the two vulnerability categories line up, seem like the best targeting bets. In fact, when you try looking beyond those 8 seats, you see why the Dems may have great trouble getting the 17 pickups they need, even if 2014 turns into a favorable year.

It means either winning against entrenched veterans in swingy seats, or else winning against shaky noobs who are protected by heavily-R terrain. (As we discussed last week, we largely have Republican-controlled redistricting to thank for that decline in swing seats.) It makes sense to go hard after a few of the really special cases—Bachmann, for starters—who are screwy enough to jeopardize an R+10 seat, but after her the pickings start to get much thinner.

You might be wondering about the Republican who was #1 on the list of worst districts, Gary Miller in CA-31, and wondering where he is. Well, he's an unusual case, and that deserves some explanation. Despite being in a Dem-leaning district, he faced a general election against a fellow Republican, state Sen. Bob Dutton, thanks to a quirk in California's top 2 primary system. He beat Dutton by a margin that's too wide to be included in the list (10.4%), but even if it had been a closer race, that doesn't fit correctly in this framework.

Dutton wasn't explicitly running to Miller's left, or doing anything that would make him the quasi-Democrat in the race; in fact, there were more than 50,000 undervotes in this race compared with presidential votes, indicating that around half of the Democrats in this district simply left the box blank. It'd be interesting to know how the remaining ones split their votes, but for our purposes, that race is just a square peg that we won't try to fit into this round hole.

Now let's take a look at the Democrats who had the closest calls in 2012:

Dist. Rep. 2012 Result Margin
NC-07 Mike McIntyre 50.1/49.9 0.2
UT-04 Jim Matheson 48.8/48.5 0.3
FL-18 Patrick Murphy * 50.3/49.7 0.6
AZ-02 Ron Barber 50.3/49.5 0.8
IL-10 Brad Schneider * 50.6/49.4 1.2
MA-06 John Tierney 48.3/47.1 1.2
NY-21 Bill Owens 50.1/48.2 1.9
CA-52 Scott Peters * 51.2/48.8 2.4
CT-05 Elizabeth Esty * 51.3/48.7 2.6
CA-07 Ami Bera * 51.7/48.3 3.4
AZ-01 Ann Kirkpatrick * 48.7/45.1 3.6
NH-01 Carol Shea-Porter * 49.8/46.0 3.8
NY-18 Sean Maloney * 51.9/48.0 3.9
AZ-09 Kyrsten Sinema * 48.7/44.6 4.1
TX-23 Pete Gallego * 50.3/45.6 4.7
NH-02 Ann Kuster * 50.2/45.3 4.9
NY-01 Tim Bishop 52.5/47.5 5.0
NY-24 Dan Maffei * 48.8/43.4 5.4
CA-26 Julia Brownley * 52.7/47.3 5.4
CA-36 Raul Ruiz * 52.9/47.1 5.8
IL-17 Cheri Bustos * 53.3/46.7 6.6
GA-12 John Barrow 53.7/46.3 7.4
WA-01 Suzan DelBene * 53.9/46.1 7.8
NV-04 Steven Horsford * 50.1/42.1 8.0
WV-03 Nick Rahall 54.0/46.0 8.0

Again, flip back to the list of Democrats in the most Republican-leaning districts from last week. You'll notice something different: there's a lot more overlap between those two lists. Sixteen of the 25 are on both the worst-districts and worst-2012-races lists. To me, that suggests that the Democrats are more exposed going into 2014; there are more races in that perfect-storm zone than the Republicans have.

In fact, it'd be easier just to list the nine Dems who aren't on the worst-districts list, who are likelier to be able to look forward to getting entrenched (John Tierney, Brad Schneider, Elizabeth Esty, Dan Maffei, Ann Kuster, Julia Brownley, Cheri Bustos, Suzan DelBene, and Steven Horsford). Even that list should have some caveats: Tierney is the only non-freshman on the list, and he suffers from bad publicity concerning his wife's legal problems, which may continue to dog him in future runs, while Schneider faces a rematch with the Republican incumbent (Bob Dold!) whom he defeated last year.

Mike McIntyre, a Blue Dog who got redistricted from a merely Republican-leaning district into a blazing-red one, is not only at the top of this list, but also #3 on the list of worst districts. Even without considering that he too will face a rematch with the Republican who nearly beat him last year (David Rouzer), that would tend to suggest he's the most vulnerable Dem going into 2014. In fact, that's what we'll talk about next week, in the final installment of three parts: how to put these two components together into one unified field theory of vulnerability.

Parallel to the discussion of Gary Miller's race that we discussed above, there actually was one intra-party California House race that was close enough to be included on the Dem side, where challenger Eric Swalwell narrowly unseated long-time incumbent Pete Stark in CA-15, by a 4.2% margin. Again, that's a result that just doesn't fit into our framework: Swalwell vs. Stark didn't have many ideological overtones (it was more about Stark's ineffectiveness and cantankerousness), and a close Swalwell victory certainly doesn't indicate he's vulnerable to a Republican in 2014 in a district that went 68% for Obama.

Finally, I wanted to try one last thing as part of this analysis: looking at the differences between a list of who had the closest races, and a list of who underperformed their districts' leans the most. This initially seemed like a great way to try and see who might secretly have a glass jaw and be a good under-the-radar target. However, in the final analysis, it doesn't tell us much that's new. It points to a lot of the same names as the charts above: mostly freshmen who had competitive races in open seats or against weakened incumbents, who'll probably be better protected in future years with more seniority and name rec.

It also points to Reps. who are carrying around some serious baggage with them, who'd be toast in more swingy districts, but who are adequately insulated against losing. That starts with Scott DesJarlais, who not only was hampered by his massive abortion hypocrisy but faced a solid Dem opponent, but still managed to win by 10 in an R+18 district. Bachmann isn't far behind, and the list also includes Mark Sanford, who won a surprisingly comfortable special election but still woefully underperformed the district's R+11 lean. (On the Dem side, it also points to Tierney and David Ciccilline, whose shortcomings are less glaring but who still labor under clouds.)

Dist. Rep. 2012 House 2012 Prez. Margin
TN-04 Scott DesJarlais 44.2/55.8 33.1/65.3 20.6
OK-02 Markwayne Mullin * 38.3/57.3 32.2/67.8 16.6
MN-06 Michele Bachmann 49.3/50.5 41.5/56.5 13.8
PA-12 Keith Rothfus * 48.3/51.7 40.9/57.8 13.5
IN-02 Jackie Walorski * 47.6/49.0 42.1/56.1 12.6
TX-14 Randy Weber * 44.6/53.5 39.5/59.3 10.9
NY-27 Chris Collins * 49.2/50.8 42.9/55.3 10.8
UT-01 Rob Bishop 24.7/71.5 20.4/77.4 10.2
UT-02 Chris Stewart * 33.5/62.2 29.2/68.0 10.1
KY-06 Andy Barr * 46.7/50.6 42.2/55.8 9.7
SC-01 (sp) Mark Sanford * 45.3/54.2 40.2/58.3 9.2
NC-08 Richard Hudson * 45.4/53.2 40.9/58.2 9.5
IN-08 Larry Bucshon 43.1/53.4 39.6/58.4 8.5
NC-11 Mark Meadows * 42.6/57.4 37.8/60.9 8.3
MI-01 Dan Benishek 47.6/48.1 45.3/53.6 7.8

And on the Dem side, again, there are a lot of freshmen who won hard-fought races in Dem-leaning districts (like Brad Schneider, Cheri Bustos, and oddly, Tammy Duckworth, who was expected to defeat Joe Walsh going away but had to gut the race out after some late third-party spending on his behalf). There are also a few unusual cases where lopsided victories simply weren't lopsided enough, given districts' even-more-lopsided leans in Barack Obama's direction. (Though there's usually an explanation for them, like the unusual circumstances of Robin Kelly's recent special election victory... or Charlie Rangel's vaguely corrupt reputation, which seems to have held him to a mere 91% while Obama was winning the 13th with 95%.)

The biggest underperformer seems entirely out of left field, though: it's Colleen Hanabusa, in Hawaii's 1st district. There are two factors at work in her case: one, a rematch against ex-Rep. Charles Djou, who won a fluky special election and then was promptly unseated by Hanabusa in 2010, but who's a more imposing challenger than one usually sees in districts like this. The other is Obama's unique popularity in what's essentially his home state, which pushed his numbers up at the same time as Djou pushed Hanabusa's numbers down. She's running for Senate this year, so worrying about future performance in HI-01 isn't relevant at any rate; if she has some sort of Achilles heel, it's going to be found by Brian Schatz in the Democratic Senate primary, not by a Republican.

Long-time progressive Henry Waxman's underperformance may actually be a bit more troubling. Facing a lot of new constituents after redistricting, and being opposed by a freely-self-funding Republican muddying the waters by running as an "independent," he seemed caught off guard, and his numbers show it.

Dist. Rep. 2012 House 2012 Prez. Margin
HI-01 Colleen Hanabusa 54.6/45.4 69.7/29.0 31.5
RI-01 David Ciccilline 53.0/40.8 66.2/32.2 21.8
CA-33 Henry Waxman 54.0/46.0 60.6/36.8 15.8
IL-10 Brad Schneider * 50.6/49.4 57.5/41.1 15.2
IL-02 (sp) Robin Kelly * 70.8/22.0 80.7/18.5 13.4
IL-01 Bobby Rush 73.8/26.2 79.0/20.2 11.2
NY-24 Dan Maffei * 48.8/43.4 57.0/41.1 10.5
IL-17 Cheri Bustos * 53.3/46.7 57.6/40.6 10.4
MA-06 John Tierney 48.3/47.1 54.7/43.9 9.6
CA-47 Alan Lowenthal * 56.6/43.4 60.0/37.5 9.3
CA-41 Mark Takano * 59.0/41.0 61.5/36.3 7.2
IL-08 Tammy Duckworth * 54.7/45.3 57.4/40.9 7.1
CA-09 Jerry McNerney 55.6/44.4 57.8/40.1 6.5
CT-05 Elizabeth Esty 51.3/48.7 54.0/45.0 6.4
TN-09 Steve Cohen 75.1/23.8 78.3/20.9 6.1
NY-13 Charlie Rangel 90.7/6.3 94.6/4.6 5.6

The wacky intra-party elections in California and Louisiana caused by their primary systems are much more of a factor here than they were in the tables of purely-close races. Had I not stuck my thumb on the scale and thrown those races out, the underperformer tables would have included not just Eric Swalwell, but also Janice Hahn, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Cedric Richmond, Maxine Waters, and Brad Sherman (and on the Republican side, Charles Boustany), all of whom had at least mildly-interesting races in districts that are thorougly safe at the presidential level. I didn't have to exclude Gary Miller, though: according to spreadsheet logic, he vastly overperformed his district's lean by triumphing in an R/R battle in a Dem-leaning district.

Kyle Kondik (of Univ. of Virginia's Center for Politics) has issued a much more extensive piece on the underperformers, if you want to continue down the lists. In addition, Daily Kos Elections commenter Xenocrypt has been all over the "underperformer" issue in recent weeks; the scatterplot at the top of this story, which graphs House race performance against presidential performance, comes courtesy of him.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sun May 12, 2013 at 04:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  CA-31 had a Democratic percentage of 0% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, Zack from the SFV

    Thanks to the shitty top two system.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sun May 12, 2013 at 05:32:58 PM PDT

  •  "the Democrats are more exposed going into 2014" (5+ / 0-)


    Something has to happen and soon.

    2 more years of this destructive GOP running Congress could be disastrous.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sun May 12, 2013 at 05:37:23 PM PDT

  •  Jerry McNerney CA-09 (5+ / 0-)

    Won one of the closest races in the country in 2010. That made him a prime GOP target. Then he was re-districted into a new district for 2012 and the GOP spent big bucks on the race.

  •  CT-5 (0+ / 0-)

    On the Democratic side I can understand most of these results, except Connecticut 5. As someone who didn't follow that race closely, why was it this close? I know Nancy Johnson held that seat for a long time, and obviously it's not overwhelmingly Democratic. But Chris Murphy never performed that poorly - even when beating Johnson. Were there notable changes from redistricting?

    •  The district barely changed (6+ / 0-)

      Candidate quality was probably the biggest reason for the closeness of the race. The Republican nominee was a well-regarded moderate State Senator, while the Democratic nominee was a one-term State Representative. The favorite on the Dem side had been House Speaker Chris Donovan, but his campaign got derailed by indictments of some people connected to him. It was also one of Obama's weakest districts in New England, he got 53.5% there last year.

      •  Obama "weakness" (4+ / 0-)

        Would augur for a seat not appearing on this list, because it should decrease the disparity between the top and bottom of the tickets. But I agree with the rest of what you said.

        Get the Daily Kos Elections Digest in your inbox every weekday. Sign up here.

        by David Nir on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:13:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The reason WAS the candidates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Esty was not well regarded.  She had a limited legislative record as a state rep.  She was an unknown politically and there was little indication of what her stances would be on various positions.  What little there was showed that she would be a Liebermanesque Centrist Dem who would be with us on many issues but be a thorn on our side on others.  Also she won a bloody primary in which her campaign (and PACs supporting her) used the arrests of some staff members of Donovan's campaign against him like a bludgeon.  It left a bad taste in many Dems mouths, including my own.  IN addition to all this, Esty hails from the easternmost portion of the district and was not well known in the Greater Danbury Area which is in the westernmost part of the district.  Chris Murphy overcame this in 2006 by making Danbury his second home and having a visible presence here, Esty not so much.

        Conversely Andrew Roraback was well regarded with good name recognition.  He was a attorney from a family of attorneys from NW CT who have collectively practiced law for over 100 years.  Served as a state rep and state senator for 18 years total.  Was a moderate Republican who was well suited for the district (but not DC).  A social Libertarian and fiscal conservative who didn't create waves.   He won a close primary but there wasn't much bad blood from it except from maybe the tea bagging nutsacks who supported Greenberg and would never be content unless their chosen lunatic won.  His only real weaknesses were that like Esty he wasn't well known outside of his home base in NW CT and he was running against strong presidential headwinds in a state that Romney didn't even contest or bother campaigning in unless it was to tap into GOP money in Greenwich CT.

        That all said, I think Esty will have an easier time going forward.  In April Andrew Roraback was appointed to the State Supreme Court in Danbury.  He'll be there for 8 year term and all indications are that he's done with politics.  Aside from him, the GOP bench in this area is weak.  Greenberg who came in 2nd in the GOP primary has already jumped in and he'll have his rabid teabagging base to prop him up.   If Foley doesn't run again in the GOP primary (she came in 3rd last time) then it's possible that one of her key supporters in Danbury mayor Mark Boughton will.  Although I think he has his eyes on a statewide position like Governor or LT Governor (he ran as LT Governor on the Foley ticket in 2010 and lost).  Other than that there aren't too many credible GOP candidates and frankly its questionable if any of those three are credible.      

        In addition to that, Esty has had the benefit of the tragic events of 12/14 in Newtown to help her.  Newtown is in the Greater Danbury Area, an area where she was less known.  However, since 12/14 she has had a visible presence in this area and has raised her stock with people in this area.  She has also had various town hall meetings and town hall type teleconferences (1 with Rep Chris Van Hollen).  She has the advantage of incumbency now and she's getting her name out there, even if it was in large part due to tragic events.

        Personally I think Esty will have an easier time going forward.  The GOP may pour some money here but I think it will be wasted.    

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:13:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ooooooooh, that KS-01 looks like such a welcoming (0+ / 0-)

    place to live.

    We will never be free from fear as long as we fear the NRA.

    by captainlaser on Sun May 12, 2013 at 05:45:47 PM PDT

  •  Underperforming (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Odysseus

    in CA, IL, HI, NY would be expected. The Romney campaign wrote off those states, so Obama won by big margins. But the GOP put money into some congressional races in those states.

  •  Henry Waxman is open to Chained CPI :( (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musiccitymollie, kaliope

    Is he nuts?

    Plato's " The Cave" taught me to question reality.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:04:31 PM PDT

    •  Actually, Waxman's so-called 'liberalism' may (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kaliope, CTDemoFarmer

      be of the typical Dem Party right of center variety.  

      [BTW, I saw the same video about Waxman's townhall.  Very effective.  I hope that his constituents will demand that he not sell them out on the Chained CPI, etc.]

      On economic/fiscal and foreign/war policies--Waxman's  probably somewhat conservative, or a facsimile thereof.

      And occasionally, we have a so-called liberal with a bit of a libertarian streak when it comes to civil liberties, like Russ Feingold.

      But mostly we have Dem pols who are somewhat moderate to liberal on at least a handful of wedge issues (social).

      This is how we keep winding up 'sold out' on economic issues, such as our social insurance programs.


      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      by musiccitymollie on Sun May 12, 2013 at 07:45:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Waxman's only a conservative if you're comparing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charliehall2, CF of Aus

        him to Lenin.

        20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
        Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
        UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

        by jncca on Sun May 12, 2013 at 10:09:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Guess we'll have to 'agree to disagree' on that. (0+ / 0-)

          Apparently, he's going along with the Administration's austerity measures--the Grand Bargain--which calls for cutting Social Security and Medicare in exchange for tax increases (which we know won't be negotiated in a half-decent manner, from past experience--unless you consider the 'whopping' 6/10's of One Percent tax hike on couples making $500,000 per year to be a satisfactory outcome--I don't, LOL!  BTW, those are Dean Baker's figures, not mine).

          But, I'm glad that you seem to like him.  If I can find the video of one of his constituents regarding a recent townhall, I'll be posting it below for 'kaliope.'  It probably would not be that objectionable to a fiscal conservative (Dem or Repub).

          The individual in the video is a member of PCCC, so it's possible that she 'is to your left.'  ;-)


          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          by musiccitymollie on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:04:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Musiccitymollie, got a link to Waxman's (0+ / 0-)

        town hall video? (I've got 'puter troubles tonight, so...he'p me out!)

        •  Gladly, kaliope. Please see below . . . (0+ / 0-)

          Henry Waxman will support Chained CPI in trade for “things we want”


          Democratic “progressive” Henry Waxman has signed the weaker benefit-cuts letter (now being called the CPC or Schakowsky letter). But as you see, he won’t promise a No vote. Henry Waxman, open for business — just make him an offer. . . .
          Interesting blog post--hope you get a chance to read all of it.  

          BTW, I have no personal 'beef' with Henry, and certainly don't live anywhere near his district.

          However, I've posted the names of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) who refuse to sign the Grayson-Takano "No Cuts Letter," and will continue to do so, in hopes that the constituents of these folks WILL lobby them to change their minds. ;-)


          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          by musiccitymollie on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:17:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just realized that you were looking for a video to (0+ / 0-)

          the actual town hall--sorry, can't help you on that.  


          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          by musiccitymollie on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:16:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I read this as (0+ / 0-)

      "Henry Waxman is open to chained PVI"

      and i thought "isn't PVI already chained?"

  •  david, are you around for comments? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Gygaxian

    i have been wondering about the "most republican" states and districts and whether utah took back that "honor" from oklahoma.

    also about how jim matheson is sitting in his new district.  he actually voted with the dems a few times over the christmas holidays but he is back voting against women again.  

    i have to find my reading glasses or a bigger chart or put in fresh contacts or something now.  

    Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

    by jlms qkw on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:10:35 PM PDT

    •  Sure (7+ / 0-)

      For most Republican districts, take a look at this. The reddest district from 2012 isn't in either Utah or Oklahoma, but actually in west Texas (TX-13). If you're interested in states, try this, I suppose; Utah did become the reddest state again, thanks to Romney's sorta-favorite-son status.

      Matheson does have the worst voting record of any House Dem this cycle (52.44% Progressive Punch for the 2013-14 cycle). Given that he also has the worst district of any House Dem, that's to be expected.

      If you're referring to the scatterplot at the start of the story, you can click on it to significantly enlarge it.

      Editor, Daily Kos Elections.

      by David Jarman on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:18:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Check your numbers David (0+ / 0-)

    Off the top of my head, Lee Terry won by about 1.6 and Mike Coffman by about 2. Not sure what else is off without looking at my or Dave Wasserman's spreadsheet.

  •  Michael Grimm(R) NY CD-11 (4+ / 0-)

    We could have won this race.  Obama easily beat Romney, especially since this was right after Hurricane Sandy and the Staten Island part of the district were prone to vote Democratic.  Grimm is being investigated by the FBI and there is a Grand Jury investigation which are both for him taking campaign contributions from non Americans.  Problem was we had a disgusting candidate in Mark Murphy, who didn't campaign and did squat in the election.  I know he got funds from the DCCC based on the fact that his father, John Murphy, used to be the Congressman but had to resign and did time in prison for ABSCAM.  He (Mark) could have overcome this had he did any campaigning but he didn't.  

    In 2014 we have a candidate named Dominic Recchia who is currently a City Council member.  Recchia lives on the Brooklyn side of the district and is at the very end of the district (in fact, when he originally tried to run in 2008 his house wasn't even in the district and I'm not sure if it is now).  In 2008 it was believed that Vito Fossella would win but Recchia wanted that seat since he was term limited in the City Council and would have run in a Primary with Steve Harrison a Brooklyn Attorney who ran agains Fossella in 2006 but lost the race. After Fossella resigned with his DWI and 2nd family in DC, Mike McMahon another City Councilman who lives on SI decided to run and beat Harrison in the Primary.  McMahon lives on SI and SI are very territorial and will only vote for a candidate who lives on the Island.  McMahon won and was elected to Congress but when he didn't vote for ACA he got a lot of Dems mad and they took it out on him in 2010.  

    We can beat Grimm and the DCCC has flagged this race but I'm not sure that Recchia is the right candidate even though he's a good fundraiser and is already getting money from the DCCC.

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Sun May 12, 2013 at 07:07:36 PM PDT

  •  The Graph Is Instructive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The graph is informative.  It would be particularly interesting to compare a variety of other factors concerned with particular issues and particular characteristics of individual districts.

    One way to establish more fertile ground is to look hard at emerging issues that could cut in unexpected ways and steadily build on these locally to shift sentiment.  This means not necessarily running solely a campaign against GOP candidates for being facilitators and part and parcel of the single most do-nothing and obstructive Congress in American history, but also looking for unaddressed local concerns that might divide the GOP base.  

    One should look for local and regional issues that both peel moderate votes toward Dems and enhances the potential to let significant numbers of republicans sit one out for any variety of reasons.  Hence, this might be worth exploring in follow-up analyses.

    I am also of the opinion that there is always time to encourage blue state dems in districts packed by GOP gerrymandering to consider moving into red districts in number so that the effects would be to eliminate the gerrymander.  Sometimes this only means moving across the street or a few blocks away or just across town.  There may be a few districts where just a few thousand moves over the course of a couple of years could be all that is needed, given how most gerrymanders are constructed.  If concentrated, some very nice communities of blue could emerge.  Dems actually have an advantage here in that it is typically much less expensive, even cost effective to move from a blue district to a red one as red districts tend to be more rural.  More thought needs to go into developing such communities.

  •  Quirk? CA top 2 a quirk?! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Despite being in a Dem-leaning district, [Gary Miller (R) CA-31] faced a general election against a fellow Republican, state Sen. Bob Dutton, thanks to a quirk in California's top 2 primary system.
    A quirk? In CA's "top 2 primary"?! That weren't no QUIRK. That was Common Cause's Rethug and PlutoDems' backers' point. It solved nothing but getting rid of Greens and Peace&Freedoms and Libertarians and other minority parties, and opening the way to divide Dems among themselves.

    Hmmphhhhh. Quirk. Aaaaaargh.

  •  IL-13 is winnable this time... (0+ / 0-)

    ... as long as the DCCC minimizes their incompetence this time around.  I can easily count 10 ways that the DCCC cost us that seat in 2012.

    by mr Z on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:11:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site