Great perspectives as always, Mike (0.00 / 0)

Extremely useful -- thanks!

jon

---

by: JonPincus @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 18:10:47 PM UTC

Nice And Succinct (4.00 / 1)

You're an awesome consultant, Mike, precisely because you know how to hone in on the right stuff, and boil it down to its essence.

Now...

8. Indiana. Close in the Presidential, big governor's race, State House up for grabs.

That's all I'm going to list for now. Lots of other states have at least one major thing going on, but these seven strike me as the ones that have multiple important things happening, and they all matter in the Presidential.

if only you could count, you just might could rule the world.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 18:16:06 PM UTC

you missed a House race in VA and a Gov race in NC (4.00 / 2)

The Dems could pick up four seats in VA - 11th (Connolly - he may be so far up that it's out of play), 5th (Periello), 10th (Feder), and 2nd (Nye).  Also, there is a close gubernatorial race in NC.

All that said, I think your order is correct.

---

by: econlibVA @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 18:19:16 PM UTC

North Dakota and Alaska (0.00 / 0)

Great target list.
North Dakota has important state senate takeover possibilities (which means influencing apportionment in 3 years). It also has a close presidential situation.

Alaska has close races for US House and US Senate.  &&&&&&& a close State Senate.......

Surely these 2 States should be considered high priorities.

There are some close state house situations around the country but state house races take a lower priority than state senate races.

---

by: amberwaves @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 18:29:02 PM UTC

Not always (0.00 / 0)

In Texas the emphasis is on the lower house of the Lege. Democrats need to pick up only 5 seats to take control of the House. We have a shot at picking up maybe three seats in the State Senate, as well (we hold 11 out of 31 now). That would be helpful, but control of the State House will be crucial. The Lone Star State will gain four (4) seats in the U.S. House after the next Census. Redistricting then will need to undo the dirty damage of the DeLay mid-decade redistricting and accommodate probably four new majority-minority districts, while trying to be bipartisan and fair, or at least deadlock everything and force the matter into the courts. ;-)

---

by: Woody @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 20:24:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

North Dakota? (4.00 / 1)

     For anyone outside a given state, the legislature probably only makes a difference if it can draw a Congressional map. Since North Dakota only has one district, it's hard to see why the other 300 Million Americans would care about whether the Democrats can take the North Dakota Senate, especially since the lower House is overwhelmingly Republican.
    In New York, there's a chance to win 4 House seats and reduce the Republican delegation to two out of twenty-nine, and there's also a chance to take the state senate for the first time since 1966.
    In Wisconsin, there's a chance to take the State Assembly, which would put Democrats in control of the governor and both houses of the legislature.
    In Pennsylvania, which seems to be McCain's only chance to win, there's a chance to take several House seats and the state Senate, and to solidify control of the lower House, reversing the situation from 2001 when the Republicans controlled redistricting.

---

by: Ron Thompson @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 22:38:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't forget (4.00 / 1)

the ballot prop. in CA re: gay marriage. This is hugely important I think, even though obviously pres. race isn't an issue here.

---

by: themostprogressivecorporatelawyerofalltime @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 18:37:16 PM UTC

Yup. (4.00 / 1)

I know it's the only major item on the ballot (well, we're talking about hitting 2/3rds in the Assembly, and there's one top-tier congressional and three late-closing longshots), but Prop 8 is a huge huge huge huge campaign.  If it passes it will set back the cause of marriage equality and civil equality generally by 15 years.  And it's currently polling ahead.  

We need help here really badly.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 18:51:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ADD or what? (0.00 / 0)

Trouble keeping your attention focused long term or something? You are forgetting lots of very winnable races.

North Carolina does not have ONE big Congressional race. Not only is Larry Kissell making his second race for the House. Daniel Johnson is up against the detestable Patrick McHenry in a Red to Blue list race. And "Coach" Roy Carter is also taking on the equally detestable Virginia Foxx. Anyone else looking for coattails here?

Nevada has TWO big Congressionals, not one. Unless you are writing off Jill Derby in her rerun against Dean Heller in NV-02, the northern reaches of the Silver State. New voter registrations have almost eliminated altogether the Repub edge from the last cycle.

Indiana also has a Congressional gone Red to Blue, where Michael Montagano is taking on the reichtwinger Mike Souder, who barely hung on against an M.D. and Fort Wayne City Councilman in '06.

And you know what? You are simply factually wrong to say that these states are "close" in the Presidential. Getting your info from the traditional networks or what? FiveThirtyEight shows Obama leading fairly comfortably in every one of these seven states.

I know you're ever so busy telling everyone to send money to candidates who are going to win even if nobody sends them any more money, but this post is simply sloppy. Wy don't you edit it to include my edits and delete this comment. I won't have my feelings hurt if you do that. Then spend a little time getting to know these names. Mike Montagano. Daniel Johnson. Jill Derby. You really should know them by Nov. 4.

---

by: Woody @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 20:15:00 PM UTC

My apologies (0.00 / 0)

I also forgot Judy Feder in VA-10.

h/t econlibVA

---

by: Woody @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 20:18:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wrong side. (0.00 / 0)

I appear to have gotten on your wrong side today, Woody. Sorry about that.
I believe strongly, and have been arguing for a long time, that you have to look at a lot of different things in addition to polling when you target states. You have to look at the voting patterns in previous elections; voter reg and early vote numbers; the strength of the state party, labor movement, and other progressive groups, as well as the infrastructure of the other side; whether or not there is a Dem Gov and Sec of State; and a range of other factors. I also believe that when you target, you don't just look at current poll standing but at what would happen if our national lead were to slip to a closer margin- you don't target resources for a landslide, you target them for a close race. Based on all those factors, I believe all these states are still very much in play.
Finally, your definition and mine of "fairly comfortably" is quite different. The last poll out of OH I saw, in fact, had McCain up one, and the one I saw before that had Obama up one. To me, anything 5 or lower is too close for comfort, and I've seen multiple polls in all these states in that category within the last few days.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 20:33:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not polling for me (0.00 / 0)

I probably pay less attention than you do to polling. It's only usefulness to me is that polling analysis now can allow a standardized comparison of races; otherwise I'd need a short essay on each one to explain my view of it.

So for quick and dirty comparison as to whether a given state is winnable, I look at FiveThirtyEight and let Nate Silver do the sums for me.

You and Nate apparently have a few disagreements. You call these states "dead heat" or "close." I've given the likelihood of Obama win for each from FiveThirtyEight, and the Projected margin of victory.

1.     Ohio.  71%   Projected Obama win by 2.1%.
2. Florida. 74%  Win by 2.4%.
3. Virginia.  93%    Win by 6.2%.
4. Colorado.  90%   Win by 5.3%.
5. North Carolina.  63%  Win by 1.3%.
6. Missouri.    63%    Win by 1.1%.
7. Nevada.   68%  Win by 1.9%
8. Indiana.   35%   Projected McCain win by 1.6%.

So we agree on Indiana. It's still "close." But by Nate Silver's numbers, Virginia and Colorado are not close even by your definition of a 5% margin as "too close for comfort" (while I say over 5% is nearing landslide margin).

Of course, these numbers make no allowance for the Obama ground game, which could reasonably add another 2 or 3 points to his totals in each battleground state.

And if you expect further bad economic news as I do, things like today's 500 point drop in the market, then you'd understand why I don't see any of these races except perhaps Indiana as "close."

I don't see these states as "in play" at all. I predict a map-changing, realigning, Democratic wave year. And I want us Democrats to act accordingly, and not like the old generals prepare only to re-fight the close elections of 2000 and 2004.

---

by: Woody @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:15:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Woody has something (4.00 / 1)

Vitriol aside, Woody has some good instincts.
It would be imprudent not to seize huge windows of opportunities with low risk.
Obama has enormous advantages over 2004. Huge funds including more than $100+ million  more coming in October/Nov, a dominant ground game virtually everywhere, voter reg numbers, early voting, the Bush administration, a minor financial crisis. I mean lets be real. Other than a terrorist attack, there is nothing plausibly that is going to stop the Obama train.
Without being rash, we should be aggressively pushing Obama to distribute his funds and energies even more broadly.
Kentucky, Georgia, Miss., Minn, Texas, NC, for US senate and other reasons. Montana, West Virginia, Alaska.

Use it or lose it was a good effort last election. We should be pushing the same again.

---

by: amberwaves @ Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 00:32:15 AM UTC