When it comes to California house races the demographics are in the bag. Those GOP congressmen are dead men walking if not in 2014 certainly in 2016. CA is my backyard you can predict all you want but republican will sustain even greater losses in CA in 2014. When it comes to NC democrats underperformed based on the numbers they had in the previous election. The nine election results are irrelevant and doesn't reflect the massive swing towards the GOP in 2012. Obama did better in 2012 then prior democratic nominees because of Seismic changes in demographics. You can get all wonky and get on your political nerd Nat sliver high horse all you want. The fact remains that hagan is the underdog and without a far right loon On the ticket she will go down in defeat. Btw how will the drought hurt jerry brown or the CA Democratic Party? Brown will win going away and dems will pick up more ca house seats that's a guarantee.
Narrow loss Obama preformed better then I thought. What was the narrow loss contributed to? Higher conservative republican turnout in the state, less enthused democratic base, state democrats weighing him down or the terrible NC economy. I knew NC was going to be a uphill battle for Him especially with barley winning it in 08
When the incumbent party has a "neutral" negative news story that won't go away (we can assume the drought won't go away), it hurts them more than the challenger party. Voters blame incumbents even for things they should not, so waving that away is silliness. As for the demographics being the writing on the wall, California voted for Obama 60-37 in 2012. That means 37% of the state's population will vote for Republican MoCs. Out of 53 representatives, 37% means 19-20 seats ought to be held by Republicans. They have 15. If anything, the Democrats overperform and if the state's reforms have made it easier for the Republicans to get some seats, even better. As for North Carolina, a NC native hath spoken.
Here in California, the drought is a big issue in the farming areas of the state. These areas are already pretty Republican. They also tend to blame Congress and not the state government for the water issues -- the signs you see when you drive on I-5 talk about blaming Boxer and Feinstein for the coming "dust bowl", not Jerry Brown. In the urban areas, the drought is a topic of conversation, like "maybe we should cut back on watering our lawn" or "hey, let's get that leaky faucet fixed", but it's not going to impact voting, as far as I can tell. California also has kind of the opposite of gerrymandering. The congressional districts were drawn by an independent committee, not the state legislature. This led to districts that are on the whole more "fair" than other states -- the thing is that since the majority of Californians are Democratic, the districts tend to represent that, so Democrats tend to get more congressional seats than their percentage of voters. For example, in the Bay Area, there are maybe 20-25% Republicans, but they have zero Bay Area congressional seats because they're not concentrated in one district -- there's no "majority-minority" districts for Republicans around here. Only where the Republican population is concentrated can they win congressional seats, so that's Orange County, parts of the Central Valley, the extremely rural parts of the state like the far northeast and the mountains, and parts of San Diego which have a pretty big military population. It's going to be tough for the Democrats to pick any of those up in 2014, but eventually with demographic changes (e.g. brown people having more babies than white people) some of those will turn blue. It's extremely unlikely that any of the Democratic seats turn red, though, unless the Republicans completely change their opinions on things like immigration and the environment.
Drought won't hurt the CA dems at All. The GOP brand in CA is toxic. The seats and GOP congressman I cited are in grave danger. The GOP bench in CA is thin or compleltley wiped out they have zero chance at any statewide office this year and their party is broke. It's a one party state. They will lose further seats not pick up anymore seats. A CA native hath spoken.
Good point but miller seat is gone it will flip blue. Dennham, McKeon and valadao very iffy. The only seats for the GOP that are safe for the foreseeable future are 01, 04, 08, 22,23, 42, 45, 49, 50. That's less then 10 the blue wave will keep rolling.
One to keep an eye on: Dr. Monica Wehby, a neurosurgeon from Portland, wins the straw poll at the annual GOP conference over state rep Jason Conger. Both are seeking to unseat the incumbent Merkley in what should be a hotly contested primary. Georgia is the other big primary set for May 20.
lol, you know he does not want to think about it. But still too early http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/kentucky-senate-race-poll-103234.html But looks like he will win the primary pretty easily.
Smart money is still on McConnell in this one. Winning in a state like Kentucky is still going to be very challenging for her. Among the prognosticators, Rothenberg and Sabato still have it leaning red, while Cook currently rates it as a toss-up. However, the entry of Gardner into the Colorado race, which puts another seemingly safe D-held seat directly in the crosshairs has somewhat muted enthusiasm in terms of the KY race's significance on the overall picture. I would recommend that everyone follow the GOP primaries in MN and OR as well. It's really all about the candidates.
The same is true for Merkley in Oregon. Regardless of the national media's impression of Oregon, it is not a purple state. It is solid blue and getting bluer as the Portland metro area becomes a larger and larger percentage of the state's population.
It's why I still rate OR as likely-D and KY as lean-R. I don't think anyone is arguing Oregon is a purple state, any more than Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Maine are. As we know though, House and Senate races are very much still local affairs, and who a party nominates still matters (see Tester, Heitkamp in 2012).
Heitkamp was a shocker.. Tester was not. While Montana certainly isn't a Liberal bastion, the Democratic Party in Montana is quite strong. Call it one of the advantages of the Dems being a big tent party.
The president is still polling very poorly in Iowa (39%), whose seat is essentially a must-win for Democrats this November. While only one GOP nominee is polling within single digits of presumptive Democratic nominee Bruce Braley, we must remember that he is a sitting congressman, while name recognition of the GOP nominees is very low. I get the sense that this race will get a lot closer as we get into campaign season and IA voters become more familiar with the candidates. This one could easily end up as a toss-up. National Republicans seem to favor state Sen. Joni Ernst at this point, but this will be yet another fascinating GOP primary, set for June 3.
I am still eagerly awaiting your reporting of polls out of Kentucky and North Carolina. Y U NO GIVE ME DEM-FRIENDLY POLLS, BROLL
Living in Mass., not far from the New Hampshire border I'm curious how this is going to turn out. I heard the word "Carpetbagger" utterd more times on the news than the last time I was in a rug store and there were guys responsible for placing recently purchased rugs in protective packaging. When Brown lost to Elizabeth Warren last time out, his campaign focused on the fact that he "voted with the Democrats" more often than any of the Batshit Crazy Wing of the Republican party. (of course none of those votes were on bills that were close enough where his vote would have matteres.) I guess they thought it would appeal to the comrades in the People's Revolutionary Socialist Republic of Blue-state-a-chusetts, but if that is so important, why not just vote for a real democrat?
Huh? Dunno if you're taking the piss or what, but if a Republican campaigns that he is "just like a Democrat," if you think that is a positive trait, then why not vote for the Democrat to begin with. It works the same way with "conserviative Democrats" who try to portray themselves as the opposite of a RINO
That Colorado number looks about right. I'm tempted to say that it should be a higher chance of Udall winning, largely because the Colorado Republican Party appears increasingly clueless about what it takes to win a statewide election these days. But maybe nominating a Congressman from the eastern plains with an actual-factual voting record that would reflect a Congressman from the eastern plains, then acting like he's not that conservative, is some sort of nine-dimensional chess cleverness.
None that I can cite. However, local Republican surrogates have been publicly talking about how Gardner will be a much better candidate than Ken Buck, who lost to Michael Bennet four years ago and who was expected to run against Udall... because Gardner is allegedly more moderate. They might be technically right, but Gardner, who had an extremely conservative voting record in the House is going to be a tough sell in a purple state that's had a pretty solid streak of voting blue in statewide elections for the last decade.
God damn. That seals the election! Mitt Romney won independents by 5 points. Close it all up, President Romney.