Politics is a rough business. Just ask Bill Richardson. In the first extended interview of Richardson since he withdrew as Obama's Commerce Secretary nominee, the Washington Post paints a somewhat sad picture of the governor.
Maybe it is dreary to me alone, but I find Richardson's past few months kind of amazing. Sure, he never had a legitimate chance at the White House, but as late as last year, he was the political king of New Mexico, and a strong contender to be a United States Senator or Secretary of State. Instead, Richardson passed on a Senate run (in my opinion, because he thought it would be small potatoes to someone who had already been in Congress and the cabinet; which is too bad, since he would have won in a walk), and Obama passed Richardson over for the SOS slot for Hillary Clinton, despite Richardson's primary endorsement of Obama. (While Richardson was not happy about the decision, deep down he had to appreciate Obama's political calculus in selecting his former bitter foe over a helpful ally, proving once again that in politics, expediency almost always trumps loyalty.)
Anyway, after reading this piece, I thought of that great line in "The Dark Knight", where Harvey Dent (or maybe it was Bruce Wayne, or both), says "you either die a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain." I hate to equate real-life matters to movies, and I am not saying Richardson is a hero, but clearly he is a man who may have stayed on the big stage just a bit too long, and as a result he finds himself as yesterday's news.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
The New PVI Ratings (and what they mean), Part II
For congressional Republicans, the proof is in the numbers and the numbers are not good. The Republicans have done an absolutely pitiful job in recruiting moderates and preserving districts that are even to swing in their leanings. Sure, Democrats benefited enormously from two consecutive national "change" elections where voters moved to throw the perceived "bums" (the Republicans) out of power and move to punish the party of the hugely unpopular George W. Bush.
But a big part of the results were that Democrats seized their opportunities through superb fundraising, and even more importantly, outstanding recruitment of candidates who were ultimately able to win moderately red districts and very, very red districts. At the same time, Republicans were almost impotent in their quest to recruit. Make no mistake, however, this was not some new phenomenon borne of our of 43rd President. As our last post shows, Democrats have had a built-in advantage in branching out to districts for some time.
To wit: consider Gene Taylor (elected 1989), Jim Matheson (2000), Ike Skelton (1976), Rick Boucher (1982), and Chet Edwards (1990). Each of them was elected several terms ago, and all of them have become well entrenched in their insanely Republican homelands.
And the Republicans? Mike Castle was elected in 1992, Frank LoBiando in 1994, Pat Tiberi and Mark Kirk in 2000, Jim Gerlach in 2002, Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert in 2004, and Cao in 2008. For those eight Members, that comes out to an average of 7.5 years, or just under four terms a pop.
In order to not draw on a limited sample for the Dems, let's look at the elected years of all of the Democrats (note that I will clump in special election winners from odd years in the next election cycle; so, for example, Gene Taylor, who first won his seat in 1989, will be listed in the 1990 cycle) to make a fuller comparison:
2008 (21): Halvorson, Foster, Adler, Grayson, Schauer, Kissel, Dahlkemper, Kosmas, McMahon, Boccieri, Massa, Nye, Periello, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Teague, Griffith, Kratovil, Childers, Bright, Minnick.
2006 (15): McNerney, Walz, Donnelly, Gillibrand*, Arcuri, Wilson, Kagan, Hall, Giffords, Mitchell, Shuler, Altmire, Space, Ellsworth, Carney
2004 (5): Bean, Herseth-Sandlin, Chandler, Melancon, Boren
2002 (2): Marshall, Lincoln Davis
2000 (2): Matheson, Ross
1998 (3): Moore, Rodriguez, Hill
1996 (5): Berry, Snyder, Ethridge, McIntyre, Boyd
1992 (3): Stupak, Holden, Pomeroy
1990 (3): Taylor, Edwards, Peterson
1988 (1): Tanner
1984 (1): Gordon
1982 (4): Boucher, Ortiz, Mollohan, Sprat
1976 (2): Skelton, Rahall
1974 (1): Murtha
All together, the average tenure of service for these 69 Democratic Members of Congress comes to approximately 7.6 years, or just about four terms. This comes out to be the same as the GOP average, where the universe is clearly far smaller. Excluding the 21 freshman (plus Childers and Foster), the number ticks up to 10.98 years, or five and a half terms. In case you can't tell, these are pretty big numbers. And at least to me, they demonstrate impressive staying power for Dems in many districts they really have no place winning and then keeping.
The reason I spell out these averages here is because I want to refute the notion that Democratic control of these districts is not indicative of anything salient, and that once another electoral tide appears, this one against the Blue Team, then many of these Members will be washed out. Not so.
Note that 15 of the Members above came to office before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In other words, they withstood the enormous anti-Democratic tide of that year -- many of them easily -- and they have hung on ever since. To me, this is critically important because it shows that Democratic success in congressional elections has not hinged on the 2006 and 2008 elections alone. The seeds of triumph were planted in the ground and grown up before then, in numerous examples years before.
What this all means is practical terms is that Dems have a tremendous blueprint in place for winning and holding seats across the country, while the Republicans have a terrible existing model. The Republican Party will be unable to win back Congress and then hold it again if it cannot find a way to either (1) dislodge a lot of the above Dems, either through direct challenge or via retirements; (2) begin to promulgate their own candidates who can win in deep blue territory; or (3) both.
So what's their best option before them? Let's consider the route of taking these seats back for Team Red. There is certainly low-hanging fruit here. Minnick and Bright are in overwhelmingly GOP districts, and they won their seats by less than 2% apiece. Other freshman had problems winning last year, and can be beaten with some luck and gumption by the Republicans.
But problems abound, most notably that a great many of these Democrats, particularly the entrenched ones, are not that old and are thus unlikely to retire soon. For example, Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards are both under 60 years old, Ben Chandler is 49, and Jim Matheson is only 48! None of them will ever lose, barring some very unforeseen development, and this should drive Republicans nuts because they should own these seats like the Giants own the Cowboys in big games.
There are exceptions, of course. Minnick and Bright, for one, Skelton's seat once he retires (assuming he doesn't leave in 2012 and his seat is dissolved when Missouri loses a seat in the next census), Grayson (who I think has one term written all over him), and Kratovil, who will face enormous obstacles to hang on next year. The fact still remains that making significant inroads in Dem-occupied red lands could take the Elephants many years. Still, their best bet is that group of 36 name that gained elected over the last two cycles. The GOP needs to try to pick off some of those to ensure they don't become entrenched and end up as a group of new Taylors and Tanners. Unfortunately, since several of the '06 crop won second terms with such ease, it may be too late for many fronts.
In my mind, this leaves proper recruitment as both the best shortterm and longterm panacea for the Republicans. I know, I know: this is some revelation! Yet, for a party that has so clearly done a piss-poor job of branching out politically into districts as well as the Donkeys, it might not be as clear to the GOP House brass as it is to keen political observers like T2L's readers.
One of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in the last several years, besides losing the House, the Senate, and the White House, is that the party has become painfully marginalized, mostly because its moderate elements have been defeated, retired, excommunicated, or have shriveled up and died politically.
These names are many: Jim Saxton (a pro-environment Republican who was denied the Resources chairmanship by his party several years back), Nancy Johnson (ousted in 2006), Clay Shaw (also knocked out in '06), Wayne Gilchrest (moderate beaten in a primary in 2008), Joe Schwarz (another moderate knocked out in a primary in 2006), Sherwood Boehlert (retired in 2006), Marge Roukema (denied the Financial Services gavel in 2002, retired, and replaced by an ultra-conservative), Jim Kolbe (retired in 2006 and replaced with a popular Democrat), and finally the smartest GOPer and moderate in the House, Tom Davis, who retired after the Virginia GOP effectively blocked him from running for Senate for not being conservative enough; ironically, his replacement was trounced by a Democrat.
The loss of these moderates has crippled the GOP, not just because many of their seats became votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but because the absence of their voices hurts the ability of the party caucus as a whole to be fully pragmatic and productive. As of now, the House Republican caucus likely resembles an echo chamber, where all the Members from Texas, Utah, Georgia and the like all repeat and endorse the same failed strategies and extremists perspectives. These Members needed those voices, a fact many of them likely cannot (or willfully will not) fathom. Until they do, the House GOP caucus's mission to get back to majority status will not happen. Period.
Tomorrow I want to highlight a fresh story from today which highlights the dangers of conservative marginalization, and its plain absurdities in a political environment that remains caustic to Republicans.
But a big part of the results were that Democrats seized their opportunities through superb fundraising, and even more importantly, outstanding recruitment of candidates who were ultimately able to win moderately red districts and very, very red districts. At the same time, Republicans were almost impotent in their quest to recruit. Make no mistake, however, this was not some new phenomenon borne of our of 43rd President. As our last post shows, Democrats have had a built-in advantage in branching out to districts for some time.
To wit: consider Gene Taylor (elected 1989), Jim Matheson (2000), Ike Skelton (1976), Rick Boucher (1982), and Chet Edwards (1990). Each of them was elected several terms ago, and all of them have become well entrenched in their insanely Republican homelands.
And the Republicans? Mike Castle was elected in 1992, Frank LoBiando in 1994, Pat Tiberi and Mark Kirk in 2000, Jim Gerlach in 2002, Charlie Dent and Dave Reichert in 2004, and Cao in 2008. For those eight Members, that comes out to an average of 7.5 years, or just under four terms a pop.
In order to not draw on a limited sample for the Dems, let's look at the elected years of all of the Democrats (note that I will clump in special election winners from odd years in the next election cycle; so, for example, Gene Taylor, who first won his seat in 1989, will be listed in the 1990 cycle) to make a fuller comparison:
2008 (21): Halvorson, Foster, Adler, Grayson, Schauer, Kissel, Dahlkemper, Kosmas, McMahon, Boccieri, Massa, Nye, Periello, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Teague, Griffith, Kratovil, Childers, Bright, Minnick.
2006 (15): McNerney, Walz, Donnelly, Gillibrand*, Arcuri, Wilson, Kagan, Hall, Giffords, Mitchell, Shuler, Altmire, Space, Ellsworth, Carney
2004 (5): Bean, Herseth-Sandlin, Chandler, Melancon, Boren
2002 (2): Marshall, Lincoln Davis
2000 (2): Matheson, Ross
1998 (3): Moore, Rodriguez, Hill
1996 (5): Berry, Snyder, Ethridge, McIntyre, Boyd
1992 (3): Stupak, Holden, Pomeroy
1990 (3): Taylor, Edwards, Peterson
1988 (1): Tanner
1984 (1): Gordon
1982 (4): Boucher, Ortiz, Mollohan, Sprat
1976 (2): Skelton, Rahall
1974 (1): Murtha
All together, the average tenure of service for these 69 Democratic Members of Congress comes to approximately 7.6 years, or just about four terms. This comes out to be the same as the GOP average, where the universe is clearly far smaller. Excluding the 21 freshman (plus Childers and Foster), the number ticks up to 10.98 years, or five and a half terms. In case you can't tell, these are pretty big numbers. And at least to me, they demonstrate impressive staying power for Dems in many districts they really have no place winning and then keeping.
The reason I spell out these averages here is because I want to refute the notion that Democratic control of these districts is not indicative of anything salient, and that once another electoral tide appears, this one against the Blue Team, then many of these Members will be washed out. Not so.
Note that 15 of the Members above came to office before the Republican Revolution of 1994. In other words, they withstood the enormous anti-Democratic tide of that year -- many of them easily -- and they have hung on ever since. To me, this is critically important because it shows that Democratic success in congressional elections has not hinged on the 2006 and 2008 elections alone. The seeds of triumph were planted in the ground and grown up before then, in numerous examples years before.
What this all means is practical terms is that Dems have a tremendous blueprint in place for winning and holding seats across the country, while the Republicans have a terrible existing model. The Republican Party will be unable to win back Congress and then hold it again if it cannot find a way to either (1) dislodge a lot of the above Dems, either through direct challenge or via retirements; (2) begin to promulgate their own candidates who can win in deep blue territory; or (3) both.
So what's their best option before them? Let's consider the route of taking these seats back for Team Red. There is certainly low-hanging fruit here. Minnick and Bright are in overwhelmingly GOP districts, and they won their seats by less than 2% apiece. Other freshman had problems winning last year, and can be beaten with some luck and gumption by the Republicans.
But problems abound, most notably that a great many of these Democrats, particularly the entrenched ones, are not that old and are thus unlikely to retire soon. For example, Gene Taylor and Chet Edwards are both under 60 years old, Ben Chandler is 49, and Jim Matheson is only 48! None of them will ever lose, barring some very unforeseen development, and this should drive Republicans nuts because they should own these seats like the Giants own the Cowboys in big games.
There are exceptions, of course. Minnick and Bright, for one, Skelton's seat once he retires (assuming he doesn't leave in 2012 and his seat is dissolved when Missouri loses a seat in the next census), Grayson (who I think has one term written all over him), and Kratovil, who will face enormous obstacles to hang on next year. The fact still remains that making significant inroads in Dem-occupied red lands could take the Elephants many years. Still, their best bet is that group of 36 name that gained elected over the last two cycles. The GOP needs to try to pick off some of those to ensure they don't become entrenched and end up as a group of new Taylors and Tanners. Unfortunately, since several of the '06 crop won second terms with such ease, it may be too late for many fronts.
In my mind, this leaves proper recruitment as both the best shortterm and longterm panacea for the Republicans. I know, I know: this is some revelation! Yet, for a party that has so clearly done a piss-poor job of branching out politically into districts as well as the Donkeys, it might not be as clear to the GOP House brass as it is to keen political observers like T2L's readers.
One of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in the last several years, besides losing the House, the Senate, and the White House, is that the party has become painfully marginalized, mostly because its moderate elements have been defeated, retired, excommunicated, or have shriveled up and died politically.
These names are many: Jim Saxton (a pro-environment Republican who was denied the Resources chairmanship by his party several years back), Nancy Johnson (ousted in 2006), Clay Shaw (also knocked out in '06), Wayne Gilchrest (moderate beaten in a primary in 2008), Joe Schwarz (another moderate knocked out in a primary in 2006), Sherwood Boehlert (retired in 2006), Marge Roukema (denied the Financial Services gavel in 2002, retired, and replaced by an ultra-conservative), Jim Kolbe (retired in 2006 and replaced with a popular Democrat), and finally the smartest GOPer and moderate in the House, Tom Davis, who retired after the Virginia GOP effectively blocked him from running for Senate for not being conservative enough; ironically, his replacement was trounced by a Democrat.
The loss of these moderates has crippled the GOP, not just because many of their seats became votes for Pelosi for Speaker, but because the absence of their voices hurts the ability of the party caucus as a whole to be fully pragmatic and productive. As of now, the House Republican caucus likely resembles an echo chamber, where all the Members from Texas, Utah, Georgia and the like all repeat and endorse the same failed strategies and extremists perspectives. These Members needed those voices, a fact many of them likely cannot (or willfully will not) fathom. Until they do, the House GOP caucus's mission to get back to majority status will not happen. Period.
Tomorrow I want to highlight a fresh story from today which highlights the dangers of conservative marginalization, and its plain absurdities in a political environment that remains caustic to Republicans.
New PVI Ratings (and what they mean)
In the last few days, the venerable Charlie Cook has released the latest Partisan Voting Index (PVI) numbers for all 435 congressional districts in the House of Representatives. As regular readers of T2L know, we rely heavily on Cook's famous numbers to provide a great gauge of a specific district's partisan lean, as well as great fodder for endless discussion of politics.
For those of you unfamiliar with the system, or curious about how a PVI is tabulated, here is what Cook says:
A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.
To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5.
Like any other measure, the PVI is not perfect. Assuredly, there are a myriad of other ways to evaluate political lean or partisanship in a state or particular legislative district. However, given its rich history and strong reputation, I think Cook's system is the best we have in creating a thorough evaluation tool for congressional districts.
Last year, we looked at the PVI numbers of the 110th Congress in a variety of ways. Indeed, there are so many fascinating ways to dissect and examine PVI data, that one could spend ages doing it. Here, we spent a good deal of time looking at crossover Members; in other words, Republicans representing districts that have Democratic-leaning PVIs, and Democrats who represent districts that lean towards the Republicans in national elections. After drawing them all out, the numbers were pretty stark, and they are worth pasting below for review:
110th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (14)
D+0 -- Tom Latham (IA-04)
D+1 -- Bill Young (FL-10), Vito Fossella (NY-13)
D+2 -- Heather Wilson (NM-01), Peter King (NY-03), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+3 -- Jim Saxton (NJ-03), James Walsh (NY-25)
D+4 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10), Frank LoBiando (NJ-02)
D+5 -- Chris Shays (CT-4)
D+6 --
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+8, 9, 10... None
At the time I made this post (August), here is what I wrote about the Republicans' congressional situation:
These numbers are absolutely pathetic and should be troubling to any Republican. Of these 14, two seats -- Fossella's and Walshs's -- are almost assured of flipping in November, as both men are retiring (Fossella under bad circumstances), and the Democrats have strong nominees in each facing weak GOP opponents. Saxton is retiring, and the Democrats have recruited an excellent nominee (thought the race is a toss-up as the district has unique geographic which could favor the weak GOP nominee). And with Wilson leaving Congress after running for the Senate (and losing her primary), and Kirk, Reichert, and Shays all facing very tough races this year, all of their seats could potentially flip. At an absolute worst case scenario, half of these seats could be gone this time next year. More likely, I see four or perhaps five of them flipping -- still a good results for Dems and a bad one for GOPers. This would leave nine of ten GOP Representatives sitting in Democratic seats out of close to 200 Members in the caucus.
(As it turned out, Republicans ended up losing several of the seats which belonged to the retiring Members, as well as numerous other ones which did not appear quite as endangered in three months before the election.)
Democrats representing GOP districts (51)
R+0 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Carol Shea Porter (NH-01)
R+1 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Hall (NY-19), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
R+2 -- Allen Boyd (FL-02), Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Bart Stupak (MI-01)
R+3 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
R+4 -- Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Gordon (TN-06), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Steve Kagan (WI-04)
R+5 -- Melissa Bean (IL-08), Bill Foster (IL-14), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+6 -- Bud Cramer (AL-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (NC-05), Alan Mollohan (WV-02)
R+7 -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Tim Holden (PA-17), Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+8 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Brad Ellsworth (IN-09)
R+10 -- Travis Childers (MS-01), Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL)
R+11 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04)
R+12 --
R+13 -- Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+14 --
R+15 -- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
R+16 -- Gene Taylor (MS-04)
R+17 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+18 -- Chet Edwards (TX-17)
And here is what I said about the Democratic breakdown back in August (forgive the extended remarks):
The total here is a whooping 51 Members in GOP-leaning districts, with an impressive eight of them in seats which are R+10 or more. Try to conceptualize this for a moment. R+10 means that the district averages 10 percentage points higher to the GOP side in presidential elections. Think about that a minute. These are seats that go to the Republican presidential nominee by huge margins. And not all of them have been around forever: Childers was elected this May, Lampson in 2006 (after serving in the House prior to Tom DeLay's redistricting plot redistricted him out of his seat), Herseth-Sandlin in 2004, and Matheson in 2000.
Right off the bat, I acknowledge that several of these individuals won their seats under unique circumstances involving corrupt or otherwise seriously flawed GOP incumbents. This list includes Gillibrand, Space, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson. Furthermore, many of these Members -- 18, to be exact -- won in the tidal wave of '06, and therefore, some of them will probably have close races this fall. There is no question that specifically, Shea Porter, Boyda, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson are going to have a tough time winning.
But this should not take away from this list broadly illustrates. It speaks volumes to the Democrats' outreach that they have just over 50 Members of their caucus in districts that are Republican, with over half in R+5 or greater districts. This is nothing short of amazing, even if it is partially the product of a rare wave election. Indeed, most of these men and women, even several in the infancy of their career, have already carved out electoral niches for themselves, and face minimal opposition this November. Others like Skelton, Pomeroy, and Edwards are basically unbeatable in enormously Republican districts. Sure, just about all of these seats will be gone when some of these men decide to hang it up, but the fact that they have held on this long says a lot about the political diversity of House Democratic Caucus and the national Democratic Party in general. Further, there are also plenty of Republicans whose districts will promptly turn the year they decide to "spend more time with their families."
Taken together, the 14 vs. 51 number says a great deal about the present state and future direction of the parties. Going further, whereas only two GOP reps have D+5 or greater districts, 28 Democrats are in R+5 or more districts. And I have no even gone into this year's map, where a plethora of Democrats appear even or slightly ahead in red districts.
Needless to say, my view then was that the Republicans were in grave danger of becoming an entirely right wing and regionalized political party while the Democrats had much greater extended success in electing and subsequently re-electing and entrenching their Members in Republican areas, as the rosters showed.
There are a plethora of ways to look deeper at the numbers. One is to look at the extremes: whereas there are just three Republicans today representing districts of D+5 or greater -- pretty darn blue places -- there are 43 Democrats in districts with a PVI of R+5 or more. That is a ratio of more than 14-to-1. And of those 43 Democrats, 26 of them have been in Congress for more than two terms so far.
In light of the new PVI numbers which I am about to go over, my view has not changed at all. If anything, I feel even more strongly in my arguments of seven months ago, as Republicans have lost nearly all of their moderates in the House, and Democrats have further bolstered their ranks with conservatives from bright red districts across the country.
How could this be possible given the wide dispartity that was already in place in the 110th Congress? Well, let's take a look:
111th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (8)
D+1 -- Frank LoBiando (NJ-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12)
D+2 -- Charlie Dent (PA-15)
D+3 -- Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+4 -- Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
D+5 --
D+6 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10)
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+25 -- Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Democrats representing GOP districts (69)
R+1 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Deborah Halvorson (IL-11), Bill Foster (IL-14), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Adler (NJ-03), John Murtha (PA-12)
R+2 -- Alan Grayson (FL-08), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Mark Schauer (MI-07), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Larry Kissel (NC-08), Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)*, Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Steve Kagan (WI-08)
R+3 -- Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Stupak (MI-01), John Hall (NY-19), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)
R+4 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), John Boccieri (OH-16), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
R+5 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Eric Massa (NY-29), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Tom Periello (VA-05)
R+6 -- Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Baron Hill (IN-09), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Harry Teague (NM-02), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Tim Holden (PA-17), John Tanner (TN-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03)
R+7 -- Mike Ross (AR-04), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-05)
R+8 -- Marion Berry (AR-01), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Ben Chandler (KY-06), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
R+10 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+11 -- Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+12 -- Parker Griffith (AL-05), Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
R+13 -- Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Bart Gordon (TN-06)
R+14 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04), Travis Childers (MS-01), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+15 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+16 -- Bobby Bright (AL-02)
R+17 --
R+18 -- Walt Minnick (ID-01)
R+19 --
R+20 -- Gene Taylor (MS-01), Chet Edwards (TX-17)
The two numbers to focus on here are eight and 69. As in, there are just eight Republicans sitting in PVI blue seats, and a whooping 69 Democrats in red seats. That nearly a 9-to-1 ratio. (Note that for the 111th, Cook has gotten rid of R+0 and D+0 districts, finding that any time a district can be rounded down to zero, it is now rated as "EVEN").
Despite four Dems in the 110th losing their seats last November -- Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), and Nick Lampson (TX-22) -- all the others held on, and Democrats went from 51 to 69 (though, to be precise, some Members' districts went from red to blue in their PVI number). That is not an insignificant gain by any stretch of the imagination.
In total, I count 21 freshman Democrats on this list (including Travis Childers and Bill Foster who were elected in spring 2008 special contests). Additionally, there are 15 Democrats on the list who won their second term in 2008.
Conversely, only one of the eight Republicans listed was elected in the last four years, Joseph Cao, and he is a fluke congressman who I would bet my Xemex watch and Oakley sunglasses will be tossed out next year like garbage strewn about after Mardi Gras. In other words, the Republicans are not electing any new blood to moderate districts and they are stuck with a small pack of Members which seems to dwindle a bit every two years. Indeed, from the 110th, the seats formerly held by Heather Wilson, Jim Saxton, Vito Fossella, James Walsh, and Chris Shays are now in the hands of the Democrats, with only Kirk, Gerlach, and Reichert surviving rough challenges.
In the next post, I will consider the implications of these numbers.
For those of you unfamiliar with the system, or curious about how a PVI is tabulated, here is what Cook says:
A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.
To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5.
Like any other measure, the PVI is not perfect. Assuredly, there are a myriad of other ways to evaluate political lean or partisanship in a state or particular legislative district. However, given its rich history and strong reputation, I think Cook's system is the best we have in creating a thorough evaluation tool for congressional districts.
Last year, we looked at the PVI numbers of the 110th Congress in a variety of ways. Indeed, there are so many fascinating ways to dissect and examine PVI data, that one could spend ages doing it. Here, we spent a good deal of time looking at crossover Members; in other words, Republicans representing districts that have Democratic-leaning PVIs, and Democrats who represent districts that lean towards the Republicans in national elections. After drawing them all out, the numbers were pretty stark, and they are worth pasting below for review:
110th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (14)
D+0 -- Tom Latham (IA-04)
D+1 -- Bill Young (FL-10), Vito Fossella (NY-13)
D+2 -- Heather Wilson (NM-01), Peter King (NY-03), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+3 -- Jim Saxton (NJ-03), James Walsh (NY-25)
D+4 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10), Frank LoBiando (NJ-02)
D+5 -- Chris Shays (CT-4)
D+6 --
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+8, 9, 10... None
At the time I made this post (August), here is what I wrote about the Republicans' congressional situation:
These numbers are absolutely pathetic and should be troubling to any Republican. Of these 14, two seats -- Fossella's and Walshs's -- are almost assured of flipping in November, as both men are retiring (Fossella under bad circumstances), and the Democrats have strong nominees in each facing weak GOP opponents. Saxton is retiring, and the Democrats have recruited an excellent nominee (thought the race is a toss-up as the district has unique geographic which could favor the weak GOP nominee). And with Wilson leaving Congress after running for the Senate (and losing her primary), and Kirk, Reichert, and Shays all facing very tough races this year, all of their seats could potentially flip. At an absolute worst case scenario, half of these seats could be gone this time next year. More likely, I see four or perhaps five of them flipping -- still a good results for Dems and a bad one for GOPers. This would leave nine of ten GOP Representatives sitting in Democratic seats out of close to 200 Members in the caucus.
(As it turned out, Republicans ended up losing several of the seats which belonged to the retiring Members, as well as numerous other ones which did not appear quite as endangered in three months before the election.)
Democrats representing GOP districts (51)
R+0 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Carol Shea Porter (NH-01)
R+1 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Hall (NY-19), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
R+2 -- Allen Boyd (FL-02), Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Bart Stupak (MI-01)
R+3 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
R+4 -- Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Gordon (TN-06), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Steve Kagan (WI-04)
R+5 -- Melissa Bean (IL-08), Bill Foster (IL-14), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+6 -- Bud Cramer (AL-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (NC-05), Alan Mollohan (WV-02)
R+7 -- Baron Hill (IN-09), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Tim Holden (PA-17), Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+8 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Brad Ellsworth (IN-09)
R+10 -- Travis Childers (MS-01), Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL)
R+11 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04)
R+12 --
R+13 -- Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+14 --
R+15 -- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
R+16 -- Gene Taylor (MS-04)
R+17 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+18 -- Chet Edwards (TX-17)
And here is what I said about the Democratic breakdown back in August (forgive the extended remarks):
The total here is a whooping 51 Members in GOP-leaning districts, with an impressive eight of them in seats which are R+10 or more. Try to conceptualize this for a moment. R+10 means that the district averages 10 percentage points higher to the GOP side in presidential elections. Think about that a minute. These are seats that go to the Republican presidential nominee by huge margins. And not all of them have been around forever: Childers was elected this May, Lampson in 2006 (after serving in the House prior to Tom DeLay's redistricting plot redistricted him out of his seat), Herseth-Sandlin in 2004, and Matheson in 2000.
Right off the bat, I acknowledge that several of these individuals won their seats under unique circumstances involving corrupt or otherwise seriously flawed GOP incumbents. This list includes Gillibrand, Space, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson. Furthermore, many of these Members -- 18, to be exact -- won in the tidal wave of '06, and therefore, some of them will probably have close races this fall. There is no question that specifically, Shea Porter, Boyda, Cazayoux, Carney, and Lampson are going to have a tough time winning.
But this should not take away from this list broadly illustrates. It speaks volumes to the Democrats' outreach that they have just over 50 Members of their caucus in districts that are Republican, with over half in R+5 or greater districts. This is nothing short of amazing, even if it is partially the product of a rare wave election. Indeed, most of these men and women, even several in the infancy of their career, have already carved out electoral niches for themselves, and face minimal opposition this November. Others like Skelton, Pomeroy, and Edwards are basically unbeatable in enormously Republican districts. Sure, just about all of these seats will be gone when some of these men decide to hang it up, but the fact that they have held on this long says a lot about the political diversity of House Democratic Caucus and the national Democratic Party in general. Further, there are also plenty of Republicans whose districts will promptly turn the year they decide to "spend more time with their families."
Taken together, the 14 vs. 51 number says a great deal about the present state and future direction of the parties. Going further, whereas only two GOP reps have D+5 or greater districts, 28 Democrats are in R+5 or more districts. And I have no even gone into this year's map, where a plethora of Democrats appear even or slightly ahead in red districts.
Needless to say, my view then was that the Republicans were in grave danger of becoming an entirely right wing and regionalized political party while the Democrats had much greater extended success in electing and subsequently re-electing and entrenching their Members in Republican areas, as the rosters showed.
There are a plethora of ways to look deeper at the numbers. One is to look at the extremes: whereas there are just three Republicans today representing districts of D+5 or greater -- pretty darn blue places -- there are 43 Democrats in districts with a PVI of R+5 or more. That is a ratio of more than 14-to-1. And of those 43 Democrats, 26 of them have been in Congress for more than two terms so far.
In light of the new PVI numbers which I am about to go over, my view has not changed at all. If anything, I feel even more strongly in my arguments of seven months ago, as Republicans have lost nearly all of their moderates in the House, and Democrats have further bolstered their ranks with conservatives from bright red districts across the country.
How could this be possible given the wide dispartity that was already in place in the 110th Congress? Well, let's take a look:
111th Congress
Republicans representing Dem districts (8)
D+1 -- Frank LoBiando (NJ-02), Pat Tiberi (OH-12)
D+2 -- Charlie Dent (PA-15)
D+3 -- Dave Reichert (WA-08)
D+4 -- Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
D+5 --
D+6 -- Mark Kirk (IL-10)
D+7 -- Mike Castle (DE-AL)
D+25 -- Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Democrats representing GOP districts (69)
R+1 -- Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Deborah Halvorson (IL-11), Bill Foster (IL-14), Tim Walz (MN-01), John Adler (NJ-03), John Murtha (PA-12)
R+2 -- Alan Grayson (FL-08), Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Mark Schauer (MI-07), Bob Ethridge (NC-02), Larry Kissel (NC-08), Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)*, Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Steve Kagan (WI-08)
R+3 -- Dennis Moore (KS-03), Bart Stupak (MI-01), John Hall (NY-19), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)
R+4 -- Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), John Boccieri (OH-16), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
R+5 -- Vic Snyder (AR-02), Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), John Salazar (CO-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Eric Massa (NY-29), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Tom Periello (VA-05)
R+6 -- Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Baron Hill (IN-09), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Harry Teague (NM-02), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Tim Holden (PA-17), John Tanner (TN-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03)
R+7 -- Mike Ross (AR-04), Zach Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-05)
R+8 -- Marion Berry (AR-01), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Chris Carney (PA-10)
R+9 -- Ben Chandler (KY-06), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
R+10 -- Jim Marshall (GA-08), Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
R+11 -- Rick Boucher (VA-09)
R+12 -- Parker Griffith (AL-05), Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
R+13 -- Frank Kratovil (MD-01), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Bart Gordon (TN-06)
R+14 -- Ike Skelton (MO-04), Travis Childers (MS-01), Dan Boren (OK-02)
R+15 -- Jim Matheson (UT-02)
R+16 -- Bobby Bright (AL-02)
R+17 --
R+18 -- Walt Minnick (ID-01)
R+19 --
R+20 -- Gene Taylor (MS-01), Chet Edwards (TX-17)
The two numbers to focus on here are eight and 69. As in, there are just eight Republicans sitting in PVI blue seats, and a whooping 69 Democrats in red seats. That nearly a 9-to-1 ratio. (Note that for the 111th, Cook has gotten rid of R+0 and D+0 districts, finding that any time a district can be rounded down to zero, it is now rated as "EVEN").
Despite four Dems in the 110th losing their seats last November -- Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Don Cazayoux (LA-06), and Nick Lampson (TX-22) -- all the others held on, and Democrats went from 51 to 69 (though, to be precise, some Members' districts went from red to blue in their PVI number). That is not an insignificant gain by any stretch of the imagination.
In total, I count 21 freshman Democrats on this list (including Travis Childers and Bill Foster who were elected in spring 2008 special contests). Additionally, there are 15 Democrats on the list who won their second term in 2008.
Conversely, only one of the eight Republicans listed was elected in the last four years, Joseph Cao, and he is a fluke congressman who I would bet my Xemex watch and Oakley sunglasses will be tossed out next year like garbage strewn about after Mardi Gras. In other words, the Republicans are not electing any new blood to moderate districts and they are stuck with a small pack of Members which seems to dwindle a bit every two years. Indeed, from the 110th, the seats formerly held by Heather Wilson, Jim Saxton, Vito Fossella, James Walsh, and Chris Shays are now in the hands of the Democrats, with only Kirk, Gerlach, and Reichert surviving rough challenges.
In the next post, I will consider the implications of these numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
