ElectionDissection.com Book Club--David Foster Wallace, R.I.P.

On Saturday came the sad news that author David Foster Wallace had died. Since I first came across his writing about ten years ago, he has been my favorite contemporary writer so I've been pretty bummed about his passing. Best known for his massive tome Infinite Jest, Wallace was also an exemplary essayist. My introduction to him came via A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, a collection of non-fiction pieces on such subjects as David Lynch, the Illinois State Fair, and the hellishness of a cruise vacation. The latter two of these showcased his brilliance at taking events and situations and describing with incredible perception and humor the absurdity that underlies much of our (post)modern world. He was also an amazing sports writer, having written one of the best descriptions of the genius of high level athletics in his profile of Roger Federer.

So what does this have to do with politics? In 2000, Wallace was hired by Rolling Stone magazine to follow John McCain for a week and produce a story for a future issue. The result was typical Wallace, a 124 page deconstruction of the modern day campaign in which he grapples with our electoral process' competing dimensions of idealism vs. cynicism; showmanship vs. authenticity; boldness vs. caution--all with his unparalleled power of description. His portrait stands up, in my mind, with the best campaign commentary of recent years and is perhaps superlative in that he comes at his subject (as he does in many of his great essays) not as an insider, but from outside the bubble. The piece has since be published in his (now last) collection of essays Consider the Lobster. Here's a bit:

Because here's another paradox. Spring 2000--midmorning in America's hangover from the whole Lewinsky-and-impeachment thing--represents a moment of almost unprecedented cynicism and disgust with national politics, a moment when blunt, I-don't-give-a-s*%t (1)-if-you-elect-me honesty becomes an incredibly attractive and salable and electable quality. A moment when an anticandidate can be a real candidate. But of course if he becomes a real candidate, is he still an anticandidate? Can you sell someone's refusal to be for sale?

There are many elements of the McCain2000 campaign--naming the bus "Straight Talk," the timely publication of "Faith of My Fathers," the much hyped "openness" and "spontaneity" of the Express's media salon, the message-disciplined way McCain thumps "Always. Tell you. the truth"--that indicate that some very shrewd, clever marketers are trying to market this candidate's rejection of shrewd, clever marketing. Is this bad? Or just confusing? Suppose, let's say, you've got a candidate who says polls are bulls*%t and totally refuses to tailor his campaign style to polls, and suppose then that new polls start showing that people really like this candidate's polls-are-bulls*%t stance and are thinking about voting for him because of it, and suppose the candidate reads these polls (who wouldn't) and then starts saying even more loudly and often that polls are bulls*%t and that he won't use them to decide what to say, maybe turning "Polls are bulls*%t" into a campaign line and repeating it in every speech and even painting Polls Are Bulls*%t on the side of his bus...Is he a hypocrite? Is it hypocritical that one of McCain's ads' lines in South Carolina is "Telling the truth even when it hurts him politically," which of course since its an ad means that McCain is trying to get political benefit out of his indifference to political benefit? What's the difference between hypocrisy and paradox?

Unsimplistic enough for you now? The fact of the matter is that if you're a true-blue, market savvy Young Voter, the only thing you're certain to feel about John McCain's campaign is a very modern and American type of ambivalence, a sort of interior war between your deep need to believe and your deep belief that the need is bulls*%t, that there's nothing left anywhere but sales and salesmen. At the times your cynicism's winning, you'll find that it's possible to see even McCain's most attractive qualities as just marketing angles. His famous habit of bringing up his own closet's skeletons, for example--bad grades, messy divorce, indictment as one of the Keating Five--this could be real honesty and openness, or it could be McCain's shrewd way of preempting criticism by criticizing himself before anyone else can do it. The modesty with which he talks about his heroism as a POW--"It doesn't take much to get shot down"; "I wasn't a hero, but I was fortunate enough to serve my time in the company of heroes"--this could be real humility, or it could be a clever way to make himself seem both heroic and humble.

As our campaigns seem to digress further and further into bizarro world, Wallace's perspective is perhaps even more apt than it was eight years ago. For his thoughts on McCain's current campaign, see this interview he did with the Wall St. Journal a few months back. Also, here's an old interview he did with Charlie Rose and some links to a few of his essays. Finally, his much cited commencement address at Kenyon College in 2005.


Footnotes:

1. Not to get too inside-jokey but I took the liberty of cleaning up the language. ElectionDissection.com is a family friendly repository of political analysis.

Where They're Campaigning: Palin “Mints” Jäger Moms in Carson City

Last weekend, GOP VPILF-designate Sarah Palin descended upon Carson City, swing state Nevada’s capital city.  Palin’s first solo foray – post-nomination – in the Lower 48 drew out her base and stoked their partisan fervor as much her previous joint whistlestopping with John McCain.

While most observers consider this booming, Hispanicizing New West state to be a longer shot for Democrats to capture this year than neighboring Colorado, the fact that Republicans are redoubling their efforts to maximize their vote in this far western sliver of the Silver State might be indicative of longer term trends, perhaps foreshadowing an end to decades of GOP dominance. 

As recently as 2002, two of Nevada’s U.S. House seats were safe Republican, and Dem. Rep. Shelley Berkely’s Las Vegas seat was in play.  Her 11 point margin over Vegas City Councilor Lynette Boggs-McDonald may have been amplified by the mercurial Afro-Am Republican challenger’s antics, hinting that the race might have been closer if Berkely faced a more disciplined opponent. 

Contrast that to this year when Charlie Cook rates even northern Nevada’s Second District – which encompasses Carson City and Reno – as “Likely Republican,” not “Safe Republican," and he’s shifted GOP Rep. Jon Porter’s previously comfortable Vegas ‘burbs seat into the “Tossup” column.  Shelley Berkely will likely waltz back to Washington, even though GOP turnout efforts will be in overdrive this November.   

Vegas’ Clark County continues to suffer growing pangs from its sudden population boom – turnout exploded by a whopping 165K between 2000 and 2004 – and the Democratic trend that recent House races suggest does not bode well for GOP competitiveness.

So, Palin’s visit to Carson City points to the Republicans’ only recourse for holding on.  They’ve mined about every vote they can from the sparsely settled interior counties, once home to conservative, Southern-descended “Pinto Democrats” – George Wallace stole nearly a quarter of the few votes they cast in ’68 - in the mold of the rabid Commie-bashing Sen. Pat McCarran, who made Joe McCarthy look soft on the Reds.   

Reno’s Washoe County is growing, too, though not at Clark County’s breakneck speed, and the GOP remains competitive, though Dems have been gaining in recent presidential elections.  And nearby Lyon and Douglas counties are much smaller, but growing quickly and trending Republican, like many once rural Western exurbs. 

Carson City seemed the perfect backdrop for a candidate that GOP operatives are striving to brand as America’s Favorite Small Town Mayor.  Carson City ranks dead last in population among the Census Bureau’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, letting Palin’s flacks make the case more credibly that this small city is really a small town.   And though dwarfed by Reno, it’s growing too, and the GOP remains strong here. 

Reports of Palin’s visit indicate that the Palin pick may help mint more votes from female Democrats - at least among the downscale, socially conservative Jäger Mom set (much, much more on that shortly…), who struggle with family troubles not unlike Palin’s.

Of course, successfully courting those very voters may drive even more affluent educated voters in suburban Vegas to the Democratic column for good, who likely regard the denizens of Reno as little smarter than Washoe – named for their county – the genius chimpanzee. 

Is There a Rabbi In the House???

Each semester as part of my course on the U.S. Congress I give a lecture called "profile of the membership" in which I break the individuals in Congress down into a variety of categories, looking at how the composition of Congress has changed over time. In addition to party shifts, you see regional changes, racial and gender changes, etc. What we've never seen in Congress before is a blind rabbi. While there is some chance of that happening come November, we'll probably need a Democratic wave to make it happen.

In New Jersey's fifth district, incumbent Republican Scott Garrett is being challenged by Dennis Shulman. Blind since youth, Shulman is trying to capture a district that has been pretty solidly Republican (see New York Times coverage here). Garrett, first elected in 2002 with 59% of the vote, received 58% in '04 and 55% in '06, leading some Democratic operatives to view the district as a potential pick-up. In 2004, Bush got 57% in the district.

As the district map shows, the 5th hugs the New York and Pennsylvania borders and has parts that are quite rural, by New Jersey standards. Most of the population, however, is concentrated in the Bergen County portion of the district. Many of these voters are affluent, commute to New York, and have tended to vote Republican. Here's how CQ's Politics in America describes the 5th:

The 5th's property values and income levels are among the highest in the state, and no municipality here has more than 30,000 residents. The 5th also has the smallest minority population of any New Jersey district...Saddle River, in wealthy Bergen County, is home to multimillion-dollar homes, but Bergen County's tony suburbs contrast with a more rural feel in the 5th's portion of Passaic County to the west, which includes attractions dating back to the colonial era...The scenic back country of Sussex and Warren counties traditionally has been a mix of farmland and small towns, but both counties have started to change as young professionals from New York City move into the area. Warren County's population has increased by more than 20% since 1990, and the county continues to experience significant housing development.

Shulman is basing his campaign on Garrett's very conservative voting record--which he believes to be out of step with the state and the district. For the past four years, Garrett has received a perfect rating from the American Conservative Union. Most analysts looking at the race feel that Garrett will pull through. Stuart Rothenberg is very critical of many in the media equating Shulman's novelty with his credibility as a candidate, especially in this type of district. While Garrett's numbers have gone down a few points over the past two cycles, this is still a solidly Republican district. In the last redistricting cycle, it was consciously drawn to give Republicans an edge.

Here’s What’s the Matter with “What’s the Matter with Cairo, Ill.?”!

ElectionDissection strolled down Mass. Ave., NW to the Cato Institute today for a book forum discussing “Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do” whose authors maintain a data-rich blog.

Informed comments were offered by George Mason Univ. prof and exit poll veteran Dr. Michael McDonald – whose invaluable data ElectionDissection links to on our Election Returns & Other Data sidebar – titled “What’s the Matter with Cairo, Ill.?” McDonald contrasted how Chicago’s affluent and historically Republican Collar County suburbs have been trending Democratic in recent elections – reflected in the political journey of their Favorite Daughter, onetime Goldwater Girl Hillary Rodham Clinton – with the Republican swing in Cairo’s impoverished Alexander County, home to a historic Southern Democrat-style tradition.

Being a son of Little Egypt, nickname for Southern Illinois, the flood-prone region whose tip meets at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers at the aptly named Cairo, I have to quibble with Prof. McDonald’s choice of this town to contrast with Chicago ‘burbs. But, I’ll stress, given the strength of McDonald’s presentation, I’m only quibbling.

Cairo, sits – or withers, rather – at the tip of the Land of Lincoln, but couldn’t be further away from Abe’s Sangamon County, in both distance and culture.

Culturally, Cairo (pronounced “kay-row”) holds more in common with Memphis, the Deep South river town, or even Yazoo City in the Mississippi Delta, where McDonald mentioned he attended high school, than greater Southern Illinois, which has more of the feel of an Upper South “Border” region.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, The Cairo Gazette was openly secessionist. Cairo itself is largely Afro-Am in population, and impoverished. The town was the scene of repeated violence, a flashpoint in the struggle for civil rights, from which it has never recovered. Alexander County’s white population were so agitated, they gave segregationist Alabamian George Wallace 21% of their votes in 1968, the loudest electoral thundering of white backlash in the Land of Lincoln.

Cairo’s “peculiar” Old South character renders it an anomaly even for Southern-inflected Southern Illinois, home of sweet tea-sipping white Baptists. I just couldn’t resist quibbling with McDonald - and only out of regional and familial pride - whose comments will certainly inform my reading of the book.

Bob Barr Blusters: Pres Nomination Campaigns don't "affect change"??!!

ElectionDissection ventured over to the National Press Club for a couple of press conferences today.   The first featured Ron Paul with his by-now-signature unfocused, “aw shucks” style with which he urged his acolytes – and the American electorate at large – to reject McCain and Obama and consider any of four third party candidates.  Green nominee and former Dem. Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney, independent perennial Ralph Nader and far-right Constitution Party standard bearer “Pastor Chuck” Baldwin were all on hand to bask in Dr. Paul’s glow.  Libertarian Party nominee, former GOP Georgia U.S. Rep. Bob Barr pointedly declined the invite.

Half an hour later, Barr responded with a press conference of his own.  Barr and his top aide, former Ross Perot campaign honcho Russ Verney, explained Barr’s absence that morning, with Barr insisting that his bid offers “bold, focused, specific leadership,” not Ron Paul’s “amorphous kind that says ‘any of the above’ or ‘none of the above.’”  Barr asserted that the goal of his campaign is to amass as many votes as possible, hoping to affect policy change in his direction; a worthy and very reasonable goal for a third party candidate determined to run an actual political campaign, seeking actual votes, not just to hit the college lecture circuit and bloviate ad nausea. 

Barr’s and Verney’s “we’re the grownups here” mein bordered on farce.  Barr got so wrapped up in the “we’re not goofing around here” meme that, invoking Verney’s old boss Perot repeatedly, he asserted the patently preposterous claim that primary campaign vote totals, and failed nomination campaigns, are irrelevant; rather, building significant general election vote totals is the only way for alternative presidential candidates to affect policy change.  This is indubitably true for segregationist George Wallace’s 1968 American Independent bid that first identified “Reagan Democrats” among Northern Urban Ethnics and rural Southern Democrats and liberal Republican John Anderson’s 1980 indie bid that gave us sneak peaks at segments of the coalition that vaulted Obama to the Democratic nomination this year.  But for the highest vote getting third party bid in modern electoral history – Ross Perot’s snaring of nearly one in five votes in 1992 – the jury is still out as for its long term impact.

Barr’s claim was made to counter claims that Paul’s 1.2 million primary season votes did more than Barr’s effort will to further a libertarian agenda.  There is a question to be considered that Paul’s 2008 primary totals – as scattered as his message – may tell us less about a long-term libertarian vote trend than does Ed Clark’s 1980 Libertarian Party high water mark. 

Nevertheless, the litany countering Barr’s ludicrous contention is a long and venerable one.  

Let’s start with Wallace: the 670,000 votes and 3.75 million votes he garnered, respectively, in his upstart 1964 and 1972 Democratic nomination bids were dwarfed by the 9.9 million votes he attracted in his 1968 indie bid, but reinforced to Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips that millions of those voters – especially in states like Wisconsin in ’64 or in Maryland and Michigan in ’72 – who might never have voted for him in a general, or before his assassination attempt, were up for grabs.  Peeling these proto-Reagan Democrats away built the Conservative Coalition that governed under Reagan during his first term. 

Eugene McCarthy’s quixotic bid for the 1968 Democratic bid may have been as unfocused as Paul’s this year, but his 2.9 million votes forced the incumbent president, LBJ, to withdraw from consideration for re-nomination and marked the first electoral inklings of popular discontent over the Vietnam War that culminated in Nixon – the staunch anti-communist – pulling US forces out of Indochina a few years later. 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s nearly 10 million votes between his 1984 and 1988 bids put his slice of urban America’s agenda on the table, arguably prompting passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a still conservative-oriented Congress and signed by a Republican president.    

Walter Mondale famously ridiculed Gary Hart’s “new ideas” bid for the 1984 Democratic nomination with the then-popular fast food chain ad refrain, “Where’s the beef?”  But the third of the Democratic primary vote and 1200 delegates that Hart’s platform attracted - a melding of cosmopolitan social liberalism with an appreciation of foreign trade and a recognition that market forces can’t be dismissed - took most observers by surprise and challenged the union orthodoxy that Mondale accepted.  Hart’s “New Democrat” agenda presaged the moderate Democratic Leadership Council from which Bill Clinton launched his successful bid for the 1992 Democratic nomination and upon whose agenda he generally governed during his tenure.  Nearly a quarter century later, Hillary Clinton reverted to Mondale’s playbook, but came up short against Barack Obama who racked up huge majorities among the very voters Hart first identified. 

Two more examples stand out because of the candidates’ associations with associates of Barr’s campaign in 2008:

Barr advisor and conservative direct mail guru Richard Viguerie keynoted the Libertarian convention this year.  Viguerie supported Ronald Reagan’s nearly victorious challenge to President Gerald Ford’s re-nomination in 1976, and tried to lure Reagan to a splinter conservative third party when Ford finally secured the GOP nod.  Of course, Reagan built upon the momentum of that strong ’76 bid to win the White House four years later, launching his “Reagan Revolution.”

“A Call to Economic Arms” was the theme of Paul Tsongas’ 1992 campaign that attracted unexpected support among Democratic primary voters.  Ross Perot – Verney was his spokesman – built upon Tsongas’ momentum in the fall, memorably campaigning with a series of charts to illustrate the federal fiscal dangers both these “deficit hawks” feared.  Bill Clinton’s first term stabs at getting the federal budget under control can be attributed to both Tsongas’ nomination and Perot’s general election campaigns.  

Regionalism in American Electoral History: Revisiting Kevin Phillips and Hypothesizing About November

In thinking about the competition between the campaigns for the “swing states” necessary to put either over the top in November, I got to wondering about how these states fit into the broader sweep of American political history. The underlying belief that guides what we do on this site is that the past matters. Elections do not occur in isolation from our history. Rather, what we observe today has been shaped by the series of demographic, economic, social, and cultural shifts that have preceded us. Thus, we need to be appreciative of the “evolutionary” nature of our politics. While there is certainly much that is unique about this election (thus making predicting the outcome very dangerous)—most notably the presence of the first African American on the top of either party’s ticket—we can perhaps look backwards for some sense of whether our expectations or assumptions are realistic.

One classic exposition of the “evolutionary” nature of American politics is Kevin Phillips’ “The Emerging Republican Majority.” In it, Phillips described the degree to which the shifts observed in the mid to late 1960’s were shaped by a series of demographic, economic, and cultural changes in various parts of the country. The result of these shifts was a series of Republican presidential victories, beginning with Nixon and continuing, perhaps, to this day. Another aspect of Phillips’ analysis is the regional nature of these changes. For Phillips, different parts of the country evolved in different ways, thus producing differing types of politics. Within these regions we tend to see very similar types of voting, with changes and shifts taking place at roughly the same time and lasting roughly the same period of time. The region that most clearly stands out—and for which Phillips received quite a bit of acclaim for identifying—is the south. Now a solid part of the Republican coalition, the dramatic shift in the south’s voting took place in the mid ‘60’s. While Barry Goldwater was trounced in the 1964 election, his support in the south laid the foundation (despite the third party effort of Wallace in ’68 and the regional appeal of Carter in ’76) for the new coalition that would begin with Nixon, mature under Reagan, and perhaps reach its high point under George W. Bush.

Recently, Judis and Teixeira have argued that this Republican majority is ready to be replaced by a durable and lasting Democratic ascendancy. Modeling their analysis along the lines of Phillips’ they suggest that recent demographic, economic, and educational shifts have set in motion the emergence of a new regional coalition. The debate about how and when this will finally transpire has been hotly debated this year among those on the left as they strategize about how to produce an Obama victory. While some have argued that the south is not as Republican as it once was and could, given high levels of black turnout, potentially provide Obama some electoral votes, others such as Thomas Schaller have suggested that the west is where Democrats have their best opportunities.

With all of this in mind, I thought I’d revisit these arguments with a particular focus on the regional dimension of voting. If we look at presidential elections over the past century, we find some pretty interesting dynamics that might help us understand what will or will not transpire just a few weeks from now.

To get a visual sense of what I’m talking about, I produced the very simple chart above. In it, I’ve broken the country down into the regions first described by Phillips. Next I coded how each of these regions’ states voted in each election from 1896 to the present. States in blue voted Democrat; red voted Republican; green voted for a third party candidate. What we see, I think, are a few things. First would seem to be a tremendous amount of stability in the voting patterns of states and regions. Once states and regions vote to support a particular party, they tend to do so over a long period of time. The obvious examples here are the solidly Democratic south up until the 1960’s, the solidly Republican mountain and plains states for much of the past half century, and the recently Democratic north east. A second thing I’d note is that some voting shifts are very short lived. These may be brought about events, the regional appeal of one candidate, or poor candidate performance. The shift that many states made to the Democrats and Carter in 1976 can surely be tied to a Watergate backlash and his southern regional appeal. Likewise, the Johnson landslide in 1964 brought many traditionally Republican states into the Democratic column at a time when they might normally not be—also no doubt aided by the perceived extremism of Goldwater. Thus, stability seems to be the norm as fluctuations are soon corrected. A third thing I’d point out is that when broader and regional shifts take place, you see most of the states in that region moving at the same time. Here, notice the northeast’s movement to the Democrats and perhaps most dramatically, the formation of FDR’s majorities beginning in 1932.

For the Obama campaign especially, there is a tremendous interest in winning previously Republican states. That’s the only way they can get to 270 electoral votes. Thus, I looked at how many states tended to change hands in each election year. In 2004 we saw the fewest states change hands, 3, that we saw over the entire course of this examination (3 also switched in 1908) with New Hampshire becoming Democratic while Iowa and New Mexico became Republican. On average, 14 states changed hands over the course of these 28 elections. Not surprisingly, the biggest landslides saw the most states switch, with almost all going in the same direction. In 1932, 34 states became Democratic putting in place the New Deal majority. The 1964 and 1968 elections also saw great flux: in 1964 30 states switched (25 became Democratic, 5 Republican); 1968 served to correct much of the LBJ landslide as 36 states switched (31 became Republican; 5 voted for Wallace). This election also served to cement Phillips’ “Republican majority” as the 5 Wallace states became Republican in the ’72 Nixon re-election. Finally what we see is that when states do change in a given election year, one party tends to reap almost all of the gains, often across several regions. In 13 of the 28 elections, one party made all of the gains. Only in 1924, 1952, and 2004 when you only had 4, 2, and 3 states change hands respectively was there anything approaching parity in the parties’ ability to both make gains. Change tends to be unidirectional.

Another thing to ask, again given Obama’s goals, is what happens in those elections in which the presidency changes from one party to the other. Do those elections come about because the new party in power converted a lot of states or did they win much more narrowly, because only a few states switched? In those 10 elections in which one party took the presidency over from the other, 23 states on average changed hands!!! In the discussion of this year’s electoral map, no one that I’ve heard has made any attempt to argue that this many states are “in play.” The current set of Republican states being targeted by Obama includes Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and perhaps Indiana and Georgia. That’s 11 states. Thus, if Obama were to have a perfect storm of factors come together and give him all of the states he could possibly dream of, he’d still perform well below the average of what we’ve seen in party changing elections. Also worth noting is that these 11 states come from 6 of the 8 regions. What Phillips found was that regions don’t all change at the same time or in the same direction, so we might look at this list of states as wildly optimistic, given the historical evidence. Also, we see that when one state in a region changes, others also do. Shouldn’t we, then, be expanding the list? More important than the number of states, obviously, is the electoral vote count. Here, assuming Obama were to win all of the states John Kerry won, adding these 10 states would give him 390 electoral votes—a huge landslide. Should this year produce an Obama victory, one would have to think it will probably not look like the other elections in which party control switched, either in magnitude or geographic scope.

What I haven’t looked at in this analysis, and what is obviously of great importance, is the margin of victory that we saw in these states, especially in times of change. Some previous posts have looked at this and I’ll certainly spend some more time on this fundamental question as we go along in the next few weeks. If we’re trying to identify opportunities for future change, the degree to which things are changing will need to be gauged. This would, it seem, bring us back to the beginning of this discussion—we need to be aware of the “evolutionary” changes taking place.

Where They're Campaigning: McCain-Palin Hits Cedarburg

In their first stop following the Republican convention, the McCain-Palin ticket visited some very friendly turf in the swing state of Wisconsin. Clearly, the early strategy seems to be a series of rallies on favorable ground with enthusiastic crowds rather than jumping into the cauldron of swing and independent voters. Note that Colorado Springs is also on the itinerary.

Today, McCain and Palin visited the Wisconsin city of Cedarburg. Located about 20 miles due north of Milwaukee and with a population of about 11,000, Cedarburg is located right in the middle of Wisconsin's most Republican region comprising the three neighboring counties of Ozaukee (in which Cedarburg sits), Washington, and Waukesha.

To give you a sense of how Republican this area is, in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, these were the three most Republican counties in the state. The Republican share of the vote for each county in 2000 and 2004 respectively was:

Washington: 70% / 70%

Waukesha: 68% / 68%

Ozaukee: 68% / 66%

These three counties are also quite large in terms of how much of Wisconsin's vote they comprise. In 2004, Waukesha, Washington, and Ozaukee counties were the 3rd, 10th, and 15th largest counties in votes cast. Combined they provided about 12% of all the votes cast in the state.

Cedarburg itself is even more Republican. In 2004, President Bush received 73% while in 2000 he took home 71%. While many have suggested that there has been a "blue-ing" of many suburban areas transpiring in recent years (i.e. Northern Virginia, Montgomery County Pennsylvania, etc.) this trend has apparently not come to this part of the badger state.

Having written a lot about Wisconsin, including areas which may be trending Democratic (see here), I'd have to conclude that if the McCain campaign's goal was to rally the base, this wasn't a bad place to start. The visit will be covered throughout the Milwaukee media market, the state's largest, and will signal that--at least for now--the Republican ticket believes Wisconsin can be won.

For more indication of how competitive this area is, from the perspective of the campaigns' spending on television advertising, see this press release by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. During the period covered in their recent study, the Milwaukee market was the 8th largest in the country in terms of number of ads aired.

*Photo courtesy of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Things Tight in the Twin Cities

With the Republicans on stage this week in Minneapolis/St. Paul, I thought we'd take a trip to the Twin Cities and visit a congressional district that is home to one of the most competitive House races this year. It will also, it seems, be extremely close at the top of the ticket as well.

Long a Republican stronghold, the 3rd congressional district seems to be another example of a suburban region in political transition. Encompassing the western suburbs of Minneapolis, the 3rd has been represented by Congressman Jim Ramstad since 1990. The last Democrat to hold the seat left office in 1960. Ramstad is a consummate moderate, espousing a pro-choice position on abortion (with some exceptions), a relatively pro-environmental record, and support for stem cell research. In all of his campaigns, he's never received less than 64% of the vote. Last year Ramstad announced his retirement setting off a fevered race to capture the seat.

On the presidential level, the district has been extremely competitive of late. President Bush carried the district narrowly in both 2000 and 2004 with 50% and 51% respectively, despite losing statewide.

In this year's House race, the Republicans have nominated state representative Erik Paulsen while the DFL has put forward Iraq war vet Ashwin Madia. The recruitment of Madia is reminiscent of the DCCC's efforts in the last election cycle to support relatively moderate Democrats with military or national security experience (see Tammy Duckworth, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak). Both candidates have proven to be formidable fundraisers, with each having over $1 million raised.

Survey USA recently released poll results for the district, showing Obama and Paulsen with slight leads (see results here). The closeness of these races and the fact that the district seems willing (at least in this poll) to show support for candidates of each party illustrates just how much this region is up for grabs. As the next weeks play out, be sure to focus on this swing region in a swing state.

Where the Race Will Be Won, Part 3

With the Democratic Convention in Denver, we can’t fail to do a post on Colorado and its role in the campaign. The New Yorker just posted a fantastic overview of Colorado politics—focusing on the Democratic gains of recent years—by Ryan Lizza.

Rather than devote this post to the entire state—and I will devote more time to Colorado over the coming weeks—I wanted to make note of one particular part that may prove important in November. The other night, amidst all the droning of commentators during the convention coverage, Chuck Todd pointed to Pueblo as the one city he will be looking to as key. I thought I’d take a look at its recent history and demographics.

Pueblo is unusual when compared to most other western cities in that it has a long industrial history, centered around steel production. Lizza quotes Jim Carpenter, Governor Bill Ritter’s Chief of Staff who calls Pueblo “a rare sort of Western city whose politics are closer to those of a Rust Belt state than to those of the Rockies. It’s an old traditional blue-collar type of place. There were ethnic politics in Pueblo, blue collar politics. It was like Milwaukee. There was the Hispanic part of town, and the Italian part of town, and the Eastern European part of town.” The interesting thing about Pueblo is that it’s not only so different from the rest of the state but that it seems to be on a different trajectory. Whereas other Colorado cities are diversifying and thriving in the areas of green energy, the tech sector, and tourism/hospitality, Pueblo appears somewhat rooted in a more anachronistic economy. Nonetheless, given that it is still home to a sizable population (slightly over 100,000) its vote could prove crucial.

Demographically, Pueblo County is about 57% white and 38% Hispanic. Unlike some Hispanic communities that are filled with recent immigrants, the Hispanic community in this region tends to be multi-generational in its residence. This rootedness is personified in Democratic Congressman John Salazar whose family has farmed in the area for decades (he is also the brother of the state’s junior Senator, Ken Salazar). Given its working class population, the Pueblo area has been solidly Democratic in recent elections. Pueblo County last voted Republican at the presidential level in 1972. However, in 2004, Bush did better in the county (46%) than any Republican nominee since Reagan in 1984 so there has been some tightening.

One wonders whether this movement rightward has been a reflexive action in response to the leftward movement of other parts of the state. If so, this dynamic could prove troublesome to Obama. In this sense, the comparison of Pueblo to many Rust Belt cities would seem apt. As we saw in this year’s primary campaign, those areas hardest hit by the past decade’s economic changes (Ohio, Michigan) have proven to be resistant to—or at least more skeptical of--Obama’s post-materialist message. While he is certainly moving in a more populist direction, this rhetoric threatens to diminish his appeal to more independent and upscale voters. As Lizza’s portrait of Colorado makes clear, these voters’ (upscale, highly educated, pragmatic) numbers are growing dramatically, not just in Colorado but throughout the west. Thus, a quandary—how does one thread the needle of attracting both old style, blue collar voters and upscale progressives?? A dilemma like this can turn a campaign in knots.

While the Obama campaign is trying to craft a strategy to solve this riddle nationwide, we’re also seeing it played out at the more micro-level within Colorado itself. What’s fascinating is that the underlying mathematics and demographics are so precarious. So many states and regions would seem to be on the tipping point of this transition from one type of economy and politics to another—Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina for example (a process that forms the basis of The Emerging Democratic Majority). The degree to which Obama is successful in navigating these straits will go a long way in telling us who the next President will be.

The Rise of the Black Politician in America

Appropos of some of my recent posts on the Congressional Black Caucus and the Great Migration, yesterday's lengthy Obama piece by David Maraniss in the Washington Post included this fantastic graphic to show the evolution of the black membership in Congress.

Where the Race Will Be Won, Part 2

The state that has been getting the most coverage over the course of the campaign has been Virginia. Long in the Republican column (Virginia last voted Democratic in 1964), recent Democratic successes statewide (Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner) have many bullish about Obama’s chances this year. For a good analysis of the state of play in Virginia, see this recent piece by Jay Cost in Real Clear Politics. While Democratic successes have largely been fueled by dramatic demographic shifts in northern Virginia over the past decade or so, another part of the state will be pivotal to both candidates' chances in November.

The cluster of cities located in the southeastern corner of the state, known as Hampton Roads, offers both Obama and McCain tremendous opportunities. A few weeks back, the Washington Post did a story on the region and how competitive it has become. Before running through what each hopes to accomplish here, a brief description of the region’s economy, demographics, and political history is in order.

With a population of over 1.5 million, this area is a collection of contiguous cities—Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Hampton, and others—situated around one of the nation’s largest port areas. This area offers large numbers of people in some of the most important groups to both candidates--veterans, African Americans, labor/blue collar workers, seniors, and college students. The port of Norfolk is the country’s third largest in terms of shipping traffic. As one would imagine, the economy of the region is dominated by the movement of goods in and out of this waterway. A second characteristic of the region is that it has a huge military presence, with over a dozen military installations, especially Navy, located here. Thus, one finds one of the country's largest concentrations of veterans here. Estimates suggest that over 400,000 people have some direct connection to the military (retired veteran, active duty, family member, etc.) with thousands more working in an economy fueled by military dollars.


In terms of racial composition, Hampton Roads has a very large African American population. The following represents the black/white %'s of the major cities:

Virginia Beach: 19/71%

Chesapeake: 29/67%

Newport News: 39/54%

Norfolk: 44/48%

Hampton: 45/50%

Portsmouth: 51/46%

With the tremendous diversity of the region one has also seen political competitiveness. When breaking down the area into its component cities, one notices how both parties have fared well. In 2004, for example, John Kerry won Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, and Newport News (62%, 61%, 57%, and 52% respectively) while Bush captured Virginia Beach--the largest city--and Chesepeake (59% and 57%). For election returns, see here. In the 2005 governor's race, won by Democrat, and Obama-VP shortlister Tim Kaine, all six of the major cities noted above went Democratic (see results here). The area is currently divided between two congressional districts with part falling in the 2nd district, represented by Republican Thelma Drake, and part falling in the 3rd, represented by Democrat Bobby Scott.

From this, both Obama and McCain have goals and strategies in Hampton Roads. For McCain, capitalizing on the large veteran/military vote is crucial. If recent trends continue, McCain will probably lose northern Virginia by a sizable amount. In order to win the state, he will have to do well here. Even though he should win rural Virginia by large margins, Hampton Roads is the largest population center outside of the D.C. suburbs. McCain might also hope to tap into the blue collar part of the electorate that is normally Democratic. Should he be able to sway these voters due to his biography/military record or "maverick" image, or gain votes due to a hesitancy to support a black candidate, McCain could do quite well here. For Obama, the goal is obviously to capitalize on the large black population of the region and to maximize its turnout. While there is considerable debate about how easy this will be, Obama's organizational machinery seems far more advanced than that of any recent Democratic candidate. Also, as the Washington Post story notes, there is a large student population--in the neighborhood of 70,000--that will be targeted.

So, as Virginia continues to get attention in the weeks ahead, this is the part of the state that I would focus on. Both candidates will be fighting hard here. Obama have a greater need to overperform here than McCain, given the state's history, but both candidates can rightly look here for the keys to the state's 13 electoral votes.

Where the Race Will Be Won, Part 1

In the weeks leading up to the November vote, I want to periodically identify some places and regions whose performance, in my mind, will go a long way toward explaining the final outcome. While a discussion of “swing states” is commonplace, I want to go a bit deeper and into more detail by focusing on places whose demographics, history, socio-economic makeup, etc. make them illustrative of some of the larger dynamics playing out in the campaign. These areas will either be 1) extremely competitive or 2) crucial to one candidate’s base. In the former, both candidates will by vying to capture an electorate that’s up for grabs. In the latter, either McCain or Obama will be trying to maximize turnout, perhaps beyond that seen in previous contests. Some of these places will be in “swing states,” others may not be if they present a version of a much larger story.

I want to start with an area very close to where I grew up. Wisconsin has over the past several elections proven to be the mother of all swing states. Although it has voted Democratic from 1988 through 2004, the margins have always been quite slim. There are certain parts of the state where Democrats always do well (Milwaukee, Madison, and Mississippi River counties) and parts that are Republican strongholds (Milwaukee suburbs, Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties). At left is the 2004 presidential race results, with Democratic counties in red, Republican in blue.

There is one part that is becoming increasingly important, in my mind, for either party’s candidate. Essentially, the 30 miles that connect Appleton and Green Bay has become extremely competitive, based on recent contests and trends. Colloquially known as the “Fox Cities,” this region has historically been Republican territory although over the past few cycles it has been trending Democratic. I just did a large number crunch of the region so let me throw some data out to illustrate what I mean.

In the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, Bush won both Brown (Green Bay) and Outagamie (Appleton) Counties. Brown County went 51% and 55% in ’00 and ’04 respectively while Outagamie went 55% and 53% Republican. In the most recent Governor’s race, however, things tightened up a bit. This is of note because the Republican candidate in the ’06 race was the incumbent congressman, Mark Green, who represented the district since his election in 1998. Thus, we would have expected him to do extremely well in his backyard. Despite this, he narrowly won Brown County (50%/48%) while actually losing Outagamie by two points. Furthermore, 2006 saw the election of Democrat Steve Kagen to the House seat vacated by Green. Up until ’06, the 8th district had only been held by a Democrat for one term over the previous thirty years. Kagen’s victory, although very narrow (51%/49%) in my mind signaled that something might be changing in this part of the state—especially in its two largest cities. In the city of Appleton for example, Kagen beat his opponent, former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker John Gard, by 16 points. He also had a ten point margin of victory in Green Bay proper. The moderately sized city of Kaukauna, recently visited by Barack Obama (see this previous post), gave Kagen a 28 point margin of victory. Charlie Cook currently gives the 8th district a PVI rating of D+0. Thus, while this area is historically Republican, it seems to be very much in flux.

Demographically, this area is overwhelmingly white and very Catholic. It has both a strong streak of social conservatism while also a good dose of isolationism. There is a labor presence in Green Bay and a large paper making industry in the Kaukauna area. An old version of the “Almanac of American Politics” describes the area thusly:

This is a heavily German Catholic area; it went for John Kennedy in 1960 and came fairly close to going for Jimmy Carter in 1976. It seemed to react against the military policies of the Vietnam era and against the cultural liberalism of the Carter administration.

For Obama to win Wisconsin, he doesn’t necessarily need to win this area. Other Democrats have won Wisconsin by running up huge margins in Milwaukee and Madison and doing moderately well elsewhere. However, should he win these two counties, I’d expect him to win Wisconsin with a margin significantly larger than Kerry or Gore got. For McCain, though, he must win here. This string of cities traditionally sits at the northern tip of counties, running northward from the Milwaukee suburbs (and through Fond du Lac and Winnebago Counties) that are crucial for the Republicans’ success statewide. Should McCain under perform in this changing part of what I’d call Wisconsin’s “Republican Corridor”, he won’t win the state.

Could We Ever See an "Inverse-Cohen" Dynamic???

As I was reading and writing about yesterday’s House primary in Tennesse, and the unusual racial dynamic that ran through it—Congressman Steve Cohen is the only white member of Congress representing a majority black district—I thought I’d explore whether or not a similar dynamic could happen, only in reverse. In other words, among the African American membership in Congress, how many of them represent districts with sizable white or Hispanic populations? Could challengers emerge among these groups arguing that they are a “better fit” for the constituency?

There are currently 40 African American voting members of the House (not counting D.C. and the Virgin Islands). I broke down their constituencies to look at the size of the white, black, and Hispanic population. What do we find???

Back during the 90’s when a wave “racial gerrymandering” created districts designed to elect more African Americans to Congress, it was assumed that these districts’ composition would be overwhelmingly black. In reality, the black proportion of each district is not as high as we might think. Across these 40 members, the district averages are: 49% African American; 33% white; and 13% Hispanic. No House district is more than 65% black (IL-01: Bobby Rush). Another nine are between 60% and 65% black.

Overall, we see a much more nuanced constituency composition:

24 are Majority African American
7 are Plurality African American
4 are Majority white (Andre Carson: IN-07; Emanuel Cleaver: MO-05; Keith Ellison: MN-05; Gwen Moore: WI-04)
2 are Plurality white (Barbara Lee: CA-09; David Scott: GA-13)
3 are Plurality Hispanic (Charles Rangel: NY-15; Laura Richardson: CA-37; Maxine Waters: CA-35)

Despite this relative diversity, we do not find a membership that is in much electoral jeopardy. These are all Democratic House members and have, for the most part, very safe seats. Across the 40 members, the average vote percentage in 2006 (plus 2 special elections this year—Carson and Richardson) was 83.5%. 12 members were unopposed in 2006. Overall, only 3 received less than 60% (Carson—54%; Ellison—56%; William Jefferson of Louisiana’s 2nd got 57% despite a pending indictment and Louisiana’s special runoff elections).

So, if we are to hypothesize about the feasibility of a strictly racially based opposition to these members, there are a handful of members who could be vulnerable. However, the challenge will have to be in the primary given how overwhelmingly Democratic these seats are. Given what we saw yesterday in Tennessee, though, we can be thankful that such base appeals to voters seem to be bearing very little fruit. While the advantages of incumbency are certainly at work here, voters in House races seem to be increasingly willing to vote for candidates of other races.

Cohen Wins Big in TN-09

Despite the racial and religious appeals by challenger Nikki Tinker, Congressman Steve Cohen was overwhelmingly renominated in the TN-09 Democratic primary yesterday. Cohen captured 79% to Tinker's 19%.

See coverage here and results here.

Things Getting Ugly in TN-09 Primary

Thursday brings with it an extremely interesting Democratic House primary in Tennessee's 9th district. A little history is in order to understand the dynamics at play in the contest. The 9th, which is made up solely of the city of Memphis, is 60% African American, and from 1972-2007 was represented by a member of the Ford family--most recently Harold Ford Jr. and prior to that his father, Harold Sr. When Ford the younger gave up the seat in 2006 to launch his unsuccessful Senate bid, the overwhelmingly Democratic district law a primary contest of monumental proportions. As is almost always the case in such lopsided districts, the primary winner became the de facto congressman.

The '06 primary had a roster of 14 African American candidates, plus one white candidate, State Senator Steve Cohen. As one would have predicted, the black vote was split, allowing Cohen to win with 31% of the vote (for a good rundown of the race, see here). The aftermath of the race revealed some dicey racial dynamics, both in the district, and in Washington. Cohen applied to become a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and was denied entrance. Despite his overwhelmingly liberal voting record--which went back through 24 years in the Tennessee State Senate--and a good working relationship with the black community--many in the 9th feel that Cohen is a "poor fit". He is one of only two white House members representing majority-black districts.

With the primary vote approaching, things have gotten increasingly nasty. Cohen's main opponent is Nikki Tinker, the runner up in the '06 primary. Her recent television commercial has been widely condemned by the Memphis media establishment (see coverage here, and the ad here). With primaries typically marred by low turnout, it will be interesting to see how things play out. I'll report the results and available data Friday.

**Update: A new Tinker ad on the air, with coverage here.

**Update: Track coverage of the race with the Memphis Commerical Appeal

A Few Quick Hits From Today's News

A couple of stories caught my eye today that might be of interest:

First, the Washington Post has a long piece on the difficulties of increasing black turnout, especially in the south. The story nicely fleshes out some numbers to add to the running debate we, and others, have been having about the feasibility of Obama picking up states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Second, The Electoral Map has a short blurb on the Obama camp's efforts in North Dakota and highlights some factors that don't make this outreach so far fetched.

Lastly, today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a short piece on Obama's fundraising success in some traditionally conservative Milwaukee suburbs. In fact, he's outraised McCain in both Waukesha and Ozaukee Counties, two of the most Republican in the state, and is only slightly behind in Washington County.

Will Demographics + High Turnout Endanger Any House Republicans???

This week’s primaries in Georgia that pitted several House Democrats against upstart African American candidates got me wondering if a similar dynamic could work against any Republican incumbents this fall. Namely, are there any House Republicans with sizable enough minority populations in their districts that, with high turnout, could be in danger of defeat?

Now, it should be noted that demographics are rarely, if ever enough, to endanger or defeat an incumbent. A number of factors must usually be at work. Incumbent House members are extremely difficult to defeat. The norm for both parties over the past decade or so has been for roughly 95% of House incumbents to be re-elected, most with large margins. Among the factors required for defeating an incumbent are 1) a high quality challenger; 2) a well funded challenger; 3) a political “mood” hostile to incumbents or the incumbent’s party; and 4) scandal and/or deficient job performance by the incumbent. In other words, challengers must hope that a number of things go right, both in and out of their control, to have a chance at victory.

A second thing I would note is that those districts with the highest minority populations are not necessarily those that the Democrats have the best chance of winning. If we look at 2006, for example, the Democrats defeated several Republican incumbents in very, very white constituencies (i.e. IA-2, IN-8, IN-9, MN-1, NY-20, NH-1, NH-2). So, looking toward the Democrats’ chances this fall, I wouldn’t make a direct correlation between the likelihood of a party switch and the minority population in a given district. Nonetheless, in a year which saw higher turnout and registration among African-Americans during the primary season and with Barack Obama on the top of the ticket (likely to increase black turnout even higher during the general), we might look at the demographic profile Republican districts for potential upsets.

Using my handy "CQ’s Politics in America 2008", I’ve tabulated the minority percentage (African-American and Hispanic) for each Republican held district. I’ve also recorded the vote total the incumbent received in 2006 to use as a baseline of expectations for 2008. Because 2006 was as bad a year as 2008 is shaping up to be for Republican congressional candidates, we would expect these Republicans’ support to be in the same neighborhood as two years ago. Using this data, we can crunch the numbers in a variety of ways in seeking to identify potentially vulnerable Republicans. So, what do we see???

Looking first at African American constituencies, we find that the Republican incumbent with the largest black constituency is Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana's 5th with a district that is 34% black. In total, 5 members have districts that are roughly 1/3 black (Alexander, McCrery—LA-4, Forbes—VA-4, Pickering—MS-3, Rogers—AL-3). Of these, all are running for re-election this year with the exception of Pickering. In the next tier, 14 members have constituencies that are between 20% and 30% African American.

For these members with sizable black constituencies, is there any correlation with how easily they won in 2006? Here, there seems to be some evidence of what I’d call the “Schaller Effect,” for lack of a better term. As I’ve written about several times in the last month, Thomas Schaller argues that in those states with sizable African American electorates, namely those in the deep South, Republicans have actually increased their support over time because white voters have been drawn to the GOP in reaction to the Democratic support given by black voters and the perception that the Democrats are the “party of minorities.” Thus, states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina are among the most consistently Republican despite having the biggest black populations in the country. So, of the 19 House Republicans with at least 20% of their district being African American, only 3 received less than 55% of the vote in 2006. These were Steve Chabot of Ohio (District 27% black; 52% of the vote), Robin Hayes of North Carolina (District 27% black; 50% of the vote) and Thelma Drake of Virginia (District 21% black; 51% of the vote).

Overall, if we look at those Republicans that have sizable black constituencies, they are almost all southern. This shouldn’t surprise us given the distribution of the black population across the country. Of those 19 members with the “blackest” districts, only 2 are from outside the south (Steve Chabot and Pat Tiberi of Ohio). This discussion of the geographic spread of the black electorate—not to get too far off course—brings into play the whole debate about gerrymandering. In northern states, where black voters are much more concentrated in urban areas, we’ve seen the creation over the past few decades of “majority minority” districts in which overwhelmingly black seats are surrounded by overwhelmingly white seats, all thanks to the high degree of segregation in northern metropolitan areas (for a definitive study on segregation in America, see here). In the south, where the African American population is much more dispersed, and more heavily rural, one sees more “integrated” districts. Thus, a state like Alabama has 3 Republican incumbents (Rogers, Everett, and Bonner) that have large black constituencies (32%, 29%, 28% respectively). I'd note that in Alabama's 2nd, Terry Everett is retiring this year and Democrats are targeting the district as a potential pick up.

Turning to heavily Hispanic districts, 24 House Republicans have districts that are over 20% Hispanic. One caveat here is the Florida Republican membership with a large Cuban (and traditionally Republican) base. The districts of the Diaz Balart brothers (FL-21 and 25) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18) are over 60% Hispanic but have been strongly Republican (although they are, interestingly, competitive this year). Below them, these mostly Hispanic districts are all in either California, Texas, or New Mexico with the exception of Rep. Doc Hasting’s central Washington district that is 26% Hispanic. In these heavily Hispanic districts, we see that Republican performance in 2006 was better than it was in the more heavily African American districts. Of these top 24 seats, only 1 incumbent received less than 55%. This was Rep. Heather Wilson (NM-1), who is this year running for the open Senate seat in the state. Not surprisingly, Democrats are heavily targeting this seat in hopes of a pick-up.

Next, I combined the African-American and Hispanic numbers for an overall “minority population” for each Republican district. Are their districts that contain large numbers of both minority groups? For the most part, the answer is no. The black and Hispanic population is largely segregated by the redistricting process. Of the 199 Republican held House seats, only 11 are more than 10% black and 10% Hispanic. Of these, 7 are in the state of Texas. What’s so special about Texas?? While it is certainly a very diverse state, it is also the home of the infamous re-districting scheme of 2003 in which Texas Republicans redrew House districts out of cycle in attempt to maximize party gains. As I was entering these districts into the data set, the sophistication of the project really jumped out at me. What the state legislature was able to do, it seems, was find the perfect ratio of white to minority voters to ensure Republican victories—across a large number of districts. The Texas Republican in this group with the slimmest re-election victory in ’06, John Carter (TX-31) still managed to get 58% of the vote. All of the others surpassed 60%.

Of the four remaining Republicans with 10% of their constituencies being black and Hispanic, only Chris Shays (CT-4) had a close race in ’06, garnering 51%. As the northeast continues to trend Democratic, the always in jeopardy Shays will have to watch out for the possibility that increased black turnout this year will finally provide the tipping point for his district. The other three members in this category had greater success in ’06. Rep. Mario Diaz Balart (FL-25) received 59% (10% black, 62% Hispanic, largely Cuban), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2) received 62% (14% black, 10% Hispanic), and Rep. Adam Putnam (FL-12) received 69% (12% black, 13% Hispanic).

Finally, I decided to use re-election margins as my starting point—i.e. of those members who had close races last time, do any of them have large minority populations? For all the Republican members, there are 8 who have at least 20% minority composition in their district and received less than 55% of the vote in ’06. Several of these members have already appeared in this analysis, but a few are new. These members are John Porter (NV-3) who received 49% (5% black, 16% Hispanic), Heather Wilson (NM-1) who received 50% (2% black, 43% Hispanic), Robin Hayes (NC-8) who received 50% (27% black, 7% Hispanic), Thelma Drake (VA-2) who received 51% (21% black, 4% Hispanic), Chris Shays (CT-4) who received 51% (11% black, 13% Hispanic), Steve Chabot (OH-1) who received 52% (27% black, 1% Hispanic), Ric Keller (FL-8) who received 53% (7% black, 18% Hispanic), and finally Brian Bilbray (CA-50) who also received 53% (2% black, 19% Hispanic).

So, when we look at the numbers closely, what seems to emerge are some, but not many, opportunities for Democrats to make gains by relying solely on the demographic characteristics of Republican constituencies. Also, Republican districts that have large minority populations tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the county. For African Americans, these districts are overwhelmingly in the deep South, an area where the Republican party has been in ascendance for the past generation. While recent Democratic successes in Mississippi and Louisiana—districts that were 26% and 33% African American respectively—are certainly positive signs, I wouldn’t expect realignment scale change in the region. The strength of these incumbents should allow them to hold their seats, even if black turnout spikes this year. Those districts with large Hispanic populations also tend to be geographically concentrated. Here, we see incumbents also relatively insulated from Democratic challenges by having large numbers of reliably Republican whites concentrated in their constituencies. This is especially true in Texas.

What I haven’t done in this analysis, and what I’ll start turning to next, is look at how these races are shaping up this year in terms of the Democratic candidates being run in these districts. As I mentioned at the outset, one can’t expect demographics to be enough to turn a district, even with higher than normal turnout. You still need quality, skilled, and well funded challengers. Nonetheless, in a year in which demography has been one of the strongest predictors of voting—especially for the Democrats in their presidential primary—its useful to look at some of these characteristics to gauge the likelihood of certain outcomes in November.

Georgia Primary Results

The results from yesterday's House primaries in Georgia confirmed what I had speculated yesterday, namely the advantage the incumbents would have in fending off their pesky challengers. Reps. Lewis (5th district), Barrow (12th), and Scott (13th) were all easily renominated with 69%, 76%, and 64% respectively. See results here.

The Obama Primaries Continue.... Down Ballot

If you thought the primary season was over, guess again. There are a number of interesting congressional primaries in the offing and, as a number of recent stories suggest (see here and here), a fascinating subtext in them is how these candidates' support for Obama (and when that support came) will affect their chances. The most compelling of these races pit established African American House members (who initially supported Hillary Clinton) against younger, upstart, black politicians who were early Obama boosters. In many ways this is a generational battle between those who fought on the front lines of the civil rights movement and those who have grown up as the beneficiaries of the movement. As this earlier generation of black politicians entered the political arena, accommodating themselves to the party establishment was a crucial step in developing a base of power. Coming from safe districts they were able to climb the seniority ladder in Congress to the point that now, many of the most influential House Democrats are members of the Congressional Black Caucus (see James Clyburn, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, and Bennie Thompson for examples) These members were long time and devoted supporters of Bill Clinton going back to the '90's and, when Hillary Clinton seemed the all but assured nominee in late '07, many transferred their support from Bill to her. When the Obama candidacy took off, however, many of members found themselves scrambling to jump on board. Having not had to run in a close campaign in many cycles, they are now trying to ramp up long dormant organizations. So, not only do these campaigns provide us with a fascinating generational drama in which one's degree of Obamamania is the yardstick by which a candidate is measured, but they offer a constant reminder of how important it is for members of Congress to be attuned to the ebbs and flows of constituent opinion. With higher than normal turnout and an energinzed electorate, these entrenched members are facing an unfamiliar level of unpredictability and volatility.

In Georgia today the iconic John Lewis finds himself running to retain his seat against two younger candidates. Both have used Lewis' early bolstering of Clinton against him in a district that gave Obama a three to one margin of victory. Lewis switched his support to Obama in the aftermath of the Georgia primary but still drew heavy fire from many of his constituents.

In several of these races, it appears as if the incumbents will slip through, mainly due to the fact that they are facing not one but several primary opponents. Not only is it extremely difficult to beat incumbents in primary battles, but it is almost impossible to do so when the anti-incumbent vote is being split among numerous challengers.

In an even more interesting twist, Georgia Congressman John Barrow (who is white and was an early Obama supporter) is being challenged for re-nomination by an African American state senator, in the 12th district. With African Americans making up 45% of the electorate in the district which includes Savannah and Augusta, Barrow has received the help and endorsement of Obama in trying to hold on to his seat. Already a swing district, this race could be the most interesting of today's slate to watch.

Could Small Immigrant Groups Make a Difference in 2008???

Yesterday's Washington Post had this story on the African diaspora (especially Somali and Ethiopian) in the DC area and its activism in the current presidential race. As one would expect, this group is extremely enthusiastic about the Obama candidacy. The question of interest is whether their numbers are large enough to make a difference in any state.

To get a sense of the size of various immigrant groups in the U.S., this study by the Center for Immigration Studies is a good resource. In glancing at some statistics, we note that immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa make up only about 3% of the total U.S. immigrant population--they are dwarfed by immigrants from Latin America. Hence the obvious focus on the Latino vote. However, the Post story notes the possibility of there being 10,000 Ethiopian voters in Virginia that Obama could pick up. While that doesn't seem like much, consider the margin that Democratic Senator Jim Webb won by in his defeat of George Allen in 2006--9,000 votes.