My Analysis of the Central Coast and Southern California (Part 4: Santa Barbara County)

SoCalGal23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 18, 2020 · 5:45 PM PST

2020/02/18 · 17:45

The Santa Barbara part of my 2017 California tour

Demographics (2019): 45.8% Hispanic, 44.1% Non-Hispanic White, 6.0% Asian, 2.4% Black

Population (2010): 423,895

Growth rate: Moderate (12% since 2000)

President: 53.2% D/45.2% R (2004), 60.2% D/37.4% R (2008), 57.4% D/39.4% R (2012), 59.9% D/31.5% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $46,677

% Bachelor's (2019): 33.8%

Like most of coastal California, Santa Barbara County voted strongly Republican for most of the 20th century, only voting Democratic in landslides (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson) before becoming bluer in 1992, and roughly a microcosm of California as a whole. Even though Santa Barbara is fairly liberal, voting very similar to the state, divisions exist between the conservative north (with an economy based on agriculture, oil, and Vandenberg Air Force Base) and liberal south (tech, tourism, and University of California, Santa Barbara). Because of these divisions, two county splits have been proposed, “Los Padres County” in 1978 and “Mission County” in 2006, but were both overwhelmingly defeated.

South

Demographics (2010): 52.2% Non-Hispanic White, 38.0% Hispanic, 3.5% Asian, 1.6% Black

Population (2010): 88,410

President: 69.5% D/29.0% R (2004), 75.2% D/22.9% R (2008), 71.5% D/25.7% R (2012), 74.8% D/18.9% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $47,498

% Bachelor's (2019): 45.2%

Historically known as the “American Riviera”, Santa Barbara was known for its charm as early as 1850, when settlers from the east and from the Gold Rush came. This led to the rapid development that would lead to Santa Barbara’s incorporation April 9, 1850, 5 months before California gained statehood. The arrival of the prospectors brought racial violence against the local Spanish/Mexican population, and Santa Barbara was known as the “most dangerous town between Los Angeles and San Francisco”. Another factor that led to Santa Barbara’s rapid growth was the founding of the Santa Barbara Gazette in 1855. The newspaper was bilingual, half English and half Spanish not because the residents were bilingual, but because some spoke English and some spoke Spanish. Slowly English overtook Spanish, though Spanish remained in use until 1870.

In 1859 Santa Barbara recorded the world’s highest temperature at the time, 133 °F, which stood for more than 50 years. Residents sought relief from the heat in their adobe homes. The heat is thought to have come from a freak “simoom”, though this incident is disputed.

The new settlers preferred to build their homes out of wood instead of the Spanish/Mexican adobe. The local oak trees weren’t suitable for lumber, so the building material had to be shipped in from Oregon. Thus the port of Santa Barbara was developed, and greatly enhanced by the building of Stearns Wharf in 1872. Later in the 1870s, Charles Nordhoff praised Santa Barbara as pleasant and delightful, especially for those with illness. As a result, many travelers came to stay. The completion of a railroad connecting Santa Barbara with Los Angeles and eventually San Francisco resulted in Santa Barbara becoming the famous resort city it is still known as today.

Before Hollywood, Santa Barbara was the center of the silent film industry in the early 20th century. The American Film Company was at the time the world’s largest movie studio. In Santa Barbara’s heyday as a film center, over 1,200 movies were made before the studios moved south so they could have more room to continue to expand.

Like many cities in California, Santa Barbara itself continued to rapidly grow in the early and mid-20th century. The city selectively recruited businesses to set up shop in the area, especially “clean” tech, over the oil industry that used to be prevalent in the area because the abandoned wells and sumps were seen as unsightly. Relations between Santa Barbara and oil companies further deteriorated after a major spill in 1969 greatly hurt tourism. Consequences of this spill were the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970. Later in the 1970s, anti-growth forces became strong enough that the council passed a resolution that would limit Santa Barbara’s population to 85,000. To control growth in adjacent cities such as Goleta, those cities were denied county-approved water meters. This predictably led to a housing shortage. Voters later approved connections to state water sources so growth picked up, though far less than in decades past.

It should surprise no one that Santa Barbara is deeply Democratic, and has been for a long time.

Demographics (2019): 49.0% Non-Hispanic White, 45.0% Hispanic, 4.8% Asian, 0.5% Black

Population (2010): 13,040

President: 59.4% D/39.4% R (2004), 65.8% D/32.2% R (2008), 64.4% D/32.9% R (2012), 67.7% D/25.9% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $47,729

% Bachelor's (2019): 33.0%

Situated about halfway between Santa Barbara and Ventura, the oceanside city of Carpinteria was named "carpentry shop" in Spanish after a missionary witnessed the local Chumash building canoes. The Chumash used naturally occurring asphalt from the petroleum seeps in the area, which are still visible today, to seal their canoes. The California Avocado Festival is held in Carpinteria every October.

Demographics (2019): 51.8% Non-Hispanic White, 34.7% Hispanic, 8.0% Asian, 2.3% Black

Population (2010): 29,888

President: 58.5% D/39.8% R (2004), 65.1% D/32.7% R (2008), 62.0% D/34.7% R (2012), 67.0% D/26.7% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $60,314

% Bachelor's (2019): 46.2%

Goleta (Spanish for "schooner" or "sailing ship") only became a city very recently, incorporating in 2002. It was named after a sailing ship that wrecked just offshore sometime in the late 18th/early 19th centuries and remained visible for some time. Agriculture, especially lemons, dominated the area's economy. There was also a sizable extraction industry. After World War II, the artificial Lake Cachuma was developed as a water source, and Goleta also experienced a population boom. The economy also shifted from agriculture to aerospace and tech. The University of California, Santa Barbara moved close by, to a former Marine base.

After several unsuccessful attempts, Goleta residents voted to incorporate in 2002. Some of the area between Goleta and Santa Barbara to the east remains unincorporated because these areas voted against incorporation. There has been some talk in Santa Barbara of annexing that area, sometimes called "Noleta", into that city. Including the unincorporated community of Isla Vista has also been discussed, with residents voicing concern about how the impact of the student population there on tax revenue and voting patterns.

Demographics (2019): 48.1% Non-Hispanic White, 23.8% Hispanic, 20.5% Asian, 3.2% Black

Population (2010): 23,096

President: .% D/.% R (2004), .% D/.% R (2008), .% D/.% R (2012), .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $16,151

% Bachelor's (2019): 63.0%

The unincorporated community of Isla Vista is home to a large college student population from UCSB and Santa Barbara City College along with working-class Hispanics. Before the students moved in, Isla Vista was sparsely populated, with only a few dirt farmers, because of a lack of water sources. During World War II, the Marine Corps set up an Air Station for flight training purposes. After the war, the airport was given to the City of Santa Barbara, and the rest of the land was to be used to build a new UCSB Campus, which opened in 1954.

When Lake Cachuma was developed, thousands of students were expected to move in and development went in the direction of large dormitory complexes. Later, the frustration of students with the highly regulated nature of these dorms resulted in the rapid construction of unregulated apartments. The 1960s brought the rise of counterculture as was common in colleges at the time. Some students formed an "IV League" as a community organization. Major unrest from anti-Vietnam War protests led to the FBI being very active in the area. The second free health clinic in the state after San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury clinic was set up here.

Later in the 1970s and 1980s, several attempts to incorporate Isla Vista failed, and the growing presence of well-off college students drove out not-so-well-off non-student residents. With few commercial amenities, Santa Barbara has been trying to draw business from the students.

I haven't yet been able to find data on unincorporated areas, but considering the population is predominantly college students I would expect Isla Vista to vote Democratic at close to Berkeley levels.

Demographics (2019): 84.5% Non-Hispanic White, 6.4% Hispanic, 4.5% Asian, 0.4% Black

Population (2010): 2,381

President: .% D/.% R (2004), .% D/.% R (2008), .% D/.% R (2012), .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $61,415

% Bachelor's: 37.8%

Named after the Mission Santa Barbara, this Santa Barbara suburb is home to the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and several popular hiking trails to La Cumbre Peak. This area probably leans Democratic, though not so much for southern Santa Barbara County standards.

Demographics (2019): 95.6% non-Hispanic White, 4.4% Hispanic

Population (2010): 1,448

President: .% D/.% R (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $53,964

% Bachelor's: 59.5%

Summerland was founded in 1883 by spiritualist H.L. Williams, who sold land to fellow Spiritualists. The local Spiritualist Church was demolished decades later, in the 1950s when Highway 101 was built.

Oil played a significant role in the community, with the development of the Summerland Oil Field. A blowout in the Dos Cuadras Field was responsible for the major oil spill in 1969 that helped trigger the modern environmental movement.

Demographics (2019): 66.4% Non-Hispanic White, 33.3% Hispanic, 0.7% Asian

Population (2010): 1,508

President: .% D/.% R (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $68,789

% Bachelor's (2000): 27.5%

This sparsely-populated community is home to Toro Canyon Park. With a bachelor's degree attainment below the county overall, I would expect Toro Canyon to be less blue than the county as well.

North

Demographics (2019): 80.2% Hispanic, 13.5% Non-Hispanic White, 6.2% Asian, 2.8% Black

Population (2010): 99,553

President: 58.0% R/41.3% D (2004); 50.2% D/48.1% R (2008); 51.7% D/46.3% R (2012); 55.8% D/33.6% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $51,739

% Bachelor's (2000): 12.8%

Agriculture historically dominated Santa Maria's economy and continues to do so today. The Santa Maria Valley was one of the most productive agricultural areas in the state, and today is one of the biggest wineries in the country. Oil also played a significant role later, in the early 20th century, and peaked with the Santa Maria Oil Field in the 1930s. These economic developments led to Santa Maria's rapid growth, which led it to pass the county seat of Santa Barbara in population in the 2000s. Santa Maria was Republican-leaning in the early 2000s and is now Democratic-leaning, though less so than the county and the state.

Demographics (2019): 63.6% Non-Hispanic White, 32.4% Hispanic, 0.8% Asian, 0.4% Black

Population (2010): 4,828

President: 57.9% R/40.7% D (2004); 50.7% D/47.2% R (2008); 51.2% R/45.9% D (2012); 47.4% D/45.7% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $83,023

% Bachelor's (2000): 16.4%

A haven for tourists, Buellton is known as the "Home of Split Pea Soup" and was part of a Danish colony that included nearby Solvang. The restaurant Pea Soup Andersen's was founded here in 1924 by Danish immigrant Anton Andersen and his French-born wife Juliette. The restaurant only began serving split pea soup a few months after it was opened. Later the Andersens built a hotel and dining room to serve tourists from San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Buellton is one of very few cities in Santa Barbara County that had a majority (now plurality) Republican registration among its voters.

Demographics (2019): 90.4% Hispanic, 5.1% Non-Hispanic White, 3.7% Asian, 0.5% Black

Population (2010): 7,080

President: 59.8% D/39.3% R (2004); 71.3% D/26.8% R (2008); 73.4% D/24.0% R (2012); 73.0% D/21.6% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $31,205

% Bachelor's (2000): 7.8%

Named after the Virgin Mary, "Our Lady of Guadalupe", Guadalupe was settled by pioneers from a wide variety of backgrounds including European, Mexican, and Filipino. It is very closely connected with Santa Maria and its land is mostly used for agriculture and oil production.

Demographics (2019): 61.1% Non-Hispanic White, 17.8% Hispanic, 12.7% Black, 5.4% Asian

Population (2010): 42,434

President: 57.3% R/41.8% D (2004); 51.3% D/46.8% R (2008); 51.1% D/46.2% R (2012); 51.8% D/40.9% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $47,587

% Bachelor's (2000): 8.6%

Named after "stagnant water" or "lagoon" in the Chumash language of Purisimeño, Lompoc started out as a temperance colony that was originally going to be named "New Vineland", after the temperance-based city of the same name in New Jersey. During World War II, Lompoc became a military town with the opening of nearby Camp Cooke, which would later be renamed to Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Space shuttles were actually planned to be launched from Lompoc in the late 1980s, and residents prepared for the tourists coming to watch the launch by building many hotels and restaurants. However, after the Challenger disaster in 1986 the West Coast program was discontinued, dashing any hopes of space shuttles being launched from the West Coast like on the East Coast (Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral) and near the Gulf Coast (Johnson Space Center in Houston). Thus Lompoc fell into a severe recession.

In 2016, when running to succeed the retiring Lois Capps (D) in the 24th congressional district, Salud Carbajal (D) made a gaffe when he called Lompoc "the armpit of Santa Barbara County". Carbajal won 57% of the vote in Santa Barbara County in 2016 while winning 53% overall, so I would not be surprised if he lost Lompoc then.

Today Lompoc is well-known for arts and flowers, being the "Flower Seed Capital". Lompoc is also home to a Federal Correctional Institute.

Demographics (2019): 64.1% Non-Hispanic White, 29.8% Hispanic, 2.2% Asian, 0.8% Black

Population (2010): 5,245

President: 60.0% R/39.2% D (2004); 51.1% R/46.8% D (2008); 55.5% R/42.5% D (2012); 47.9% R/46.7% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $45,799

% Bachelor's (2000): 27.2%

Solvang was founded in 1911 by Danish immigrants who had founded the Danish-American Colony Company in San Francisco a year earlier. They originally built in a similar style to other buildings in the area until 1928, when the Bethania Lutheran Church was built Danish-style.

The 1939 visit of Crown Prince Frederik and Princess Ingrid began tourist interest in Solvang. Interest in "Danish Villages" there grew after World War II. These buildings were built in a half-timbered style that later attracted tourists, along with the Danish-styled windmills and statues of Hans Christian Andersen and The Little Mermaid. The Danish Days Festival has been celebrated since 1936.

Demographics (2019): 51.2% Non-Hispanic White, 39.6% Hispanic, 5.3% Asian

Population (2010): 1,890

President: .% R/.% D (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $47,321

% Bachelor's (2000): 11.5%

Named after "cottonwoods" in Spanish like the city and National Laboratory of the same name in New Mexico, Los Alamos California started out in the late 19th century as a rest stop for stage coaches! After oil was discovered at the turn of the 20th century, the economy boomed further. In recent years the growth of wineries in the area has contributed to Los Alamos' prosperity. No street delivery is available for mail, so residents pick up their mail at the post office. The last Pacific Coast Railroad Station is also located here.

Demographics (2019): 58.4% Non-Hispanic White, 32.2% Hispanic, 6.2% Asian, 2.8% Black

Population (2010): 3,576

President: .% R/.% D (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R 2016)

MHI (2000): $57,000

% Bachelor's (2000): 29.5%

Mission Hills is right next to Lompoc and the La Purísima Mission State Historic Park. La Purisma Mission is the most fully restored mission in California. The mission was destroyed in an 1812 earthquake, but materials saved from the wreckage were used to construct the new buildings.

Demographics (2019): 65.2% Non-Hispanic White, 25.2% Hispanic, 3.8% Asian, 1.5% Black

Population (2010): 35,262

President: .% R/.% D (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $53,251

% Bachelor’s (2000): 20.0%

The community of Orcut was named after William Warren Orcutt, the manager of the Geological, Land and Engineering Departments of the Union Oil Company. Orcutt started out as a townsite for oil field workers. Now it is a suburb of Santa Maria.

Demographics (2019): 71.4% Non-Hispanic White, 10.2% Hispanic, 4.7% Asian, 0.8% Black

Population (2010): 4,418

President: .% R/.% D (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $80,284

% Bachelor’s (2000): 31.6%

Santa Ynez was named after the old spelling of Saint Agnes in Spanish. (The current spelling is "Santa Inés".) It is known for its wineries. Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch, now owned by Colony Capital, is located 8 miles north of the community.

Demographics (2019): 46.0% Non-Hispanic White, 23.4% Hispanic, 10.8% Black, 5.7% Asian

Population (2010): 3,338

President: .% R/.% D (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $39,444

% Bachelor’s (2000): 25.9%

The base is named after Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg. The land was first acquired and the base set up as Camp Cooke by the Army in 1941, before Pearl Harbor. The camp was named after Major General Philip St. George Cooke. Cooke's 40+year military career included the Mexican War, the Indian Wars, and the Civil War (Union, despite being from Virginia), as well as leading a Mormon battalion from Missouri to California, the first wagon trail to the state.

Later during World War Two, German and Italian prisoners of war were kept in Camp Cooke. The German POW's also worked agriculture to alleviate the severe labor shortage. After the war, the camp's lands were given to ranchers until the early 1950s, when Camp Cooke served as a training site for soldiers during the Korean War. A memorial for the Korean War soldiers was dedicated in 2000. The camp was again closed in 1953.

During the Cold War, the need arose for a strategic missile base and Camp Cooke was chosen, for the same reasons the Army chose the site: remoteness, small population, coastal location, and mild year-round climate. The camp was transferred to Air Force control and renamed Cooke Air Force Base. It was renamed again, to Vandenberg, in 1958.

Vandenberg was also involved in space exploration, with the launch of the world's first polar orbit satellite (Discoverer I) in 1959. In the 1970s, Vandenberg was selected to be the West Coast's space shuttle launch center, its answer to the Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers, but was never used as such. After the West Coast shuttle program was scrapped, they went back to polar-orbit satellites.

Demographics (2019): 61.7% Non-Hispanic White, 22.7% Hispanic, 4.1% Black, 3.1% Asian

Population (2010): 6,497

President: .% R/.% D (2004); .% D/.% R (2008); .% D/.% R (2012); .% D/.% R (2016)

MHI (2000): $58,700

% Bachelor’s (2000): 25.9%

Home to Vandenberg Air Force Base, Vandenberg Village has some local shops, but most of its residents commute to Lompoc just to the south.

New Zealand Votes Tomorrow: Are we about to see the Progressive Comeback of the Century?

smelly pirate

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday September 22, 2017 · 4:24 AM PDT

2017/09/22 · 04:24

Kossacks! Leave your cares, your Russian scandals and your horrendous healthcare battles to one side for just a few minutes and give some thought to other progressive struggles around the world. I have for you the story of what might turn out to be the progressive comeback of the century…

Overshadowed by all the great dramas of US political life at the moment, there is one little country that is having its own political drama this weekend (and I’m not talking about Germany!). Why do Kossacks care about New Zealand? Well, as someone who has posted on DK for a while, I’m always amazed how many Kossacks see New Zealand as a safe haven should things really go pear-shaped in the US. And you’re very welcome – we’d love any progressives to join us on the other side of the Pacific. Think of us as a smaller, wetter, version of Australia without the sharks, snakes and poisonous spiders.

So, how is it looking in the ‘safe haven’ on the eve of a general election?

To establish the scene, contemplate the key players… First up is the three-term government dominated by the National Party with a cast of smaller parties keeping their coalition alive. Think of them as pleasant-talking, smoothly-plausible, neoliberals-on-steroids – market fascism with a smiley face… They are led by Bill English — the kind of leader that a casting agency chose to specifically appeal to your rural cousins. National are the classic villains of any decent movie… the avuncular distant family members visiting for Thanksgiving whom, once the plot has progressed a bit, turn out to be smiling psychopaths that have stolen your family silver and disinherited your children. Up against them are a variable cast of characters. Under our proportional system of representation we have a couple of plucky challengers on the progressive left. Anchoring the political spectrum of decency and progressive politics is the Green Party (editorial alert – they are my folks) with earnest and decent leader James Shaw. He’s been somewhat overshadowed by the blazing comet of Jacinda Ardern spanning the Centre Left as the fresh and young leader of the newly rejuvenated Labour Party. Both Labour and Greens are full to the brim with talent and idealism. Between them they have emerged from a state of near chaos to arrive – like Jeremy Corbyn in the UK – at the brink of a sensational upset.

The DK International Elections Round-up did a great job of covering the phenomenon of Jacindamania. After taking over the Labour party only seven weeks ago, the young and charismatic Jacinda Ardern has taken Labour from only 24% in the polls to the giddy heights of 44% only last week. Remembering that New Zealand has a form of proportional representation (and all governments are coalitions), it was looking good for a progressive’s dream team: a winning coalition between Labour and the Green Party! It was a sensational achievement in only seven weeks. A 20% climb in the polls, and hope where none had existed for nine long years...

Since then, the plot has turned a little sour and, much as we would expect in a Hollywood-scripted superhero movie, the forces of evil have fought back. The governing National party has unleashed a series of calculated lies that seem eerily reminiscent of the descent of the US into ‘post-truth’ politics… Think Trump, think the mendacity of the Brexit campaign… think right wing scum inventing lies with the sole purpose of unsettling and un-nerving voters who were attracted to Jacinda Adern’s positive message of change for New Zealand. Dammit, it worked! National has moved back up to around 45% yesterday, with Labour slipping back to 37% or so it seems… But is there a chance for our superheroes to get off the mat and still win for team Red/Green tomorrow?

To find out, tomorrow’s election will play out around a set of dramatic themes:

1) A potential Youth-Quake! The current polling has been estimating youth turnout at around the same level as the previous election in 2014. Yet the on-the-ground evidence is of massive lines of young voters taking advantage of early voting where you are allowed to enrol and vote at the same time. Jacinda has brought a voice to her generation and the vibe feels fantastic. I’ve been walking around my university campus today soaking in the atmosphere as 100s of students have been lining up to vote for the first time. They love Jacinda, they love the Greens, they hate National… So, how many of them are there? Our Electoral Commission (Hint: here is a useful idea for a functioning democracy – put your elections in the hands of an independent body that sets the rules and doesn’t allow any party interference!) has been struggling to keep up with new voter enrolments. They announced a provisional total at the end of last week that still showed young voters (18-24) as being under-enrolled, but they also admitted that they had run out of capacity to process new enrolments and hadn’t included any ‘enrol and advance vote’ registrations from the many advance polling booths.

So, Question #1: Has the Youth-Quake happened? On current evidence we just can’t tell.

2) Are the polls accurate? At the moment, the collective polling wisdom from New Zealand’s TWO main polling agencies is that National is about 7-8% ahead of Labour. Not enough to form its own government, but enough to commence coalition negotiations with a party from outside the progressive coalition called NZ First. Yes, you were reading that correctly… we have TWO main polling companies. Last election we had six. But with the corporatisation and dumbing down of media, paying for polls is something that got cut from media budgets. Some of us have links to the major party campaigns, and their internal polling is showing a closer race. National’s internal polling suggests a 4% lead to them. Labour’s is closer… But internal pollsters are also admitting that the electorate is volatile with a lot of movement and still around 15% undecided. They are suggesting a margin of error of around 4% on the polls. In a proportional representation system, a polling error of +/-4% is a lot!

Add in to that polling error the fact that young voters just might be turning out at a higher rate than the polling samples suggest and many things start to become possible….

Question #2: what happens if the polls aren’t accurate?

3) Who can escape the Death-Zone! New Zealand’s quaint system of proportional representation is generally good. I particularly like the fact that it mandates that the final number of representatives in parliament must match the exact proportion of the vote received by that party. So, no more gerrymandering! If you get 43% of the vote, you get 43% of the representatives… with one huge exception! The electoral system isn’t supposed to be clogged up with endless small parties getting 1 or 2% of the vote (think Israel or Italy), so New Zealand has as threshold of 5% of the vote to get into parliament (there is a way around this, but it doesn’t always succeed). If a party doesn’t get 5% of the vote, whatever votes it had received are then redistributed to all the other parties. This is the ‘death zone’ of voting in New Zealand and it can make or break a potential coalition.

Two vitally important smaller parties have been flirting with the death zone in recent polling. The Greens (my beloved party!) have had a horror campaign and only two weeks ago were polling at 4.5%. When voters start to see that kind of number, they start to think: ‘if I vote for them, they may not make 5% and then my vote gets re-distributed – including to parties I really hate! Maybe I shouldn’t vote for them?’. Like the Greens, another smaller party – NZ First – has also been hovering around the Death Zone. A natural partner for National (but actually having gone into coalition once with Labour in the past), NZ First is essential to the chances of a future National Government…

Since then, however (remember that this election is scripted by Hollywood), polling for both the Greens and NZ First has been edging away from the Death Zone, but not by much, not much at all (and did I mention that 4% margin of error in the polling!).

So, the first number everyone will be looking at tomorrow night is what is the vote for the Greens and NZ First in relation to the 5% death zone. If either falls under, the chances of their side of the political spectrum making government collapses. Moreover, if the Greens fall below 5% and out of parliament, your faithful Kiwi Kossask correspondent will then re-live all the worst moments of November 2016… Just imagine if your party not only lost a massively high stakes election, it then ceased to be a parliamentary party at all!!!! The stakes are high for us Green voters… (did I mention how many times I’ve wandered over to the campus polling precinct today… those young voters are our Green bedrock).

Question #3: have the Greens and NZ First escaped the Death Zone?

4) The Aftermath. New Zealand political junkies love the first episodes of Season One of Danish political drama Borgen. That is our life! Remember Birgitte starting to forge together a winning coalition of parties after election day… remember the old racist populist party leader going fishing for a couple of days so that no-one could reach him to negotiate a coalition… Denmark stole that plot-line straight off New Zealand!

On the day after the election there are four potential outcomes that might start to be assembled over the following weeks:

1. A government of ‘National Disgrace’ in which National is able to make a coalition with enough little parties to form government. Please no, no, no, no…..

2. A National/NZ First coalition – slightly more moderated than the first option, but still an unhappy outcome.

3. A Labour/NZ First/Green coalition – Can Jacinda Ardern turn out to be the master negotiator that Birgitte from Borgen was? Could she use the power of an inspirational vision of the future to lure even NZ First into a coalition of hope… On current polling, this is the most likely way for our heroes to win this battle. It would likely take many weeks of negotiating, and I can just imagine the wily old lizard Winston Peters (leader of NZ First) shuffling between Labour and National seeking out the most satisfying trophies and baubles…

4. A Labour/Green coalition. Hollywood would script it this way. The Youth-Quake occurs! The polls are wrong! New Zealand sees the greatest come-back for progressive politics in many generations! From 24% and dead only 7 weeks ago to leading a progressive coalition into government! New Zealand’s youngest Prime Minister, the first leader who is from the post- Baby-Boom generation, a person bringing hope to a dis-enfranchised generation of new voters and a legion of new political activists…

Please let Hollywood be the script-writer for the final reel of this drama tomorrow….

kwaters2008

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday September 17, 2017 · 6:49 AM PDT

2017/09/17 · 06:49

2016._FL._Senate_Map..png — Even-numbered districts will be up for re-election under the new FL Senate map- redrawn for elections in 2016 and onward

This post will go more in-depth into the swing seats Democrats will need to contest in order to flip the Florida Senate chamber in 2018. It is not a long-shot, and it is actually flippable, but the state party is not known for its competency, so candidate-recruitment will give us more insight as this cycle unfolds. During the 2018 midterm elections only even-numbered seats will be up for election. 20/40 seats are up for election, Democrats are only defending 5 seats. For each seat I will give voting numbers from 2016, presidential %’s from 2016 election (Clinton-Trump margins), as well as potential candidates that could run in the seat. Some of the seats have no candidate declared and the districts also don’t have rumblings happening that lead us to believe someone is running. Thus, if you read and know more about a specific district, be sure to drop that knowledge below so we can keep a running tab on each of these swing seats.

Senate Seat 8: This seat resides in Alachua, Putnam and a portion of Marion county. Sen. Perry won 53-47 in 2016, and Trump carried the seat with a .2% margin. Currently two candidates are declared: Kayser Emmeking and Olysha Magruder. Magruder has a developed website (voteolysha.com/...) and seems to be a viable candidate, having been an educator for a number of years. Representative Clovis Watson Jr., who represents a portion of the seat in the House, has filed for re-election in 2018, but would be a top pickup here for Democrats. The 2016 candidate ran up a strong margin in Alachua County but under performed in Marion. To win the seat Democrats will need to have a stronger turnout in Putnam and Marion and hope Gainesville shows up to vote for the candidate.

Senate Seat 16: This is Jack Latvala’s seat who is unable to run because of term limits, and is also a candidate for Gov. He ran uncontested in ‘16, and Trump won by almost 13 points. However, this will be an open-seat contest in a seat representing portions of Pasco and Pinellas counties. Pinellas is a place where Democrats could perform more strongly if we engaged voters, but as mentioned prior, the state party has not done a terrific job. Bernie Fensterwald is already declared for the seat after losing a run for HD-65 in 2016, though Representative Ben Diamond also represents Pinellas in the House and could run for the upper chamber. This is the toughest seat of the possibilities, but it will be open, which is a prime opportunity if a true wave forms in the midterms.

Senate Seat 18: This is a seat Clinton won by 5.4% and is situated in a part of Hillsborough County. There are no declared candidates here but Hillsborough is a strong place to recruit democratic challengers so it will be interesting to watch this contest unfold. This is one of 3 seats that Clinton won where a GOP rep holds the seat. Dana Young won in ‘16 with less than a majority of the vote, beating the Dem challenger 48-41, with an Independent carrying nearly 10% of the vote. With a viable candidate, we should absolutely contest this seat and be able to flip it over to the good side.

Senate Seat 20: Representing a portion of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Polk counties, this seat went for Trump by a 5 point margin in ‘16. Tom Lee ran uncontested here, but is eyeing the CFO race, which could potentially leave this seat open in the midterm contests as well. There aren’t any declared candidates but if one of the state reps from the H’boro delegation is in the district, they would be the best option at this point.

Senate Seat 22: This seat went 54-47 to the Republican in ‘16, and was +6.6% for Trump. It is seated in portions of Lake and Polk Counties. Bob Doyel is already declared for the seat and has launched a pretty mild website (bobdoyel.com). We’ll need a strong candidate here as it is probably the second toughest seat of the bunch to flip, unless a stronger candidate emerges.

Senate Seat 24: The other portion of Pinellas county is situated in this district. It went +7 for Trump in ‘16 and Senator Brandes ran unopposed. There are no candidates declared, and it will take a strong candidate to unseat Brandes, but Pinellas could be friendly territory if the state party gets to work. After 16 and 22 this will be the third toughest seat to flip but is entirely possible with a legitimate candidate and strong ground game in Pinellas.

Senate Seat 36: This seat went +13 for Clinton as Senator Garcia defended the seat 55-45 against the Dem challenger. No one is declared for this seat, but it in Miami-Dade county so candidate recruitment should be easier. It’s likely that a Representative (or several) will declare for the seat soon (or wait until after 2018 session potentially) but there are plenty of viable elected officials in this portion of the state who could win the seat. This should be the #1 target as it went so heavily for Clinton last year, but also because Garcia faces term limits which should allow Dems to flip the seat in an open election.

Senate Seat 40: If things go wrong for Taddeo in next week’s special, we’ll get another shot at this seat in ‘18. In 2016, the seat voted by an 18 point margin for Clinton, though it kept Artiles in the seat 51-41 before his resignation. If Taddeo doesn’t win, along with 36, this should be our top priority in the midterm senate contests. There would be plenty of candidates who could run here and make it a contest, as the seat is in Miami-Dade and is 72% Hispanic (as of the 2010 census.) With so many candidates declared for the open Congressional race in the 27th, it is not unlikely that one could drop down to this race if they live inside the district (if Taddeo doesn’t score the win next week.)

Overall, there are 8 seats that we should seriously be contesting, with 3 having voted for Clinton, two being open in ‘18, and all but 16 within a 7 point margin from 2016’s Presidential results. The GOP holds a 24-15 advantage currently, with District 40 to be decided next week. Thus, if we can win 40, we will only need to flip 5 seats in the midterm, with 8 strong options, 3 seats that we should flip more easily after Clinton’s strong performance there in ‘16.

Florida has a ton of potential for fluidity as this cycle develops as AG, CFO, Ag Commiss., and Gov/Lt. Gov elections are also all going to be open seats. Senator Grimsley from district 26 has already declared for the Ag race, leaving that an open contest as well, even though her seat voted for Trump by 30 points. Senate President Negron is rumored to be waiting to declare for the AG race. His seat, the 25th district, voted for Trump by almost 12 points last year, as he defended the seat 65-35. There will be other Senators looking to move up, either on the ticket for LG, Congressional races, or for the 4 statewide races, which will give democrats more chances to flip open seats in a midterm that could turn out a Democrat-friendly delegation in a potential wave election year.

Democrats are only defending 5 seats in this cycle (potential for 6 if Taddeo wins), and only one was within a 10 point margin, with district 36 keeping the Dem incumbent safe with a 54-46 win, as Clinton won the district by almost 13 points. None of the 5 Dem incumbents have been rumored to be interested in other offices, though that could change as the cycle develops more. Republicans are very over-exposed, Clinton performed well in many of these districts, and there will be a statewide impact to these seats as other GOP Senators declare for higher offices. Hopefully the state party is already recruiting strong candidates to contest each of these seats, and the others, to ride the blue wave in ‘18 and bring power back to Dems in Florida!

Order of flippability: 36, 40 (if needed), 8, 18, 20, 24, 22, 16

How Has New Hampshire’s Political Geography Shifted Since 2000?

ProudNewEnglander

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday September 07, 2017 · 6:06 AM PDT

2017/09/07 · 06:06

New Hampshire used to be a heavily Republican state. For over a century, Republicans were clearly the majority party in New Hampshire, and Democratic wins, though they happened occasionally, were clearly the exception to the rule. During that time, New Hampshire produced such notable Republicans as Styles Bridges, Norris Cotton, Warren Rudman, and the (still extant) Sununu dynasty. And until the turn of the century, all of those Republicans won their elections fairly easily.

But since the turn of the century, or more specifically since 2004, there has been a noticeable leftward shift in New Hampshire’s politics that has turned the state into a swing state. In 2004, Democrat John Lynch unseated one-term Republican Governor Craig Benson, the first time since the 1920s that a first-term governor has lost re-election. In addition, in 2004 New Hampshire voted for John Kerry for President, the first time since 1848 (thus before the Republican Party existed) that New Hampshire voted for a Democratic presidential candidate who did not win overall. Two years later, in 2006, Democrats swept pretty much every election that they possibly could, winning both U.S. House seats, both houses of the state legislature, and the Executive Council. Since then, the state has settled into somewhat of a swing-state equilibrium, with every statewide election, every congressional election, and control of the state legislature being fiercely fought between the two parties.

But in the years since New Hampshire became a swing state, how has the political geography of the state shifted? Which towns and regions have trended Democratic, and which have trended Republican? To answer this question, I look at five different sets of elections that have happened since then. Each of those five sets of elections had a similar result. Those five sets of elections are:

The 2000 and 2014 gubernatorial elections. Both were won by Democrats by a margin of 5 percentage points.
The 2002 gubernatorial and 2010 Senate elections. Both were won by Republicans by a margin of between 20 and 25 percentage points.
The 2004 gubernatorial and 2016 Senate elections. Both were won by Democrats by a margin of less than 2 percentage points.
The 2002 Senate and 2016 gubernatorial elections. Both were won by Republicans by a margin of between 2 and 5 percentage points.
The 2004 and 2016 Presidential elections. Both were won by Democrats by a margin of less than 2 percentage points.

For each of these elections, I compare each town’s result to the overall statewide result, and then compare those between the two elections to see how each town trended during the intervening time. At the end, I will present a map of the towns that trended Democratic or Republican in all five of the elections listed above.

The 2000 and 2014 gubernatorial elections

In the 2000 gubernatorial election, then-incumbent (now-Senator) Jeanne Shaheen (D) defeated former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey (R) by a 5-point margin. In the 2014 gubernatorial election, then-incumbent (now-Senator) Maggie Hassan (D) defeated businessman Walt Havenstein (R) by an identical 5-point margin. As the above map shows, though, their coalitions were very different. Hassan performed substantially better than Shaheen in most of western and northern Vermont, as well as in the Seacoast region and in the cities of Manchester and Concord. Hassan underperformed Shaheen in much of the rural and suburban areas in southeastern New Hampshire (Salem being a notable exception). There are two specific trends that warrant further comment. First, Manchester trended Democratic while Nashua trended Republican. Manchester is on a long-term Democratic trend as it diversifies and its inhabitants begin to identify more as city-dwellers. Manchester used to be consistently redder than Nashua and voted about the same as the state as a whole; now it is roughly as Democratic as Nashua, and consistently votes to the left of the state as a while. Second, Coös County trended substantially Democratic during this time. Coös was in fact on a long-term Democratic trend, and went deep blue in 2014, but that trend abruptly reversed itself in 2016 when Trump performed very strongly in Coös. It will be interesting to see if 2016 was merely an aberration in Coös’s Democratic trend, or whether it was a lasting realignment.

The 2002 gubernatorial and 2010 Senate elections

In the 2002 gubernatorial election, businessman Craig Benson (R) defeated state senator Mark Fernald (D) by a 20-point margin. In the 2010 Senate election, state AG Kelly Ayotte (R) defeated Congressman Paul Hodes (D) by a 23-point margin. Again, however, their coalitions were notably different. Democrats again improved in the northern half of the state, while Republicans improved in much of the Concord area as well as in most of the towns on New Hampshire’s southern border.

The 2004 gubernatorial and 2016 Senate elections

In the 2004 gubernatorial election, businessman John Lynch (D) defeated incumbent Governor Craig Benson (R) by a 2-point margin. In the 2016 Senate election, Governor Maggie Hassan (D) defeated then-incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) by less than two tenths of one percentage point, or approximately 1,000 votes. Despite the similarities in the margins, Lynch’s and Hassan’s coalitions were radically different. Lynch performed extremely well in the Concord area, which is why the map shows it trending Republican. The reason why Lynch did so well in the Concord area is because Benson had been involved in some scandals during his time in office, and multiple elections in many states across the country have shown that voters who live in the vicinity of a state capital are more knowledgeable of, and less tolerant of, political scandals*. The map also shows the Berlin area trending Republican, which is mainly due to the Trump wave causing Hassan to underperform there. Another notable aspect of this map is that the Seacoast did not trend Democratic, as it did in the first comparison. However, much of northern New Hampshire, including the Lebanon/Hanover area, the I-93 corridor from Franconia to New Hampton, and almost all of Carroll County still trended Democratic, as well as (importantly) the city of Manchester.

*See, for example, Louisiana’s 2015 gubernatorial election, Virginia’s 2013 LG election, and Pennsylvania’s 2005 Supreme Court retention referendum.

The 2002 Senate and 2016 gubernatorial elections

In the 2002 Senate election, Congressman John E. Sununu (R) defeated Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D) by a 4-point margin. In the 2016 gubernatorial election, Executive Councillor (and brother of John E.) Chris Sununu (R) defeated fellow Executive Councillor Colin Van Ostern (D) by a 2-point margin. The map comparing these two elections is somewhat of a combination of the three previous maps. Grafton County and every town that borders Lake Winnipesaukee trended Democratic. Grantham (fast-growing town SE of Lebanon) and New London (home to Colby-Sawyer College) both trended heavily Democratic. Manchester, Peterborough (an artists’ colony), and most of the Seacoast also trended Democratic. Every single town on the border with Massachusetts trended Republican. The Berlin area also trended Republican, for the same reason as with the previous comparison.

The 2004 and 2016 Presidential elections

In the 2004 and 2016 Presidential elections, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton both won New Hampshire by margins of less than two percentage points, even as they both lost the overall elections. The Manchester area and the Seacoast area (with the exception of the towns bordering Massachusetts) trended Democratic, as did the Lebanon/Hanover area, New London, and most of the northern half of New Hampshire (with the Berlin area again an exception). Much of Cheshire County and southern Sullivan County trended Republican – this is also due to the Trump wave among working-class whites. The east-central part of the state also trended Republican.

Looking at each of the above maps individually is not as meaningful as combining their information into one map. My final map colors only the towns that trended either Democratic or Republican in all five of the above comparisons.

The trends are pretty obvious here. All but five of the consistently Democratic-trending towns are in the northern half of the state. What do those towns have in common that the remainder of the towns in northern New Hampshire don’t? The towns that are consistently trending Democratic are more educated and touristy, while the towns not colored blue are generally more working-class (and so swung toward Trump). Of the five towns in southern New Hampshire that are consistently trending Democratic, three of them are on or near the Seacoast, and that whole region seems to be trending Democratic in most elections. The other two are Manchester, which is diversifying (it is 82 percent non-Hispanic White now; it was 98 percent as recently as 1980), and Peterborough, an artists’ colony just east of Mount Monadnock.

More than half of the towns that are consistently trending Republican are in a contiguous band stretching from Amesbury, Massachusetts almost to Laconia. These towns are increasingly becoming commuter towns for Concord, Manchester, and (the southernmost ones) even Boston. The closer-in suburbs are generally not trending in either direction, but as these towns continue to grow with right-leaning commuters who care about gas prices and low taxes, they are shifting to the right. The same phenomenon is also visible northwest of Manchester in towns such as Weare and Dunbarton, both of which are also colored red on the map.

One final note: there is only a single example in the entire state of a consistently Democratic-trending town directly bordering a consistently Republican-trending town, and those two towns are Gilford (which is consistently Democratic-trending) and Gilmanton (which is consistently Republican-trending). The differences between these two towns demonstrate the opposing trends at work in New Hampshire. Gilford is a touristy town with a shoreline on Lake Winnipesaukee and the Gunstock ski resort. Gilmanton has easy road connections to Concord and other areas of employment, allowing its development as a commuter town. Emphasizing the divide between the two towns is that the Belknap Mountains are directly between them, resulting in the fact that there is not a single road connection between the two towns. This has allowed them to develop in two different directions, which seems to be causing their politics, formerly very similar, to diverge.

Poll

105 votes Show Results

Does this diary adequately describe the political-geographic trends in New Hampshire since 2000?

105 votes Vote Now!

Does this diary adequately describe the political-geographic trends in New Hampshire since 2000?

Absolutely, very much so

50 votes

Yes

31 votes

Somewhat

17 votes

3 votes

Absolutely not

4 votes

2018 House Race Ratings and Analysis Part 3: Colorado-Florida

IDMN

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday August 19, 2017 · 3:49 PM PDT

2017/08/19 · 15:49

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL), one of the few vulnerable Democrats in next year's House election

Florida, one of America’s truest battlegrounds, is shaping up to be a battle royale of competitive races. Colorado has one of the Democrat’s “White Whales”, Mike Coffman, who seems impervious to failure even in the toughest years for Republicans. Head below the fold for more

Poll

30 votes Show Results

Who do you think ends up being our FL-27 nominee?

30 votes Vote Now!

Who do you think ends up being our FL-27 nominee?

Jose Javier Rodriguez

11 votes

Kristen Rosen Gonzalez

5 votes

Mary Barzee Flores

2 votes

Matt Haggman

0 votes

Michael Hepburn

2 votes

David Richardson

2 votes

Ken Russell

0 votes

Jeb!

6 votes

Other

2 votes

Exploring the Midwest, Part 1: Did Trump win the Midwest? Or did Hillary lose it?

AJD7

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday August 16, 2017 · 4:30 AM PDT

2017/08/16 · 04:30

The states we will be focusing on in this investigation

Simply put, the Midwest was the region that decided the 2016 Presidential election. Had Hillary Clinton held on to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she would be the President. Donald Trump’s ability to win every Midwestern state, except for Illinois and Minnesota, put him over the top. But perhaps most interesting about the region is that it was one of the core bases for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. While the Midwest was more Republican than the nation as a whole in 2016, which allowed Trump to win the electoral college without the popular vote, the same was true with Obama. With the exception of Ohio, every Midwestern state was more Democratic than the nation as a whole in 2012, which would have allowed Obama to win the electoral college without the popular vote, had that circumstance arisen (Obama won the popular vote by 3.9%, however). So what changed in 2016? What about Trump caused this switch? Or perhaps did it have more to do with Hillary Clinton than it did Donald Trump? Let’s take a look

In order to get a sense of what’s going on, let’s break it down state by state, with a quick note about the Midwest. As a Midwesterner myself (Michigander, actually), I break up the Census Midwest into two parts, Great Lakes and Great Plains. The Great Lakes states are (PA, OH, MI, WI, IN, IL, MN) and Great Plains are (ND, SD, KS, NE, IA). Missouri is a border state and not the Midwest (I will fight you about that). I toss Iowa in the study group of the Great Lakes because politically, it behaves like a Great Lakes state. Oh, and Illinois will not get mentioned because it didn’t have any notable swing towards Donald Trump. Anyways, to the states!:

Minnesota

Candidates	Vote %	Vote totals
clinton	46.44% (-6.21%)	1.367 M (-179 K)
trump	44.92% (-0.04%)	1.322 M (+2 K)
third party	8.64% (+6.25%)	277K (+200 K)

Minnesota, a longtime liberal stronghold, came very close to turning red in 2016. So what was it about Trump’s appeal that almost made this blue state red? Actually, nothing. Trump got less of the vote than Mitt Romney did, and in terms of raw votes, got only roughly 2000 more votes (and more people voted in 2016, diminishing that accomplishment). Rather, it was the drastic drop off in Democratic votes that made this state close, with Clinton getting over 6% less of the vote than Obama, while the third party share increased by a lot. The presence of Evan McMullin on the ballot, along with huge increases in Libertarian and Green vote, made this result the case. Now is it fair to say that all of those people who supported Obama but shunned Hillary voted third party? No. I’d say around 2% probably flipped to Trump, but at the same time, many in the Twin City suburbs, particularly in Erik Paulsen’s MN-03, flipped from Romney to Hillary, while others were probably McMullin’s 1.8% of the vote. Regardless, in Minnesota, it’s appropriate to conclude that the decline in Democratic support was more due to Hillary’s unpopularity than Trump’s appeal.

Wisconsin

candidates	vote %	vote totals
clinton	46.45% (-6.38%)	1.382 M (-238 K)
trump	47.22% (+1.33%)	1.405 M (-2 K)
third party	6.33% (+5.05%)	188 K (+149 K)

Wisconsin was the tipping point state in 2016 and it was a microcosm of the Midwest as a whole. While Trump got a larger share of the vote than Romney, he only improved on Mitt’s share by a small amount (1.33%) and didn’t really come close to winning a majority of the vote. Rather, the bigger story was how Hillary, again, vastly underperformed Obama, receiving 6.38% less, while the third party vote increased by over 5%. Even more striking is the fact that Trump received less raw votes than Romney (though fewer people voted overall). So did Wisconsin really “swing hard” for Trump? Not really. I think the better argument is that it “swung hard” against Hillary.

Iowa

candidates	vote %	vote totals
clinton	41.74% (-10.25%)	653 K (-169 K)
trump	51.15% (+5.03%)	800 K (+70 K)
third party	7.10% (+5.27%)	111K (+82 K)

If you want to find a state that swung hard for Trump, Iowa’s your best shot. While Trump did significantly better than Romney (5% better) and captured a majority of the vote, that vote change is not even half as big as the staggering 10.25% less of the vote that Clinton received when compared to Obama. And following a theme, the third party vote increased drastically. So while it did swing hard for Trump, it swung even harder against Hillary.

Michigan

candidates	vote %	vote totals
clinton	47.27% (-6.94%)	2.268 M (-296 K)
trump	47.50% (+2.79%)	2.279 M (+164 K)
third party	5.23% (+4.15%)	250 K (+199 K)

By now you should be noticing a trend. Trump improved on Romney’s margins by a decent amount, but again, it was Clinton’s big underperformance of Obama’s vote totals/percentages that was the most important story. A big third party vote proved decisive as neither candidate was close to a majority.

Indiana

candidates	vote %	vote totals
clinton	37.91% (-6.02%)	1.033 M (-119 K)
trump	56.82% (+2.69%)	1.557 M (+137 K)
third party	6.07% (+4.13%)	167 K (+51 K)

Indiana is the reddest state on this list, and it’s not really close. But Obama did win it in 2008 and even though he was beaten soundly in 2012 by Romney, there was still an obvious shift even more towards Team Red in 2016 which makes it notable. And guess what? It’s the same pattern. Small shift in percentage and votes to Trump, but an even bigger amount of dropping Democratic votes/increase in third party votes.

Ohio

candidates	vote %	vote totals
clinton	43.56% (-7.11%)	2.394 M (-433 K)
trump	51.69% (+4.00%)	2.841 M (+180 K)
third party	4.75% (+3.11%)	261 K (+170 K)

Ohio, along with Iowa are the two states that had a discernible swing towards Trump, but even in this state, the swing against Clinton was larger than the swing towards Trump.

Pennsylvania

candidates	vote %	vote totals
clinton	47.46% (-4.51%)	2.926 M (-64 K)
trump	48.18% (+1.59%)	2.970 M (+310 K)
third party	4.36% (+2.92%)	268 K (+185 K)

Pennsylvania has a very similar story in terms of small swing to Trump, larger swing against Hillary/to third party. The only difference is that it is one of only two states in this data set (Indiana the other) where Trump gained more raw votes than Hillary lost, but that mostly has to do with total turnout than anything special concerning Trump.

Summary of data

What we saw in this data concerning our earlier question is that fairly decisively, the Midwestern states swung against Hillary Clinton far more than they swung towards Donald Trump. And thus, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Hillary lost the Midwest more than Trump won it. Of the 7 states we studied, in every one of them, the share that Clinton lost was greater than the share Trump gained. Also in every state we studied, there was a large increase in the third party vote, which was consistent with a broad national increase. Now these numbers aren’t perfect and we don’t have the data on every specific trend. There were certainly many people in counties across the Midwestern states who flipped directly from Obama to Trump, and there were also people in the suburbs of the big cities (Twin Cities and Detroit in particular) that flipped from Romney to Clinton, or even Romney to say a third party candidate.

What we do know however is that even in the places that Trump got the biggest vote swings, such as Ohio and Iowa and Indiana, he isn’t super loved. In Ohio and Iowa, he only gained a narrow majority of the vote (just over 51% in both). In Indiana, he gained a solid majority, but there are polls from then and now that suggest that Trump isn’t on great footing across the region. Perhaps the most important poll to suggest the “Hillary lost it” theory are ones taken from the fall concerning Obama himself.

The last Marquette Law Poll taken from Wisconsin (October 26-31) had Clinton leading Trump 46-40 with 7% 3rd party and 7% undecided asked Obama’s approval rating in the state and had it at 52% to 44% disapproval. The poll probably has a small Democrat bias, though due to the number of undecideds, you can argue that the poll was correct, as long as all the undecideds voted for Trump. Regardless, the poll had Obama at a +9 approval, with clearly a number of people who were approving of Obama undecided about if they could/would vote for Clinton. Specific details show Clinton was very unpopular in the state (so was Trump).

The last Public Policy Polling poll taken from Michigan (November 3-4) had Clinton leading Trump 46-41 with 8% third party and 6% undecided. Again this poll probably has a slight Democratic bias, but with the big undecided vote, you can argue that this poll was also correct, as long as all the undecideds voted for Trump. Regardless, it asked the question, who would you prefer was President, Donald Trump or Barack Obama? 52% said Obama, 42% said Trump, 6% were not sure. Put simply, Obama was getting at least 6% of the vote that were undecided about Hillary. Oh and he would have beaten Trump in Michigan.

The last Selzer poll taken from Iowa (November 1-4) had Trump leading Clinton 46-39 with 7% third party and 8% undecided, which as usual for Selzer, was a pretty darn good poll. The poll didn’t ask about Obama but in case you were wondering, most Iowan voters really didn’t like either Trump or Clinton, supporting the “Trump didn’t win the Midwest” theory. Given the options “I’m satisfied with my choices for President”, “I’m not satisfied with my choices for President”, “these are the worst choices I’ve ever had as a voter”, and “these are the best choices I’ve ever had as a voter”, 68% of Iowans said they were either dissatisfied (40%) or said these were the worst choices ever (28%). Basically, anyone who wasn’t a base voter for Clinton and Trump really didn’t like either Clinton or Trump. They also weren’t that high on Obama in late 2016, but they sure weren’t a fan of Clinton or Trump. If Obama had faced Trump in this state, I bet it would have been tight, though I’d have put my money on Obama.

The last CNN poll taken from Pennsylvania (October 27-November 1) had Clinton leading Trump 48-44 with 6% 3rd party and 1% undecided had a pretty clear Democratic lean (though not a big one) when compared to the actual results. That said, the poll had Obama’s approval rating at somewhere between +13 and +11 net depending on how you polled it (adults vs. RV vs. LV). So again, a significant number of people in the Midwest both approved of Obama yet were unwilling to vote for Hillary. That’s significant.

The last Quinnipiac poll from Ohio (October 27-November 1) had Trump leading Clinton 46-41 with 8% third party and 5% undecided, a poll that was pretty much spot on given the amount of undecideds (assuming they broke to Trump). In that same poll, they asked for favorability ratings for Clinton and Trump. Clinton was seen favorably by 37% of Ohio voters, but unfavorably by 59%. Meanwhile, Trump was seen favorably by 39% of Ohio voters, but unfavorably by 56%. Basically, Ohioans disliked both candidates, but Trump was the lesser of two evils.

How about Indiana, Trump’s best state? Monmouth’s final poll in Indiana (October 27-30) had Trump leading by 11 points, 50-39, with 6% third party and 5% undecided, a pretty spot on poll. Yet, 35% of of those same Hoosiers saw Trump favorably, while 51% saw him unfavorably. But an even lower 27% of Hoosiers saw Clinton favorably, while 63% saw her unfavorably. Yet again, it was the lesser of two evils thing.

How’s Trump doing in the Midwest now?

Like most states, Trump isn’t too popular in the Midwest at the moment. The Gallup 50 state poll, which I analyzed after it came out, had him underwater in every Midwest state in this group, including Indiana! The numbers were Minnesota (-18), Michigan (-10), Wisconsin (-9), Pennsylvania (-9), Iowa (-4), Indiana (-1), and Ohio (-1). And as I explained in the linked post, there is reason to believe that those numbers could be considerably more unfavorable now than when the poll was taken (due to its broad sample length). As for individual states, I’ll put his numbers from reputable pollsters with the links below, though there isn’t a lot of data unfortunately, being an off election year:

Wisconsin: 41% approve, 51% disapprove (from June)

Michigan: 37% favorable (from May)

Iowa: 43% approve, 52% disapprove (from July)

Pennsylvania: 37% approve, didn’t poll disapproval (from May)

Conclusion

So here we are, concluding part 1 of this investigation into the Midwest. If there’s one thing I could say, it’s that the Midwest really doesn’t love Donald Trump that much. Now and in the fall, people in every Midwestern state didn’t view Donald Trump favorably at all. But they also didn’t like Hillary Clinton at all. Thus, in a choice between two very unpopular candidates, it was a lesser of two evils. In Minnesota, Hillary was the lesser of the two evils. In the other states, Trump was. Regardless, they didn’t like either. And thus, if there was one thing I could recommend for the Democratic 2020 strategy, it’s find someone who is popular. That’s all that matters. Find someone who is vastly different than Donald Trump, a popular politician who has no scandals in his/her past, no baggage clinging on. Someone who makes a night-and-day contrast to Trump. Who that person is, I don’t know. It’s too early. I have my favorites (#JasonKander2020) but the time will come to decide it. But when the time does come, choosing a popular politician should be priority #1.

Next Piece

In the next installment of this series, we’ll take a look at some 2017 special elections from the Midwest, along with a look at down ballot races as a whole.

What special elections have taught us about 2018 and beyond

AJD7

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 10, 2017 · 11:55 AM PDT

2017/08/10 · 11:55

With Democrats reeling from the defeats of 2016, much progressive enthusiasm has been turned to special elections that have taken place throughout 2017, both at the United States Congressional level and at the state legislative level. Thanks to Daily Kos Elections’ ambitious Pres. by CD and Pres. by LD project, we have a good idea of the shifts when it comes to these special elections. Thus, now that a bulk of the special elections are over, and since we have a bit of a lull until the fall, it’s time to examine what 2017’s special elections have taught us about 2018 and beyond, the future of our shifting politics.

KS-04 Special Election: Ron Estes (R) 52%, James Thompson (D) 46%

This was the most shocking special election result because it’s a district where Clinton and Obama both were beaten handily (27% and 26% margins, respectively). Yet Thompson managed to pull within 6. It was a very low turnout special and perhaps the only lesson is that GOP enthusiasm is below its usual point and that low turnout is a way for Dems to feast.

MT-AL Special Election: Greg Gianforte (R) 50%, Rob Quist (D) 44%

This is the first of a few specials that we’ll examine where Obama did discernibly better than Clinton in the given district (I define discernibly better as a >5 point difference between their margins). President 44 had a strong appeal in Montana despite its red state status, losing it by just 3 in 2008 and by 13 in 2012. Clinton meanwhile, lost by 20 in 2016. Quist’s performance despite being a baggage-ridden candidate with tax problems indicates a performance more in the mold of 2012 rather than 2016.

SC-05 Special Election: Ralph Norman (R) 51%, Archie Parnell (D) 48%

This was a fusion of the two we just mentioned. It flew under the radar and was very low turnout like KS-04, yet was another CD where Obama did significantly better than Clinton (-11% vs. -18%). And yet again, it was a massive overperformance by the Democrat.

GA-06 Special Election: Karen Handel (R) 52%, Jon Ossoff (D) 48%

The special election to end all special elections was the only one in this article where turnout was normal looking, mostly due to the extensive media coverage. GA-06 was framed as a litmus test for Democratic suburban support, yet in many ways was probably not the best test for a few reasons. Here’s a quick look at some suburban districts that will be in play in 2018:

Suburban Districts

District	REpresentative	2012 margin	2016 margin
CO-06	Mike Coffman	Obama +5	HRC +9
VA-10	Barbara Comstock	Romney +2	HRC +10
CA-39	Ed Royce	Romney +4	HRC +9
CA-45	Mimi Walters	Romney +12	HRC +5
ca-48	Dana Rohrabacher	Romney +12	HRC +2
ca-49	Darrell Issa	Romney +7	HRC +8
MN-02	Jason Lewis	Obama +0.1	Trump +1
MN-03	Erik Paulsen	Romney +1	HRC +9
IL-06	Peter Roskam	Romney +8	HRC +7
NJ-07	Leonard Lance	Romney +6	HRC +1
NJ-11	Rodney Frelinghuysen	Romney +6	Trump +1
KS-03	Kevin Yoder	Romney +10	HRC +1
GA-06	Karen Handel	Romney +24	Trump +1.5

Among the many suburban districts that will be in play in 2018, Georgia’s 6th (and 7th, along with a few in Texas) is uniquely different than the others. While most suburban districts were pinkish in 2012 before shifting to Hillary in 2016, Georgia’s 6th was dark red before shifting dramatically. Thus, while the GA-06 result was disappointing to Democrats, the takeaway should not be that Dems cannot win in suburbs because comparing GA-06 to CO-06 or others is comparing apples to oranges. Rather, I think the biggest takeaway is that the democratic appeal that Hillary drummed up in southern suburban areas is probably here to stay. It would be tougher to make that conclusion if this was the usual type of special election (low turnout), but it wasn’t: with the attention it got and the insane spending, turnout was 58.16%, pretty similar to what you’d expect in 2018, for example. Thus, if a 2018 like turnout netted a result similar to Hillary’s margins, it confirms the belief that Dems are holding that suburban support, which is crucial.

Legislative Specials

Contrary to popular belief, special elections do happen at the state level too, and they are very important. There are three main groups, seats where Clinton did better Obama, seats where Obama did better than Clinton, and seats where they did equally as bad. There are few Clinton > Obama seats at the state level, so it’s hard to extrapolate any conclusions. The above write up on GA-06 is as good as a look as we’re going to get. The equally as bad seats have been pretty consistent: generally an overperformance, with a few exceptions, but again, it’s tough to draw any conclusions other than the one we already know (Dems are performing much better than expected). Thus, the important grouping is the one we’ll take a look at:

Seats where Obama did significantly better than Clinton

DIStrict	obama margin	clinton margin	type of district	special election margin
IA HD-82	2%	-21%	rural	DEm by 9
MO SD-28	-38%	-56%	Rural	GOP by 37
NY AD-09	-12%	-23%	WWC (Long Island)	Dem by 16
OK HD-28	-37%	-50%	Rural	GOP by 2
CT HD-115	39%	18%	Suburban/Urban	Dem by 29
MN HD-32B	-12%	-29%	Suburban/Rural	GOP by 6
IA HD-89	27%	11%	Urban	Dem by 45
IA SD-45	37%	17%	Urban	Dem by 48

This table includes a number of places that swung hard to Trump in 2016, but there are two areas in particular that should get a lot of attention: the four Midwestern specials (three in Iowa, one in Minnesota) and the Long Island district. I’m planning a full diary looking at the Midwest in particular so I won’t go too in depth, but all four of these specials took place along the eastern side of the states, the Mississippi River area that loved Obama and then loved Trump in 2016. Iowa’s House District 89 and Senate District 45 elections took place in Scott County, Iowa, home of Davenport, and a place Democrats have to win big in order to win the state. Obama racked up the margins there in 2012, but Hillary fell far short. Seeing Democrats clobber those special elections was a big sign that perhaps the Trump swing in this area was temporary.

That notion was confirmed by the Minnesota House District 32B special, another taking place along the Mississippi border. Not a Democratic stronghold, but a competitive performance showed Democrats are ready to make a comeback in that area. However, the true litmus test, and the reason I held off on writing this piece until now, was the Iowa House District 82 special on Tuesday. No district better encapsulated the Obama/Trump swing in key white working class areas than this district. If Democrats are to take back the US house, state legislative chambers, and the White House, they need to start by winning places like this district. An open seat, one ancestrally Democratic, it was a prime GOP pickup opportunity after Trump won it by 21 points last fall. Yet, Democrats fielded a good candidate, ran on a message of local progressivism, and won the district by 9 points. The population center of the district is Jefferson County, Iowa, a southeast Iowa county that like so many others in the state, swung to Trump after a double digit Obama win in 2012. The last district that is important to look at is the New York Assembly District 9 election. This is a Long Island district located right on the border of Nassau County and Suffolk County. Suffolk swung to Trump and in many ways, resembles the makeup of Iowa in terms of the white working class. Once again, huge swings towards Democrats.

The reasonable conclusion from these specials is that there’s reason to believe entering 2018 that the Trump swing in white working class areas may have been a temporary one. Or, as I will argue in that later diary, that it was more based on a hatred for Hillary than anything else. Democratic success in places like Iowa is so crucial to not being locked out of the senate in the future. The importance of holding onto the Midwest cannot be understated and is why these results were so encouraging.

Conclusions

No one special election can be indicative of anything, but when taken together, a pattern may be observed. Indeed, outperforming Hillary and Obama in 23 of 31 and 24 of 31 special elections, respectively, is something of a pattern. When compared to 2013, where Democrats consistently ran behind Obama’s margins in special elections, an even starker difference is observed. That was a harbinger for what followed in the fall of 2014, another red wave. Now this does not mean that Democrats are going to for sure do well in 2018 or 2020, but it does suggest there’s a chance. More importantly, it confirms what polling is telling us about the national environment. Both Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight agree that Democrats are looking at a favorable national environment and these special elections are the type of results that would jibe with that conclusion. All in all, Democrats have had a fine special election season and their appeal seems to be closer to Obama’s than Hillary’s, which, given the results of their respective runs for the presidency, is a very good thing.

Your Guide to Virginia's 2017 election

kindler

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 10, 2017 · 6:11 AM PDT

2017/08/10 · 06:11

no image description available — Mark Herring, Virginia's awesome Attorney General

Yelling at your TV isn’t going to do a damn thing – only building a powerful opposition presence at every level of American government will save us now. The first major opportunity to strike such a blow is less than three months away in the swing state of Virginia. This diary is devoted to telling you why you need to get involved and how.

For those less familiar with Virginia politics, this longtime conservative Southern state began to trend more progressive as the Northern Virginia suburbs started their growth spurt and sprouted a wonderful diversity, from Vietnamese to Peruvians to Ethiopians to Koreans to Persians, etc.

Today, the inner suburbs of Arlington and Alexandria are solid blue, and Fairfax County almost completely so, with just a few gerrymandered districts holding out. The front lines are now in the outer suburbs of Loudon and Prince William County – and the other growing urban areas of the Commonwealth, particularly the Hampton Roads conglomeration of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News, etc., as well as the Richmond and Charlottesville areas.

Virginia’s Democrats and strong progressive grassroots have grown to the point that now all five statewide elected offices are in the hands of Democrats. But that progress remains fragile – and has not manifested itself in the House of Delegates, where Dems hold a measly 34 out of 100 seats. This is particularly important because redistricting is coming up following the 2020 Census – and if Republicans have control, you can be damn sure they will attempt to gerrymander their way to PERMANENT power in this pivotal state.

Right now, all 100 House of Delegates seats are up for grabs – and Democrats have candidates competing in 88 of them. Plus, we are electing our Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General. There’s a lot going on here, so here are some key info and resources to help you keep up with it and tip the scales to the Democratic side.

Governor, LG & AG

With the White House and Congress in GOP hands, leadership by governors has become critically important – for example, when Trump announced his intention to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords, our Governor Terry McAuliffe made Virginia the first Southern state to join the U.S. Climate Alliance of states committed to meeting the climate treaty goals.

The Democratic candidate for governor, Ralph Northam, brings a particularly timely background in healthcare, growing out of his career as a pediatric neurologist, with many years championing women’s health issues – e.g., leading the fight against the infamous “transvaginal ultrasound” bill (proposed by GOP LG candidate Jill Vogel) – and the major achievement back in 2009 of getting smoking banned in restaurants – in a tobacco state! He will continue the progress we have made under Democratic governors like McAuliffe and Kaine – if we can help him beat the notorious DC swamp-dwelling, revolving door master “Establishment Ed” Gillespie.

For Attorney General, we have a progressive superstar who has already shown his willingness and ability to stand up to Trump in very effective ways – Mark Herring. One of his first acts as AG was to successfully strike down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, one of the cases leading to the ultimate U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike all such laws nationwide. He has successfully stood up to the Trump administration on a number of issues, most prominently the Muslim travel ban. Herring has been out front on issues from climate change to improving rape prosecutions. He is a class act who has totally earned his re-election.

For Lieutenant Governor, our nominee is Justin Fairfax, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who grew up poor in DC with a single mom, and who would be only the second statewide African American elected official in Virginia since Reconstruction (after Doug Wilder in 1990). He is upbeat, well-spoken and a promising young voice for the future of the party.

House of Delegates

The current political environment has attracted a large field of talented Democratic newcomers to run for our House. Lowell Feld does a superb job at Blue Virginia of tracking these races, and has identified the top 18, where Hillary Clinton either won a majority of the vote or came close. This is the magic number that – though requiring a Herculean effort – would give us control of the chamber if we won them all, and retained all current Democratic seats. But even winning a smaller percentage of these races would give Democrats more voice, power and momentum, especially with the state Senate much more closely divided.

This is a Republican state House infamous for radical legislation, from extreme anti-choice and anti-environment bills to denying Medicaid expansion to deregulating guns in every way to wacky stuff like Virginia creating its own currency. This unhinged House badly needs Democratic adult supervision.

So please do all you can to back groups championing Democrats in these races as a whole – resource links below – while adopting candidates that really strike your fancy for extra support. Like...

Care about LGBTQ rights? There’s a doozy of a race in the 13^th District, where transgender candidate Danica Roem is taking on infamous bigoted Representative “Sideshow Bob” Marshall.

Want to elect more women to break up the ol’ boys network? There’s a whole organization devoted to that – Virginia’s List – and a host of great candidates, like Hala Ayala (51^st – former Prince William County NOW president), Karrie Delaney (67^th – who has worked with sexual assault & sex trafficking victims), Kathy Tran (42^nd), Jennifer Carroll Foy (2^nd), Elizabeth Guzman (31^st), Danica Roem (13^th), Dr, Dawn Adams (68^th), Wendy Gooditis (10^th), Kelly Fowler (21^st), Cheryl Turpin (85^th), Shelly Simonds (94^th), etc., etc.

How about putting more African Americans in office? We have a bunch of excellent choices there, too, including Donte Tanner (40th), Jennifer Carroll Foy (2^nd), Willie Randall (100th) – and, as mentioned, Justin Fairfax for LG.

Want to challenge the NRA with a powerful gun safety advocate? Work for Chris Hurst (12th), who was spurred to run after the horrific on-air murder of his girlfriend, a local TV reporter.

Want to elect the first Asian woman in the state House? How about two? Kathy Tran (42^nd) (who came here as a Vietnamese refugee) and Kelly Fowler (21st), the granddaughter of Filipino immigrants.

How about putting some current and former teachers in office? Like Schuyler VanValkenburg (72^nd), Kelly Fowler (21^st), Cheryl Turpin (85^th) and Shelly Simonds (94^th)?

And yes, it’s time to put a Latina or two in the House. How about Elizabeth Guzman (31st), an immigrant from Peru, and Hala Ayala (51st), whose roots include El Salvador (as well as Ireland, North Africa and Lebanon)?

Finally, if you want to see more veterans in the House, you can help elect a few good men and women like David Reid (32^nd), Donte Tanner (40^th), Lee Carter (50^th) – and Ralph Northam for Governor!

Resource Links

Here, as promised, are some general resources to help elect as many Virginia Dems as possible. Please bookmark and take full advantage of them:

WinVA: A PAC set up to help Dems win the House, led by former Congressman Tom Perriello
Virginia Democrats: a very good website these days
Flippable: a nationwide group devoted to turning state seats blue
Sister District: a group that matches volunteers in uncompetitive districts to volunteer for races in competitive ones
Blue Virginia: if you’re not following BV, you’re doing it all wrong!
Virginia’s List: a PAC to support pro-choice, progressive Democratic women candidates
Virginia Voter registration: where to send any Virginia Dem who isn’t properly registered.

Virginia was once home to many of the legends who gave us the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Mason. Please help Virginia elect – and re-elect – new heroes to save American democracy today, in her hour of need.

The 80 House Seats Democrats Should Target in 2018

AJD7

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 08, 2017 · 7:45 AM PDT

2017/08/08 · 07:45

A map of the 80 districts Democrats should target in the 2018 Midterms

Much discussion has been made about what is the quickest path for Democrats to reclaim a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2018 Midterm elections. Some have argued for a white working class “McDonald’s” approach, while others have advocated a wealthy, educated, and suburban “Panera” approach. In actuality, the best path is to seriously challenge 80 or so districts. A combination of ones that President Obama was close in and ones that Hillary Clinton were close in in the 2012 and 2016 elections, along with a few others where regional candidates can capture a deep red seat (shoutout to Collin Peterson). Even in a wave election, Democrats cannot expect to win every toss up seat, let alone win every competitive seat. Thus, it is imperative to put a whole bunch of seats on the table, running legitimate candidates in each and ceding no ground, hoping to get lucky when the inevitable scandal or upset happens. Therefore, I have compiled a list of the 80 districts Democrats should target in 2018, so that the Daily Kos community can watch the recruitment efforts closely and focus fundraising efforts on during the 15 month run-up to Election Day.

California Seats (7)

CA-10: Jeff Denham

Both Clinton and Obama won this Modesto-area CD and in both 2012 and 2016, Denham narrowly escaped defeat, winning 53-47 in 2012 and 52-48 in 2016. The PVI of this district is now EVEN and if a Democratic wave comes in 2018, Denham would be among the first to be swept away. Blue recruitment is already heavy.

CA-21: David Valadao

This 71% Hispanic district located in the San Joaquin Valley is one of the toughest nuts to crack for Democrats at the congressional level. With a D+5 PVI, both Clinton and Obama routed their opponents here, even though Republican David Valadao continues to survive. He won by 13 points in 2016, but incumbents aren’t safe in a wave and Dems would love to beat Valadao in a blue district the way they took out Connecticut Republicans back in 2006.

CA-25: Steve Knight

Romney narrowly won CA-25 in 2012 before Hillary flipped it in 2016. In a suburban LA district with an EVEN PVI, incumbent Knight has managed to win both elections by 53-47 margins in decent to good GOP years. Like Denham, Knight would be among the first to fall in a wave.

CA-39: Ed Royce

CA-39 is almost a replica of CA-25, as both have EVEN PVI’s and both were narrow Romney wins before solid HRC victories in 2016. One of the most diverse districts in the country, Royce managed to win by 14 points in 2016, but also spent $3.5 M on the campaign. Having been in congress since the 1992 and being 67 at the time of 2018 Election Day, it would not be surprising if Royce retired rather than face a difficult reelection. He’s a tough incumbent, but also voted for AHCA. He could be in quite a bit of trouble.

CA-45: Mimi Walters

Walters serves in an Orange County district that was ancestrally red. However, after going to Romney by 12 in 2012, it went to HRC by 3 points in 2016 and is now atop the Democratic target list. Walters is a two term incumbent who hasn’t been seriously challenged either time, but there are already several Democrats lining up to take on Walters so expect that to change.

CA-48: Dana Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher holds this coastal Orange County district and has been in Congress since 1988. If we’re looking for one Rep most likely to be hit by scandal, it’s Rohrabacher, a long-time Russian sympathizer whose ties to the nation are being revealed by the day. Clinton won this district after Romney took it by double digits and Rohrabacher hasn’t been challenged recently, but with the uptick in Russia stories, a scandal might just bring him down. Even if it doesn’t, Rohrabacher could be in a lot of trouble anyway.

CA-49: Darrell Issa

If Knight and Denham are among the first to be taken by a wave, Issa would probably be the first. Romney won this coastal San Diego County district by 7 just to see it be won by Clinton by 8. At the same time, Issa barely hung on against Doug Applegate, winning by less than 1 percent. Applegate has already vowed a rematch and no matter which Dem faces Issa, even the slightest current will probably take out Congress’ richest member.

Florida Seats (6)

FL-06: Ron DeSantis

This is no doubt a stretch, with a PVI of R+7 and a district that Trump and DeSantis won by high double digits. However, Romney’s narrow 4 point win in 2012 suggest an element of vulnerability. Democrats shouldn’t expect to win this Atlantic coast seat, but should absolutely contest and a few are already filing to give it a shot.

FL-15: Dennis Ross

Another stretch, albeit not one as much as FL-06. With an R+6 PVI, this district was won by Romney by 6 and by Trump by 10. Those numbers suggest it could be competitive in a tidal wave, but not one Dems should bank on.

FL-18: Brian Mast

This Jupiter-area coastal seat is light red, with Trump taking it by 9, while Romney capturing it by 4. Brian Mast won the open seat by 11 points in 2016, as Democrat Patrick Murphy ran for senate. While it doesn’t appear that Murphy will come back to win back his old seat, the fact a Democrat represented it as recently as 2014 suggests an opening for Dems to steal a pickup.

FL-25: Mario Diaz-Balart

On the topic of retirements Democrats would love, Diaz-Balart is one, even though he is not of the typical retirement age. The Cuban holds a district Trump won by just 2, consistently winning it by 20+ points. While incumbents, even long-time/popular ones, are not safe in waves, Diaz-Balart is a tough one to beat. However, Democrats are already fielding candidates to give it a shot, as they should. Diaz-Balart did vote for AHCA and that, along with his closeness to the unpopular in SoFlo Trump, could be used against him.

FL-26: Carlos Curbelo

Curbelo is another hispanic Republican with ties to this Southern Florida, Latino-heavy district. He knocked off incumbent Joe Garcia in 2014 and then fended off a rematch with Garcia in 2016. Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama both romped in this district and it is one Dems would love to pickup. Curbelo has considerable local appeal but hasn’t won by the margins that would make him unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, and the list of Democrats to take him on is lengthy. His flip-flop and ultimate “yes” vote on AHCA could be an easy attack on him in 2018.

FL-27: Open (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen)

It is common for older incumbents in tough districts to retire rather than face a hard re-election, especially if they can sense a wave building. And Ros-Lehtinen’s retirement back in April was the first of what will probably be several similar retirements. The longtime congresswoman is leaving open a D+5 seat that Hillary won by 20 points. There’s a long list of Democrats interested in this district and it should be the easiest pickup for Team Blue in 2018.

New York Seats (8)

NY-01: Lee Zeldin

Long Island went hard for Trump in 2016, and he won this district by 12 after Obama barely won it in 2012. Zelda won election here by 16 points in 2016 and is not super vulnerable. However, any amount of backlash against Trump in Long Island could seriously endanger Zeldin, who did vote for AHCA. A few Dems are already in the race, but Kate Browning, a Suffolk County Legislator, would be a huge recruit if Dems could reel her in to take on Zeldin.

NY-02: Peter King

This district is basically the same as Zeldin’s, a crossover Obama-Trump CD on Long Island, albeit one that went to Obama by a solid 4 points in 2012. King has held down this seat since 1993, and hasn’t really been challenged much over the years. While Dems should try and oust King, their biggest opening is if King retires, which, at 74 years old in 2018, could easily happen.

NY-11: Dan Donovan

This R+3 district is almost wholly located on Staten Island and is another Obama-Trump CD. Donovan, the former District Attorney, won the seat in a 2015 special election, and won re-election easily in 2016 despite taking only 56% of the vote (a sizable 3rd “blank” vote). This is a stretch district for sure, but one that could be within reach depending on how strong of a Democratic year 2018 is.

NY-19: John Faso

Like so many seats in New York, Faso’s 19th CD is also an Obama-Trump district going to Dems by 6 in 2012 but to GOP by 9 in 2016. Faso was slaughtered in the 2006 New York gubernatorial race by Elliot Spitzer but rebounded to win this open seat last fall by 10 points. However, his new status and swing district location makes him a top target for Democrats, and most have this race chalked up as a Toss Up.

NY-21: Elise Stefanik

This ancestrally Republican and rural district on the Vermont border is held by the 33 year old Stefanik, one of the youngest congresspeople. While Obama won this seat by 4 points in 2012, Trump took it by 14 in 2016 and Stefanik has won by large margins each time. This is a stretch district due to the strength of Stefanik’s candidacy, but is potentially vulnerable due to Obama’s success here.

NY-22: Claudia Tenney

This is a district that Romney narrowly won in 2012, before Trump romped Clinton in 2016. However, Tenney won this open seat in 2016 running way behind Trump and only winning by 5.4%, with a large third party vote against a rather unknown Democrat. Meanwhile, in 2018, Democrats have already landed State Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi as a top tier challenger to take on Tenney, immediately making this a vulnerable seat for the GOP.

NY-23: Tom Reed

This is an R+6 CD that both Romney and Trump won, which in theory makes it a tough get. However, Romney’s small margin of victory (1 point) makes it a legitimate target for Democrats. Reed won election in 2012 by just 4 points but has comfortably won his last two re-elections. This will be a hard win for Dems, but is one they should give a run at for sure.

NY-24: John Katko

This is an upstate D+3 district that both Hillary and Obama won and thus should be a top target for Democrats. The trick part is defeating two term incumbent John Katko who has won both elections rather easily. However, Democratic leadership is courting Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, who would be a top tier challenger. Syracuse is by far the largest city in NY-24 and her name recognition would be a major boon, so all eyes will be on the recruitment efforts here.

New Jersey Seats (4)

NJ-02: Frank LoBiondo

If we are talking about incumbent GOPers that Dems most want to retire (who legitimately might), LoBiondo is on the top of that list. LoBiondo has held this southern New Jersey seat since the Republican Revolution of 1994 and has immense popularity in-district. Meanwhile, Obama won the seat by 8, though Trump took it by 5. Thus, its PVI is R+1. If LoBiondo remains in place, this will be very hard to win. If he retires, open the floodgates because Dems have a legit shot. Reasons he might? He’ll be 72 in 2018, has been there awhile, and might not want to try and withstand a wave.

NJ-03: Tom MacArthur

MacArthur is in another Obama-Trump swing district, though he has won each of his first two elections by comfortable margins. However, MacArthur’s claim to be “moderate” went awry, when it was his amendment that allowed the AHCA to pass the house. Any backlash against that could result in major problems for him in 2018 and predictably, many Democrats are lining up to take on MacArthur.

NJ-07: Leonard Lance

New Jersey’s 7th is a suburban district that swung against Trump, giving Hillary a win and resulting in a relatively narrow Lance win. Lance did vote against AHCA but in the process encountered a lot of angry people at town halls. At the age of 66 in 2018, Lance is a potential retirement watch candidate, but even if he doesn’t, his seat could be up for grabs in this narrow R+3 district.

NJ-11: Rodney Frelinghuysen

The Frelinghuysen dynasty is as old as America itself and Rodney has held this identical R+3 northern New Jersey seat since the 90s. Romney won the district by 6 in 2012, but Trump narrowly eked out a victory in 2016. Frelinghuysen did vote yes on AHCA and at age 72 in 2018, a retirement is certainly possible from this longtime rep. Like with Lance, even without a retirement, this is a legitimate pickup opportunity.

Pennsylvania Seats (5)

PA-06: Ryan Costello

This suburban (and gerrymandered) Philly district has been one of the most competitive in recent presidential elections. Romney won it by 2.5, while Hillary captured it by 0.6. Costello is a second term rep. who won re-election in 2016 running far ahead of Trump, albeit not against the greatest of opponents. The R+2 nature and the competitiveness make it a top target for Dems.

PA-07: Pat Meehan

The Pennsylvania 7th is very similar to the 6th, also Romney-Clinton with very narrow victories for each. Meehan has served here since winning an open seat in 2010, most recently defeating a La Salle PolySci professor by comfortable margins in 2014 and 2016. Dems will need a better candidate in 2018, and already have state senator Daylin Leach, though we can argue how top tier of a recruit that is. Regardless, this is a district that should be very competitive should Democrats make a run at a house majority.

PA-08: Brian Fitzpatrick

The 8th CD is also like #7 and #6, with a R+1 swingy PVI, though it was won by Trump and Romney, though both by less than 1% of the vote. Brian Fitzpatrick was elected here in 2016, succeeding brother Mike. He is a very moderate centrist who opposed both the Muslim Ban and AHCA and thus, could be tough to beat. However, waves don’t take pity even on those who oppose an unpopular president (see: Lincoln Chafee, 2006) and Fitzpatrick could easily be toppled in 2018.

PA-15: Charlie Dent

Dent is in a redder R+4 district that Trump and Romney both won by single digits but one where he has managed to make a name for himself, serving since 2004 and winning by comfortable margins. Dent is a moderate, similar to Fitzpatrick and also voted no on AHCA. That said, the wave potential still exists, along with the possibility of retirement from Dent, which would instantly make this seat a top pickup opportunity.

PA-16: Lloyd Smucker

One of congress’ best names belong to a newbie from Pennsylvania’s 16th, the reddest of these five competitive districts, at R+5. That said, it was only Trump and Romney by mid single digits, and Smucker won his term last fall by a modest 11 points. Smucker defeated Christina Hartman who is back for a 2018 rematch, along with a bunch of other candidates. This seat is a stretch but could easily become a pickup in a wave.

Texas Seats (4)

NOTICE: This part is a little tough to write about, given the ongoing Texas redistricting case. This NYT Piece by Nate Cohn is a great summary of everything you need to know about how these districts could be redrawn to aid Democrats either by a small amount, or as the armageddon scenario notes, a huge amount. I will update this when the decision is handed down. For now, I see the below four districts as being ones Dems should target:

TX-07: John Culberson

This suburban Houston district swung dramatically from a 20 point Romney win to a 1 point Clinton win, and in many ways, it resembles Georgia’s 6th (more on that later). Culberson however, doesn’t have a very strong incumbent’s advantage when compared to Tom Price, winning the district by just 12 points in 2016 (as opposed to Price’s 23 point win). This is the type of seat that is in play, but is not really a top target. And of course, there’s the whole redistricting thing going on, affecting whether candidates will jump in or not.

TX-23: Will Hurd

This CD is that massive district that stretches along the southern border all the way up to the city limits of El Paso. It’s Texas’ most swingy district and was held by Democrat Pete Gallego from 2013-2015. Hurd has defeated Gallego twice, by tiny margins each time. Romney won it by 3 in 2012, but HRC won it by 3 in 2016. Gallego is thinking about trying again, but is mostly waiting and seeing whether this district gets altered due to redistricting. There’s a strong possibility that it gets redrawn to become a very strong Democratic district, so it’s wait and see.

TX-24: Kenny Marchant

This district is similar to Georgia’s 7th (read about that in a bit). A strong Romney district that swung towards HRC in 2016, but not all the way (Trump took it by 6). With a R+9 PVI, it’s a tough district to flip, but it’s worth the shot. Marchant is a difficult incumbent, but when you’re going for a majority, you have to swing for the fences.

TX-32: Pete Sessions

Maybe the most egregious 2016 district of all, Hillary captured this R+5 PVI district by 3 points, but Democrats failed to even run a candidate against Sessions. That is set to change in 2018, and it’s hard to tell how this district will change if it does. If it stays in its current form, it will be a district Dems will go after and will have a shot, albeit not a great one, at winning. If the court redraws some unfavorable GOP lines, it could go from orange to light blue. If the armageddon scenario happens however, then it would go from orange to dark red (in exchange for a few dark red districts becoming dark blue). Only time will tell.

Southwest Seats (5)

AZ-02: Martha McSally

This southern Arizona border district was held by Democrat Ron Barber after a narrow 2012 victory over current Rep. McSally. She rematched him in 2014 and won by 161 votes and then won a 13 point reelection over Matt Heinz in 2016. Heinz is back for a rematch in 2018, while progressive and Bernie endorsed Mary Matiella and former AZ-01 Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick are also in the hunt for the nomination. Whoever gets the nod will have a very good chance of taking out McSally in this pink R+1 district, making it a clear battleground.

CO-03: Scott Tipton

Tipton’s western Colorado district is very similar to what it was under the 2000 census map, when Democrat John Salazar (older brother to ex-Sen. Ken Salazar) represented it from 2005-2011. Tipton beat Salazar in the 2010 wave and has held it since. It’s a R+6 district, but also one that could fall to Dems in a wave scenario. While Trump won it by 12, Romney took it by 6, and McCain took the earlier iteration by just 3. It’s a stretch, but a good environment combined with a strong candidate could do the trick for Team Blue.

CO-06: Mike Coffman

If a blue wave comes, along with Issa’s CA-49, this suburban Denver district will be among the first to fall to the Democrats. Clinton won it by 9 in 2016, building off of Obama’s 5 point win in 2012. Coffman, a well-known state politician has managed to hang on to it, winning by 2 in 2012, 9 in 2014, and 8 in 2016. However, those close margins, and the blue-leaning nature of the district make it a top target for Democrats and a tossup according to all House analysts.

NM-02: Open (Steve Pearce)

This district was not expected to be competitive until Rep. Steve Pearce announced he was vacating the seat to run for governor. This district has remained the same since 2001, and the last time Pearce vacated it, to run for senate in 2008, a Democrat won the seat. However, after the failed senate run, Pearce returned and knocked off the Democrat in the 2010 wave to get his old seat back. With Pearce vacating it again, Democrats will have a shot at a pickup. It is R+6, and was won by Romney by 7 and Trump by 10, so it will be an uphill battle. That said, if Democrats draft the right challenger, they will have a good chance at stealing this seat.

UT-04: Mia Love

This district includes parts of Salt Lake City and then small sections to the south. Being Utah, it’s rather surprising that this district is even competitive, and its R+13 rating suggests that it shouldn’t be. However, Mia Love has been a relatively weak candidate in this district, winning it by less than 4 when it was open in a very strong GOP year in 2014, and then defended it by winning a rematch in 2016 by 12 points. Utah is a very anti-Trump state and gave 21% of its vote in 2016 to Evan McMullin. If a centrist Democrat can run in this seat and tie Love to Trump while channeling the McMullin and liberal votes, Love is beatable. A stretch, but beatable.

Rust Belt Seats (19)

IA-01: Rod Blum

Iowa was, along with Ohio, maybe the most fascinating state in 2016. After going hard for Obama in 2008 and 2012, the state swung violently towards Trump in 2016. Democrats are looking to regain authority in Iowa and a pair of swingy congressional districts will give Team Blue a chance to measure themselves in 2018. First up is IA-01, the bluer of the two. Obama won this CD by a staggering 13 points in 2012 before Trump captured it by 4 in 2016. However, given that Obama won the whole state by 7 in 2012 and Trump won it by 9.5 in 2016, IA-01’s PVI, remains D+1. Blum took the seat in 2014 by just 2 points when it was open and then defended it by 7 in 2016. However, those small margins suggest this is a good pickup opportunity and a handful of Democrats are in the race to dethrone Blum. His yes on AHCA vote could prove costly. Regardless, this is an important race to watch.

IA-03: David Young

This district is redder than the first, but is still winnable. Obama took it by 4, as did Trump, making its PVI R+1, so a second very swingy district. David Young has won this district by decent margins for his two terms, so he’s a tad safer than Blum, but this is the type of district that Democrats need to do well in to win a majority. A few candidates are already jumping in the race and Young also voted yes on AHCA, which can be used against him. This should be on the top of Democrats’ targets list.

IL-06: Peter Roskam

This suburban Chicago district was gerrymandered by Democrats to be a GOP stronghold. Instead, it swung from a solid Romney win to a clear Hillary win, shifting the PVI to just R+2 and making Peter Roskam vulnerable. He’s served in the house for over a decade, but that doesn’t stop Democrats from serious challenging him. A handful of Dem candidates are jumping in the race to unseat Roskam and this is a classic “Panera” district. Wealthier, more educated, and exactly the type that Democrats will look to win in 2018.

IL-12: Mike Bost

This southwest Illinois district along the Missouri border was one of the GOP pickups during their strong 2014 year. Bost held re-election in 2016 when he was not seriously challenged. It’s a district that went narrowly to Obama in 2012 and then swung hard to Trump in 2016, as many districts along the Upper Mississippi did. Democrats are ready to legitimately contest this district in 2018. It’s not an easy pickup, but a clear opportunity nonetheless. If Democratic gains in 2018 resemble Obama’s 2012 map as opposed to Hillary’s 2016 map, then this is the type of district that would fall into Democratic hands early in the night.

IL-13: Rodney Davis

Davis’ district is just above Bost’s district, though it encompasses much of central Illinois. It has a similar dynamic as the 12th, with Obama winning it by a small margin, except Trump only won it by 6. Davis cruised to a 20 point reelection in 2016, but his narrow victory in 2012, combined with Obama’s win there, suggests an element of vulnerability. David Gill, who narrowly lost to Davis in 2012, is running for a rematch in 2018, along with a few other Dem candidates. This is not a top target for Dems, but one of the types they need a few of if they want to take the house.

IL-14: Randy Hultgren

Hultgren holds a suburban Panera district that shrunk from a 10 point Romney win to a 4 point Trump win. Hultgren has represented the area since 2011 and won a comfortable re-election in 2016. Of the four Illinois districts, this is no doubt the biggest stretch. It’s the type of seat that would be a tossup in a Democratic wave, but probably not in just a strong Democratic year. A good candidate could swing it, but don’t bank on it.

IN-09: Trey Hollingsworth

Senator Todd Young’s old seat, Hollingsworth carpetbagged it on his way to victory last fall by 14 points. This is only notable because it is a vast underperformance compared to Trump who took it by 27. Hollingsworth is not the world’s best candidate and while the carpetbagging charges won’t hold as much power as they did last fall, it’s still something to use against him. A couple of candidates are running, including a video game aficionado. This is the definition of a long shot, but to get a majority, you have to shoot for the stars.

MI-06: Fred Upton

At R+4, this in theory is a classic swing district. Romney won it by just one point and Trump by 8. The problem barring it from being swingy? The incumbent, Fred Upton. Upton has held down this district since the 80s and has built quite the incumbent’s advantage. He will be a tough out. But the glimmer of hope? Either a) Upton could run for senate, b) Upton could retire, being 65 in 2018, or c) Upton could suffer extreme blowback from AHCA, where it was his amendment that powered its passage in the house. A longshot, but the nature of the district suggests Democrats should put it on the target list.

MI-07: Tim Walberg

This is no doubt a stretch district, with an R+7 PVI and a very Trumpy one, won by DJT by 17 points. However, Romney’s meager 3 point win in 2012 is the main reason this district could be competitive. Walberg has held this district since 2007, with the exception of 2009-2011 where he was defeated by Mark Schauer in the 2008 Blue Wave. This district has changed slightly to be more red since then, but it’s still similar and as seen by Romney’s 3 point 2012 win, it could fall in a tidal wave. Walberg beat Gretchen Driskell by 15 last fall, a margin of victory that was smaller than Trump, and Driskell is back for a rematch. At 67 years old in 2018, Walberg is a potential retirement candidate and that would probably be the most likely way that this district would be picked up.

MI-08: Mike Bishop

This district, and the next one after it, are two that Team Blue has not been able to crack down ballot. With an R+4 PVI, it’s exactly the type of district that Dems need to try and flip in 2018. It’s an odd district covering the college town of East Lansing, more rural areas, and then the outermost Detroit suburbs. That said, Trump and Romney won it by mid-single digits, 7 and 3 points, respectively. Yet, Bishop took it in the fall by 17. National security expert Elissa Slotkin is running to try and beat Bishop in 2018 and it will be an uphill climb, but one that is doable.

MI-11: Dave Trott

Very similar story here. An R+4 district won by Trump and Romney both by 5 points, while Trott won it by 13. This CD is slightly more vulnerable than MI-08 and it is much more suburban as well. A classic Panera district, it is wealthier and more educated but also has shown a tendency to be within striking distance for Dems. Quite a few candidates are already in the race and Trott does have some past skeletons in his closet to target. Another tricky but possible district.

MN-02: Jason Lewis

One of the swingiest districts of all, this suburban Twin Cities district went to Obama by 0.1 before going to Trump by 2. It was an open seat last fall and following Trump’s footsteps, talk radio host with lots of baggage Jason Lewis won it by a tiny 2 points. His 2016 opponent, Angie Craig, is back for a rematch and it seems like she will get the nomination. Any amount of a blue current will probably sink Lewis and thus this should be atop Team Blue’s target list.

MN-03: Erik Paulsen

One of the few GOP/D+ PVI districts, this D+1 PVI seat was an Obama +1 district in 2012, before swinging to Hillary by 10. Predictably, it’s also a suburban Twin Cities district and a lot of ticket splitting was going on in 2016, when Paulsen won by 13 despite Hillary’s margin in the district. Thus, Paulsen’s going to be a tough out but one thing is clear about this district: it really doesn’t like Donald Trump. And Paulsen has done little to distinguish himself, voting against the measure to release Trump’s tax returns and voting for AHCA. A number of candidates are taking on Paulsen and he is another top target.

OH-01: Steve Chabot

Ohio has seen the living daylights gerrymandered out of it, leaving Democrats at a big disadvantage. However, a strong resurgence in the state in 2018, like Obama’s margins in 2012 or more could yield some seats, starting with Ohio’s 1st. In an attempt to not have to give Cincy it’s own blue district, the GOP siphoned off the votes into badly gerrymandered districts like this. It’s an R+5 seat but Trump and Romney both only won it by 6. Chabot cruised to an 18 point win and he will be tough to defeat. However, Chabot is another potential retirement name and even if he doesn’t this is a long shot, but still a legitimate possibility.

OH-10: Mike Turner

This is another “probably only competitive if Turner retires” district. Romney won it by just 2 and Trump by only 7. Its R+4 PVI suggests that it should be in play, but Turner’s 33 point margin suggests that it shouldn’t. Thus, this is more of a Hail Mary than anything else, a hope that the GOP will give Dems a hand by Turner retiring.

OH-14: David Joyce

Part III in our series of Ohio “probably only competitive if the incumbent retires” seats, is OH-14. Joyce won by a hardy 26 points last fall and Trump took it by 12. The only thing keeping it on the board? The Romney +3 margin in 2012. Dems probably need a a retirement or a scandal of some sort to give them the boost to win here.

OH-16: Open (Jim Renacci)

The reddest district of the four, this one is only on the board because of a retirement. Renacci is running for governor and leaving this R+8 district open. Romney took it by 8 and Trump by 17. It’s another Hail Mary, but in American elections, weird things happen, so it’s anyone’s guess. Maybe a Dem will pull a Collin Peterson and somehow win in enemy territory.

WI-07: Sean Duffy

These next two Wisconsin districts are both long shots, ones that Trump won by huge margins while Romney won them by tiny margins. In Wisconsin’s 7th, Romney took the district by 3 and after 2012, the PVI was just R+2. However, Trump’s 20 point win has bloated the PVI to R+8. Where does it actually lay? It’s hard to tell, but if Democrats’ 2018 appeal resembles Obama’s blue collar coalition, this is the type of district that could become competitive. Duffy will be a very tough out but it’s worth a try.

WI-08: Mike Gallagher

This is a very similar story to WI-07. After Romney took it by 3, its PVI was just R+2. After an 18 point Trump win, the PVI is now R+7. Gallagher won this as an open seat last year easily, riding the coattails of the president against a subpar opponent. His new status in this district makes him someone worth targeting, as does Obama’s strong performance here in 2012. Again, a long shot, but if you’re making a list of 80 districts to target, you have to have some desperate heaves.

Great Plains Seats (5)

KS-02: Open (Lynn Jenkins)

This is an R+10 seat that Romney and Trump both carried by double digits and one that incumbent Lynn Jenkins took by 28. Why is it competitive then? Mostly because Jenkins is vacating it, but more importantly because of who Democrats might land to run: Paul Davis. Back in April, Davis announced he was exploring a bid for congress in this seat. Davis is best known as the 2014 Democratic nominee for governor, who lost to Sam Brownback by a narrow margin. Why is he a good recruit here? Because he actually won this district in that gubernatorial election despite losing statewide, meaning he has regional appeal. And with an open seat, if Davis runs, Dems would have a serious shot to steal this dark red seat.

KS-03: Kevin Yoder

This suburban Kansas City seat is the most vulnerable in the state with a narrow R+4 PVI. Romney won it by 5 points in 2012, followed by a Hillary win in 2016 by 1 point. Kevin Yoder has held the seat since he won it in 2010, but hasn’t racked up a huge incumbent advantage, winning it by 10 in 2016. A bunch of Democrats are ready to challenge for this seat so get ready for what should be a hard fought and close battle.

KS-04: Ron Estes

The first congressional special election held in 2017 also got the least attention and became almost the most surprising upset. Kansas’ second reddest district, with an R+15 PVI, should never have been close. Romney and Trump both won it by over 25 points and when Mike Pompeo vacated it to become CIA Director, no one expected it to be competitive. That’s when progressive veteran James Thompson stepped in and lost to Estes in the special election by just 7 points. Thompson is vowing a rematch and while it will still be an uphill climb, the narrow margin of victory (smaller than Yoder’s 2016 win, for instance) ensures that this race ends up on this list of competitive seats.

NE-02: Don Bacon

This suburban Omaha district is Nebraska’s only competitive congressional district and was won by Obama in 2008. It was altered slightly in the redistricting period following 2010 and assigned an R+4 PVI. Romney took it by 7 in 2012, but a narrow 2 point Trump win makes it competitive. That, along with the fact that a Democrat won it in 2014 despite the good GOP year: Brad Ashford. Ashford defeated 8 term incumbent Lee Terry by a narrow margin but then was defeated by Don Bacon last fall by just over one point in one of the closest house races. Ashford is back for a rematch and the consensus is that this is a toss up race, and one that could fall to Team Blue in even the slightest wave scenario.

MT-AL: Greg Gianforte

One of the more prominent special elections this spring took place in Montana, where billionaire Greg Gianforte edged folk singer Rob Quist by 6 points, a narrow margin given the state’s R+11 lean. Both candidates were plagued with baggage, with Gianforte seen as an out of touch carpetbagger who body slammed a reporter, and Quist dealing with a host of unpaid debts and tax problems. Gianforte received a narrow majority (50.19%) and thus beating him is doable if Dems can land a good challenger without baggage issues, who can consolidate the plains progressive streak in the state with the always sizable Libertarian vote. Will that happen? I don’t know, but it’s possible so this race makes the list.

Border State Seats (7)

KY-06: Andy Barr

Kentucky’s only competitive seat is a Panera district covering the Lexington area. It’s an R+9 PVI CD that Romney and Trump both carried by double digits. Democrats didn’t even seriously contest Barr last fall. So in theory, it’s puzzling why it’s being targeted. But it’s a good thing that it is, as State Senator Reggie Thomas and Retired Air Force Veteran Amy McGrath are already in the race. McGrath’s first ad had a kick-ass veteran feel that reminded me of Jason Kander and she could be a darn good candidate. Mayor of Lexington and 2016 Senate candidate Jim Gray is also thinking of jumping in, and like Paul Davis in KS-02, Gray carried this seat during his statewide run and his name recognition as mayor of the CD’s largest city could be huge. Whoever the nominee is, at the very least, it looks like Team Blue will have someone legit.

VA-02: Scott Taylor

For two straight presidential elections, the Virginia Beach VA-02 has been the country’s median district, giving it an R+3 PVI. Yet, despite that fact, Democrats didn’t even seriously challenge it when it was an open seat last fall. Scott Taylor breezed to victory even though Trump won it by just three points. However, in 2018, Democrats are actually making a run at it, having drafted a few candidates already, and this pink district is the type they need to win a handful of to win a majority.

VA-05: Tom Garrett

Trump won this seat by 11 points and Romney took it by 8. It’s the type of district that would probably only be competitive in a wave scenario, but for what it’s worth, Democrats have landed a few people here, including Marine Veteran Roger Huffstetler and Filmmaker Leslie Cockburn. It’s a tough district to flip, but is worth a shot.

VA-07: Dave Brat

Yes, this is Eric Cantor’s old seat, one that no one thought could be competitive. Yet, the narrow Trump win (6 points) in this district suggests that a wave could oust the Tea Party incumbent. Brat won by a comfortable 15 points last fall but will face tougher competition in 2018. A stretch, but worth a try for sure.

VA-10: Barbara Comstock

If you remember Darrell Issa and Mike Coffman from earlier on the list of most vulnerable incumbents, Comstock should also make the list. Holding a suburban DC district that swung from Romney +1 to Clinton +10, Comstock looks to be in a lot of trouble. A clown car Dem primary has already developed out of a sheer eagerness to take on Comstock and whoever the nominee for Team Blue is, they should be ready to flip this seat.

WV-02: Alex Mooney

No state has swung farther right than West Virginia, and thus, it’s surprising to see any seats on this list, let alone two. However, two factors are contributing to this, the first of which is weak incumbents. Mooney is in an astounding R+17 seat, yet won by just 16 points last fall and only 3 points during his initial win in 2014. Battered with carpetbagging accusations, Mooney is no one’s definition of a strong candidate, even in a dark red seat. Homeboy Democrats can still do well in West Virginia (see: Earl Ray Tomblin, Jim Justice (RIP), and Joe Manchin) and Dems will need to find one here. A few are already in the hunt but if they can find a strong homeboy centrist who is soft on coal, they might just have a shot.

WV-03: Open (Evan Jenkins)

The other factor working to put this R+23 seat on the list is vacancy. If Jenkins were still here, there was no chance this CD would be competitive. However, Jenkins is vacating WV-03 to attempt the uphill climb that is defeating Senator Joe Manchin. Thus, Democrats do have a small chance to steal an ultra-red seat, but again, they have to find a Homeboy Democrat to do it. And they may just have that candidate, in Huntington Mayor Steve Williams. Finding the mayor of the CD’s largest city is always a good strategy to steal a seat and Williams might just be the guy. It’s a stretch, but sometimes you need to get lucky.

Southern Seats (6)

GA-06: Karen Handel

No special election got more coverage than Georgia’s 6th, where Karen Handel narrowly defeated Jon Ossoff by 4 points. The seat was unlike most Panera districts, in that Obama got slaughtered before a narrow 2016 (most were at least close in 2012). Thus, Democratic expectations were high. For what it’s worth, Handel was a much more established politician, and it seemed that late movement gave her the last minute win. Regardless, Ossoff should run again (he hasn’t said that he will), hoping that a lower profile race and a little luck could push him over the top. This race should be close again in 2018, but with much less attention.

GA-07: Rob Woodall

Georgia’s 7th is a more conservative version of the 6th, as it includes more rural area, but still enough suburban area to make it close in 2018 after a 6 point Trump win in 2016. This is the type of seat that would be competitive only in a wave election. It’s a stretch, but a good candidate could be enough to topple Woodall, even though he won by 21 in 2016 (though it was against measly competition). For what it’s worth, a handful of candidates are in the race to take on Woodall and we’ll see how it goes. It’s not a top target, but one that’s worth a fight nonetheless.

NC-02: George Holding

North Carolina’s GOP has gerrymandered the living daylights out of the state, but hasn’t done it quite well enough to ensure ultra-safe districts. Therefore, this seat, and the next two are both pretty much wave-only long shots. This seat is an R+7 PVI that Trump won by 10, Romney by 13, and Holding by 13. A strong candidate could breakthrough, but would need a lot of help from the national environment.

NC-09: Robert Pittenger

This seat is similar to Holding’s in nature, that it is R+8, and one that Trump, Romney, and Pittenger have won by low double digits. It’s a suburban Charlotte seat that profiles a lot like most Panera districts, but again, it would take a VERY strong national environment and/or a retirement from Pittenger (who will be 70 in 2018) to flip this seat.

NC-13: Ted Budd

This is the bluest of the three, at just R+6 and a Romney 7 point win in 2012 suggests some element of vulnerability. This seat was gerrymandered to include parts of Greensboro but not all, along with a bunch of rural area. Again, same story here: strong national environment is needed to convert this longshot.

SC-05: Ralph Norman

This special election was vastly overshadowed by Georgia’s 6th, as they took place on the same night, yet their PVI’s were almost identical (R+8 to R+9) and Obama actually did better in this district in 2012 than in GA-06. The low turnout special almost resulted in an absolute stunner, where no-name nerdy Goldman Sachs banker Archie Parnell fell three points short of knocking off State Senator Ralph Norman. That close margin suggests that Democrats could have a shot here in 2018. Not likely, but hey, let’s give it the old college try.

Northern Corner Seats (4)

AK-AL

These last three seats are grouped together because I have nowhere else to put them and hey, they’re the northern corners of the US. In Alaska, Don Young has held down the at-large congressional district since the beginning of time. However, due to his age (85 in 2018), he might be the most likely retirement candidate on this list. Alaska is a rather odd state, with an R+9 PVI, but with a few factors working for it, most notably a strong libertarian streak. It elected a centrist independent governor who combined his campaign with the Democratic ticket in 2014, elected a Democrat to the US Senate in 2008 (and came very close to reelecting him in 2014, despite a good GOP year), and has consistently elected moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski. Despite having been around forever, Young’s incumbency advantage isn’t that tremendous, and he only beat Forest Dunbar by 10 points during the strong GOP year of 2014. If Young is to retire, perhaps Dunbar runs again and has a legitimate shot at flipping this seat.

ME-02: Bruce Poliquin

In Maine we have the swingy 2nd congressional district that Obama took home in 2012, only to watch it fall to Republican Bruce Poliquin at the congressional level in 2014, followed by Trump’s 10 point win in 2016. In many ways, it resembles many of the blue collar areas that Trump won in 2016, and if Iowa’s seats are falling to Dems in 2018, then this one probably will too. Democrats have yet to draft an ultra high level challenger for Poliquin, but he’s definitely vulnerable, and would probably be a goner in a wave scenario, due to Obama’s solid 9 point win here and the R+2 nature of the district. As always in Maine, it rests on consolidating the third party vote with the Democratic vote.

WA-03: Jaime Herrera-Beutler

This seat is a tough nut for Democrats to crack. It’s been consistent at the presidential level, with a 2 point Romney win and a 7 point Trump win. But Herrera-Beutler has developed a strong incumbent’s advantage, cruising to a 24 point win in 2016. If she were, for some unforeseen reason, to retire, this would be a huge pickup opportunity, but for the moment, it’s a long shot. One Dems could win at the Presidential level, but probably not at the congressional level. It’s worth a try though.

WA-08: Dave Reichert

On the list of retirements that would benefit Democrats most, right next to Frank LoBiondo is Dave Reichert. Even though Obama won here by 1.6 and Hillary by 3, Reichert continues to rack up victories, winning by 20 in 2016. The EVEN PVI suggests that this should be close, but Democrats have never found the magic strategy to topple Reichert. He will be 68 in 2018 and has served since 2005, thus making him a clear retirement candidate, but it might take that in order for this seat to flip.

Conclusion

Whew. That was a lot. 80 Seats are a lot to write about, but again, I compiled this list so that we can focus our efforts on those certain districts: recruiting, fundraising, canvassing. Some are obviously more likely to turn blue than others, but it’s a combination of different terrain, candidates, and appeal that will be the perfect mix if Democrats are to win a majority in 2018. As for the time in between, I’ve made this spreadsheet, tracking the recruiting efforts and candidates with other essential information. Feel free to check it out if you want. Otherwise, please leave a comment if you have one, either about this piece, which dark horse districts you’re interested in, or whatever. Thanks!

America’s shifting politics, Part Two

Caleb Fultz

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday August 01, 2017 · 5:25 AM PDT

2017/08/01 · 05:25

Democrats aren’t going to be the only benefactors of changing demographics. Republicans will benefit greatly from a relatively new Republican voter group— the whites in the Great Lakes region that handed Trump the presidency in November. In my article I published last week it looked dire for Republicans. They lost states like Texas, Georgia, Montana, and Arizona due to demographic shifts. But Republicans could return to their former dominance in the North or at least make it competitive once again. We could soon find once Democratic bastions like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin sitting firmly in the red column or permanently purple.

There are two driving forces behind this shift: Minorities. particularly blacks are moving back to the South and economic policy.

Shortly after the beginning of the 20th-century blacks began leaving the South en masse. It was dubbed the Great Migration which lasted between 1910–1970. And it’s generally divided into the first and second Great Migrations.

The first lasted from 1916–1940, in which 1.6 million African-Americans left the South for the North. The reasons for them leaving were obvious: Widespread racism and little opportunity. In fact, racism spiked in the late 1890s and early 1900’s with the passage of Jim Crows Laws and the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan. Secondly, following the United State’s entry into World War I in May 1917 the economy began to boom. Factories sprung up in the North to fuel the Allied war effort and attracted hundreds of thousands of blacks seeking better economic opportunities and a better life.

The second began in 1940 and ended in 1970. Some 6 million African-Americans left the South for Western and North Midwestern states like California and Illinois. The reasons were much the same for the first Great Migration. The United States entered World War II in December 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This war would require far more industrial power than the previous war and thus blacks filled factory and shipyard jobs, often having to do the more dangerous jobs due to racism. Secondly, Northern and Western states were more liberal and thus had less racism so it was a far better place to live. Following the end of World War II, the post-War economic boom began and the Northern and Western states began rapidly developing and had more to offer to African-Americans.

Now, this trend of blacks leaving the South has begun to reverse. Since 1990 the percentage of blacks living in the United States has increased from 53% to 57%. This is a small increase but it’s not going to stop. This is primarily because millennial African-Americans are moving more and more to Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina and starting families, thus establishing roots there.

Since African-Americans tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic (Democrats usually garner around 80% of the black vote in elections) we can assume Republicans are going to benefit from this demographic shift. In fact, it could lead to a situation where the Democratic base is split thus Republicans could dominate the South while still competing or winning Northern states outright.

Economic policy and nostalgia are the key reasons why Trump won the majority of Rust belt states. Trump campaign promises to bring back jobs, renegotiate trade agreements, reform immigration policy, which many Trump supporters saw as the cause of their economic woes, and to “Make America Great Again” resonated with white voters in these Northern states.

In Ohio Trump walloped Clinton by 8 points and got the same amount of votes as Obama did in both 2008 and 2012. This was the first time since 1988 that a Republican won by such a large margin when George H.W. Bush handily defeated Michael Dukakis by 11 points in the state.

Meanwhile the so called “blue wall” crumbled. Pennsylvania and Michigan went Republican for the first time since 1988 as the rural and Rust belt vote overtook the urban vote and Wisconsin went Republican for the first time since 1984, driven by the same factors that turned Pennsylvania and Michigan red.

These wins were driven by Trump out performing in the typical Republican base, such as old and white Americans. In counties where the 60+ year-old populations constituted under 20% of the population, Trump did better than Romney by an average of 3 points, according to FiveThirtyEight. Also, according to FiveThirtyEight, Trump did better in whiter counties and in increasingly diverse places, which could be a result of racial prejudice, a white lash if you will.

This all points back to my earlier point: Trump won because of economic promises and nostalgia. Older, white Americans wanted to return to the “glory” days that they or their parents grew up in. Whether or not those days were so peachy as they are painted is a story for a different day. Meanwhile, his promises to bring back coal and jobs to the crumbling economies of rust belt states appealed to a wide range of people, which is why he did better than previous Republican candidates in regards to minorities and an economic message like Trump’s could be replicated by Republicans to win these states again in the future.

But like I said in my last article demographics aren’t everything. If Republicans want to start winning elections they need a uniting message, not a dividing one. It also needs to be a sincere appeal to all people instead of a desperate ploy for votes.

Thus this means they need to ditch their old social policy platform. The Conservative platform has been anti-LGBT and often racist sounding at times. If Republicans switched to a more welcoming agenda like fighting to promote equality instead of ignoring the existence of inequality then they could appeal to a whole new swath of voters. The Republican party has seemingly made little to no movement towards moderation on social issues, in fact, it’s made a step back. If the GOP doesn’t it will retain its title as the party of bigots and continually lose the minority vote while barely scraping by in presidential elections.

However, if Republicans begin moving the focus of their party back to economic issues, which I believe could have a wide appeal to people from both aisles, and adopt Democrat’s inclusive policies then they could turn Northern states red and become electorally competitive again, while promoting equality for all and recognizing the injustice in our society today.

Part One: www.dailykos.com/...

2018 House Race Ratings and Analysis Part 2: Arkansas-California

IDMN

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday July 31, 2017 · 2:22 AM PDT

2017/07/31 · 02:22

Rep. Steve Knight (R), one of the GOP's most vulnerable members this cycle.

California, America’s largest state, is also shaping up to be the biggest battleground in next year’s battle for the House of Representatives, with the number of competitive of possibly competitive races in the double digits. Ancestrally Republican Orange County swung hard towards Clinton, typical of a rich, well-educated county, and brought many of its House districts with it.

(Note: for the sake of time and efficiency, I will no longer be analyzing each race, but only the ones that I believe will be competitive or has the potential to be competitive, bar any cash in the freezer. Seats not mentioned should be assumed to be safe for the party that holds them).

IDMN

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday July 31, 2017 · 2:21 AM PDT

2017/07/31 · 02:21

GOP Representative Martha McSally, who sits in one of the 23 Clinton districts won by Republican Representatives

As the 2018 midterm elections ever so slowly creep towards us, the race for the house is just beginning to shape up. Over the summer, I’ll take a look at each congressional district and try to handicap the 2018 results. Today, we’re going to take a look at the 17 congressional districts in Alabama, Alaska, and Arizona, which will feature some of 2018’s marquee races. Head below the fold for more

Poll

69 votes Show Results

Since GA-06 is only 11(!) days away, what do you think the margin will be?

69 votes Vote Now!

Since GA-06 is only 11(!) days away, what do you think the margin will be?

Ossoff by 10+

2 votes

Ossoff by 7.5-9.9

0 votes

Ossoff by 5-7.4

6 votes

Ossoff by 2.5-4.9

17 votes

Ossoff by 1-2.4

22 votes

Ossoff by <1

4 votes

Handel by <1

3 votes

Handel by 1-2.4

3 votes

Handel by 2.5-4.9

7 votes

HAndel by 5-7.4

0 votes

Handel by 7.5-9.9

0 votes

Handel by 10+

0 votes

Lord Buckethead

5 votes

Newer
Older

RSS

My Analysis of the Central Coast and Southern California (Part 4: Santa Barbara County)

New Zealand Votes Tomorrow: Are we about to see the Progressive Comeback of the Century?

Florida 2018: An In-Depth Look @ Flipping The Senate

How Has New Hampshire’s Political Geography Shifted Since 2000?

2018 House Race Ratings and Analysis Part 3: Colorado-Florida

Exploring the Midwest, Part 1: Did Trump win the Midwest? Or did Hillary lose it?

What special elections have taught us about 2018 and beyond

Your Guide to Virginia's 2017 election

The 80 House Seats Democrats Should Target in 2018

America’s shifting politics, Part Two

2018 House Race Ratings and Analysis Part 2: Arkansas-California

2018 House Race Ratings and Analysis Part 1: Alabama-Arizona