« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why we must focus on the 2010 state elections

the 2010 Census will redraw the 2012 political map

By: Huan (Diary)  |  November 23rd, 2008 at 05:55 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Republican Party needs to regroup and regroup fast. While there has been an argument to make the party more centrists, I think this argument is lost both on value and sentiments. The Republican Party cannot win more votes if it disenfranchises its most active (in terms of word of mouth support as well as get out the vote effort) faction, the Christian conservatives. Every poll thus far have suggested that the Republican voters want to make the party more conservative, more right leaning rather center leaning. Those who can still remain Republican with this shift should do so, those who cannot should consider whether the Democrats or the Libertarians have what it takes to win their vote, or even whether they should sit out of the next election. Meanwhile the Republicans should proceed with preparations for the 2010 state elections because this election will have at least a decade long consequence.

Why are the 2010 state elections so important? Because the next census will be conducted in 2010, and electoral changes will be reflected in the 2012 election. That means who ever is in charge of the states when the districts are redrawn will be doing so.


From Wikipedia the following states are expected to change:

Probable Gainers:
Texas (4)
Arizona (2)
Florida (2)
Georgia (1)
Nevada (1)
North Carolina (1)
Oregon (1)
South Carolina (1)
Utah (1)

Probable Losers:
New York (2)
Ohio (2)
California (1)
Illinois (1)
Louisiana (1)
Massachusetts (1)
Michigan (1)
Minnesota (1)
Missouri (1)
New Jersey (1)
Pennsylvania (1)
Iowa (1)

Obviously more effort should be placed in states expected to gain, but even effort will be required in states expected to lose as their congressional district map will also be redrawn.

Considerations regarding priority should also weigh which states will Republicans have the best chances. For this I referenced Jay Cost’s recent post on 2008 polarization of the PotUS election. I recognize that many states may have voted for Obama that remain in Republican control but Jay’s evaluation looks at how far the state population voted away from the national mean, thus providing a window at the trend for these states. From his analysis, I then categorized states as either red or blue, the remainder are listed as neutral leaners.

Thus cross referring the expected 2010 census winners and Jay’s analysis i get the following:

  1. Neutral states gaining representations: Texas (4), Arizona (2), Florida(2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), Oregon (1), and South Carolina (1)
  2. Red state gaining representations: Utah (1)
  3. Neutral states losing representations: New York (2), Ohio (2), California (1), Illinois (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), Pennsylvania (1), and Iowa (1)
  4. Red state losing representations: Louisiana (1),
  5. Blue states gaining representations: none
  6. Blue states losing representations: none

I ranked neutral states gaining representations first because these states will also be in play for the Democrats, thus these states are where the Republicans must make the greatest efforts. Second is the state (Utah) where Republican will likely win if sufficient attention and effort is made. Third are neutral states where the Republicans cannot lose if they do not want to be redistricted out of representation. Fourth is the state (Louisiana) where Republicans will likely maintain representations as long as they can maintain control. Note that no solid Blue states are expected to gain or lose representation.

For Democrats, they too will focus on the neutral states expected to gain or lose. But because none of the Blue states are expected to gain or lose, they will be able to place resources to win in Red states changing. However, I believe that Republicans retain the advantage if you look at the following map.

Neutral states that leaned red expecting to gain representations are Texas (4), Arizona (2), Georgia (1), South Carolina (1), and Utah (1) for a total of 9. Neutral states that leaned blue expecting to gain representation are Florida (2), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), and Oregon (1) for a total of 5. For the moment if we assume that the new district goes along with the color of the states, this would mean a net gain of 4 for Republicans.

Neutral states that leaned red expecting to lose representations are Louisiana (1), and Missouri (1) for a total 2. Neutral states that leaned blue expecting to lose representations are New York (2), Ohio (2), California (1), Illinois (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), New Jersey (1), and Pennsylvania (1) for a total of 11. Assuming that the party in power based on the state leaning redraws the map to exclude their political opponent, this means a potential net loss of up to 9 congressional seats for the Republicans.

If the Republicans cannot control the redrawing of the congressional district, they could lose an upward of 5 seats before 2012 election season even roll around.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dld1717

    This is a post I totally recommend

    Redistricting is going to play a huge role in many issues here

    IN fact Gov Race in 2009 in VA and NJ will be crucial for us as well.

    2010 Gov Races and state leg races will play a huge role in many issues down the line.

  • Achance

    Blogging philosophy is much more fun than working out GOTV plans and working with local legislators to get potholes fixed and such.

  • DONTREADONME

    N/T

    • Dave_in_Fla

      Both houses and the governor (assuming his reelection in 2010) are Republican. The state legislatures redraw the districts, and the “leans Obama” is irrelevant. State supreme court is also Republican.

  • Jaded

    all the news this morning is about a PANEL suggesting WE here in VA assimilate ILLEGALS instead of following the rule of law and the people calling into the morning programs are pissed.

    • izoneguy

      Let the PANEL see this website

      ‘War Against Illegal Immigration

      • TxCon

        The GOP controls the statehouse by a 76-74 margin. It is critical that we hold on in two years. The problem is that we have lost seats in the last three elections. The margin was 86-64, not too long ago. Also, I am a little worried about the Governors race. I almost hope that KBH defeats Perry in the primary. He has been in office for 10 years and voter fatigue is bound to set in.

        • Achance

          will be that we won’t have the power in Congress to resist “high tech” and other “innovative” ways of “counting” the citizenry. Visualize ACORN doing a census and a bunch of Democrat pollwatchers doing the counting.

          I’m thinking a bunch of Republican state AGs had best be donning their shield and buckler.

      • SIConservative

        Great analysis, and you’re talking about something that normally doesn’t get the attention it deserves. That said, there’s one item on which I’d like to take issue with you. Whether states are gaining, losing, or breaking even with Congressional seats shouldn’t matter in terms of where we should focus. Here’s an example to demonstrate what I mean.

        I’m registered in NY-13, easily the district with craziest election this year. It was a sordid affair that need not be rehashed now, but there was a Republican pushed into retirement with the assumption that we’d have a solid back-up, maybe even a competitive primary between strong candidates. As it turned out, nobody wanted to run because they assumed that, even if they won, the Democrats would split the District when NY loses Congressional seats such that no Republican could be competitive in either/any of the districts into which the current 13th would be shared.

        To be clear, I’m not suggesting a focus on NY. Our state Party is in shambles right now and rebuilding will take more than two years. I’m just saying that a seat is a seat, regardless whether it’s a new seat or a lost seat.

        • Hermes

          I hadn’t heard of this site, but it looks like it has some great stuff. Careful, though, the moderates and lefties might start calling you “intolerant.”

      • Whitehorse

        Excellent diary & very true. The way to win is the same way our Tennessee Republicans retook the State House for the first time since Reconstruction – running as true, all-round complete consevatives & governing that way when they got in (the state senate).

        Republicans representatives & leaders need to reclaim fiscal responsibility and limited government conservatism & eschew the rantings of the out of touch punditocracy to further water down conservative social issues, which win at the ballot box by significant margins.

        • Diogenes314

          Those who can still remain Republican with this shift should do so, those who cannot should consider whether the Democrats or the Libertarians have what it takes to win their vote, or even whether they should sit out of the next election.

          And by love it, you mean eliminating any influences that disagree with with whatever a plurality of the party thinks is canon? We’re in the situation we are because or GOP congress (under DeLay) decided to adopt the tactics and strategy of the Party of Pelosi and jetison the ideas of Reagan and Gingrich. Here in the People’s republic of Kali, the only thing that turning the state GOP more insular and dogmatic would accomplish would be to make their perpetual minority status permenant.

          We need to get back to focusing on what unites us, finding ways to advance those issues that appeal (over the heads of the Pelosites) to the electorate at large, and putting ideas and integrity over politics and power.

          Or just insist on doctrinal purity and become the new Whigs.

          • Huan

            Thanks for the info
            i was definitely planning on looking into this state by state

          • Huan

            here in VA the Republicans hold both houses, but our margins have been getting smaller and smaller with each election.

            even more reason to be attentive to the 2010 election.

          • Huan

            I agree
            from a state party perspective, everything that could be done to win in 2010 needs to be done.

            but from a national party perspective, the party should prioritize which states should get more support than others, don’t you think?

          • Huan

            I did not suggest a love it or leave it attitude. I never expect to be in love with the Republican Party. What I do expect is that the party is appealing enough to me for me to
            1. Vote for its candidates
            2. Work to elect its candidates.

            And yes, it is a significant problem if the party cannot appeal to its core constituents (who is likely to do #1 and #2 above), even more than if it cannot appeal to independents (who will likely do #1 above but not #2). This is where party principles will come into play.

            I believe party principles should include (in no particular order)

            Strong National Defense
            Small Government in Society
            Conservative Fiscal Policy
            Fair Economic Opportunity
            Culture of Personal Responsibility
            Traditional Family Value

            I don’t expect every one to agree with the above, I don’t even expect all Republican candidates to agree with all the above. I am not expecting purity. But I do want a general consensus of what we are about so we can all work together, help each other, to benefit our nation as a whole.

            We do need to unite for the future, and it is well past time for post election lost posturing and finger pointing to get going for 2010.

          • its_a_right_wing_thing

            I was going to write a blog on this soon. As for your calculations:

            Neutral states gaining representations: Texas (4), Arizona (2), Florida(2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), North Carolina (1), Oregon (1), and South Carolina (1)
            Red state gaining representations: Utah (1)

            Texas is not a neutral state. They will go red everytime. Even in this popular year to be a democrat they still went red and McCain won that state by 11%. R net +4

            *Arizona *is a tricky state. It voted red but only by 9% and that was with their Senator running. Like progressive and disappointing NM, its neighbor, I see AZ going blue soon due to the influx of Latino immigrants who will vote for Democrats in waves. D+2 (the Latinos in TEX appear to be more conservative by the way, but then again TX has always been different. :)

            Florida-state wise yes they are red but nationally they turned blue due too Yankees, immigrants, retirees, etc. People say Florida is a perfect microscosm of the US beccause of the diversity there. I see Dem. +2 (but this will still be a swing state unlike progressive VA and NC which I think are lost for a generation)

            Georgia-nationally GA will always good red. Too many good ol’ boys especially once you get out of hip hop Atlanta. Everyone knows its really a tale of two GA’s and conservatism still dominates. R +1

            Nevada-with Sen. split and 2/3 Reps. Republican one would think this state will go red but like nearby NM its turning blue due to mass immigration. Dem +1

            Socialist Oregon is going blue. Nuff said (also its likely this new population is coming directly out of CA and relocating to nearby OR. Dem. +1

            *North Carolina *due to its influx of Yankees, progressives (not sure there is a difference) and immigrants is shifting this once proud Southern state to just another Northern mush. Walk down the street and you won’t hear an accent in Charlotte or Raleigh unless its from New England as that is where they are all coming from (and OH/NJ). If you’re still confused consider they elected a woman gov. for 1st time in state history, went blue nationally, and replaced one woman with another in the Sen. Not a Southern state anymore by culture, just regionally.
            Definate Dem +1

            South Carolina-much like Oregon, I guarantee you this Deep South conservative state will go red. In a state that is over 30% black, Republicans still hold all the major powers at all state levels except Dept. of Ed. R +1

            Utah-definate +1 (wish it was +2!) directly due to people leaving CA from what I heard.

            Also heard rumors that Id. could pick up a seat as a result of CA exodus.

            Overall, so what does this equal so far? nothing literally. Dems lose as many seats as they gain.

            But now let’s look at this 2nd half closer:

            Neutral states losing representations: New York (2), Ohio (2), California (1), Illinois (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), Pennsylvania (1), and Iowa (1)

            Red state losing representations: Louisiana (1),

            Blue states gaining representations: none

            Blue states losing representations: none

            NY: How the heck is NY “neutral”? As one of the most progressive states in the union, they will go blue every time. What’s more is their 2 seats are likely to go directly to the South as that is where their pop. is going. -2

            OH: this disappointing state much like MI. is losing voters due to bad economy and the fact its bluntly a dying state. a loss of any kind is good for this has been state since it went blue and likely will in the future. -2

            CA-I won’t even diginfy CA as being a neutral state. I realize rural CA much like any other state-MN, WI, NC, etc. is all red but since no one lives there and the cities go blue the state does. We all know this is a net loss for the Democrats. -1

            Illinois-this navy blue state losing a seat is a great thing since a Democrat stronghold and just a corrupt state in general. -1
            *
            MA            *-10 seats in the House all Democrats, 2 Democratic senators and a Dem. Gov. yeah safe to say this will be net gain for the R’s. -1

            Minnesota nationally always goes blue (since Carter) but it depends where this seat is lost since 3/8 seats are R’s and if Oberstar were to be named to transportation Sec. the Republican Gov. could replace him with a Republican evening the state out. -1

            Missouri-now this is interesting. In a state that still went red dispite Obama-mania it would depend where this state was lost. If it came out of Ozarks or some rural district it would hurt the R’s but if it consolidates an already urban wasteland like St. Louis, who cares. toss up and the true defintion of neutral by the way

            Michigan-this declining state on the national scene will likely lose at least one seat now due to the economy and more as Detroit has already shunk by almost 700,000 since its height during WWII. This state is in trouble beyond just politics. -1 definate loss for the Democrats in this blue state.

            N.J. you know this “little NY” is going blue but with 7/13 members actually Republican (surprisingly) R’s better wish right that they don’t lose one of their seats but rather one for the D’s. Likely loss for the R’s in a simple numbers game and a state that is D at the state and local level -1

            P.A only 8/19 seats are Republicans so its more likely a loss here would be one of the Democrats which I would welcome. -1

            Iowa-this overwhelming rural state started the Obama tidal wave by electing him at the caucus. 3/5 seats are blue but state level is all Democrats. Likely a Democratic loss and the state will still go blue since they are progressive so its better if they lose a seat.

            Likely Democratic losses -11 with N.J. and Mo. undecided since it depends where those seats would come from.

            Should say blue states losing representations: 10 since Mo. is the only state Republicans have a real chance at keeping. The rest above all voted blue this past election.

            Overall 2010 Republicans could pick up 11 EV’s based on just the above. What does that mean? Not much other than when they lose states like MI, PA, OH, and IA. it won’t hurt as much as candidates won’t focus on them as much.

            Red States losing Representation: 1 La. but I heard that was directly due to La. residents relocating to TX so in reality its not a net loss.

            Blue States gaining represenation:
            Arizona 2, NM 1, NV, 1, OR 1, FL 2, NC 1, overall +7

            Red States picking up Represenation: 3
            SC, GA, UT +3

            In sum 11-7+3=7 gained seats in 2010 census.

            When you think about it FL and AZ aren’t hardcore blue states anyway they could go red and if they do that would change the math and actually be

            11-3+3=11

          • mbecker908

            Both Houses of the Legislature and the Governor are Republicans (assuming Napolitano goes to Homeland Security).

            And, a wild card in – of all places – California! (And Neil and SteveLA, etal would be better positioned to discuss this than me.) It’s my understanding that a “non-partisan” non-legislative group will redraw the boundaries in CA next time around. That might throw a monkeywrench into things for the Ds.

          • its_a_right_wing_thing

            wow, what a pick up. I have no idea how popular Brewer is or whether she’d have a shot at re-election but losing Napolitano will be huge especially since she was direcly rumored to run against McCain in 2010 for his senate seat.

            Given her popularity and national noteriety, she probably would have won whether or not McCain would have even ran. It was rumored he’d lose.

            her leaving for DHC will be a blessing in disguise.

          • SIConservative

            Yes. I think you misunderstood the point I was making. As I argued here during the elections, tough decisions have to be made. What I’m arguing is that those priorities shouldn’t be set based on whether a state is gaining or losing seats, but on other factors.

          • Diogenes314

            1) Strong National Defense
            2) Small Government in Society
            3) Conservative Fiscal Policy
            4) Fair Economic Opportunity
            5) Culture of Personal Responsibility
            6) Traditional Family Value

            *
            1) Essential, and the part of the Reagan philosophy that was critical in winning the support of the Liberals (who are now refered to as neocons or Libertarians) who formerly voted Democrat.
            2) Vague. If you mean limited government, then yes. Not sure about what the ‘in Society’ is supposed to mean.
            3) If by Conservative you mean Buchannanite neo-mercantilism, no. If (more likely) you mean Liberal supply side economics, controlling spending and free trade, I agree.
            4) Vague.
            5) Vague. And I’m not sure government should be dictating culture anyway.
            6) Whose traditions? and see 5.            *

          • mbecker908

            Jan Brewer is the SoS and is #1 in line.

            I think, given that she’ll have a fairly friendly legislature and no REALLY ugly statewide issues (see CA) and two years to build her resume she’s got a good shot at reelection. It helps that there aren’t really any well known statewide political forces (on either side) to oppose her.

            Right now I would expect something on the order of a five point Brewer margin in 2010.

          • Huan

            1. Small government. Some people define size of government in how big it is dollar wise. I believe this to be faulty because in order to maintain a strong defense in terms of active forces and technologically advanced, we probably want the government budget to grow. Same with infrastructures. What i mean by small government is that government should be less interventional in both our economy and our culture.

            2. Conservative fiscal means balance the damn budget. Spend what we have to, cut what the government should not be in the business of, and cut taxes to stimulate the economy and thus increase government revenue.

            3. Fair economic opportunity means more free trade, don’t regulate everything to death, allow failure to occur (both on an individual basis and on corporation level).

            4. Personal responsibility means the government should not be in the business of making sure each and everyone is going to be hunky dory and alright. That as long as government do so, individuals will be less likely to take care of things for themselves. More school choice. More doctor choice. Less social welfare. No mandatory health care. The party should emphasize and espouse the benefits of personal responsibility over that of government benefits.

            5. Traditional family in any culture is a set of parents (parents), children, and extended family as well (grand parents, aunts, uncle, nieces, nephew). When the government takes care of your family for you, then the family starts to disintegrate. When the bread earner no longer has to work, he/she no longer is the provider, the role becomes superfluous. When it is acceptable to dump your grand parents at nursing home under Medicaid/ss rather than take care of them, we are less. And yes, when it becomes easier to get an abortion than to adopt, that weakens us all.

            Government social programs have become the new opiates of the masses.

            But the point of this post isn’t what the Republican Party should be about. The point of this post is that we need to get our acts together to win the 2010 state elections.

          • Diogenes314

            I would agree with you on pretty much all of the above.

            And especially…

            But the point of this post isn’t what the Republican Party should be about. The point of this post is that we need to get our acts together to win the 2010 state elections.

            My basic point on the subject was…

            We need to get back to focusing on what unites us, finding ways to advance those issues that appeal (over the heads of the Pelosites) to the electorate at large, and putting ideas and integrity over politics and power.

          • IJB

            My understanding of the Initiative that just passed is that it only applies to CA State Legislative & Senate districts, and Board of Equalization districts.

            So it won’t make any difference with respect to CA House districts.

            And I wish I could be as sanguine as you, but I am convinced that the ‘fix’ is in, and that this so-called commission will redraw districts in such a way as to maximize the number of democrats (even at the expense of making a few Democrat incumbents less unassailably “safe” than they were).

            There are presently 30 GOP State Assembly members (out of 80), and 14 State Senators (out of 40) as shown here.

            I feel pretty confident in saying those numbers will be lower once this “commission” does its work.

            I hope I’m wrong. We’ll see…

          • mbecker908

            And I wouldn’t argue your point one little bit. I’m just from AZ, so I have very limited interest in what they do in CA. My current goal is to build a very high triple wall with razor wire and, hopefully, claymore mines on the AZ border.

            Oh yeah, that’s the AZ/CA border.

          • Diogenes314

            I remember the last Atty. General to become Governor of Arizona.

          • SE779

            2010 Senate Prospects:

            Projected Pickups:

            Democrats: 8(Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania)
            Republicans: 3(Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota)

            Retirees:

            Alabama: Richard Shelby
            Arizona: John McCain
            Connecticut: Chris Dodd
            Hawaii: Daniel Inouye
            Iowa: Chuck Grassley
            Louisiana: David Vitter
            Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter
            Utah: Bob Bennett

            Open Seat and Pickup Candidates:
            Alabama: Mike Hubbard vs. Lucy Baxley
            Alaska: Lisa Murkowski vs. Johnny Ellis
            Arizona: John Shadegg vs. Harry Mitchell
            Connecticut: John Larson vs. Sam Calguri
            Florida: Mel Martinez vs. Robert Wexler
            Hawaii: Ed Case vs. Charles Djou
            Indiana: Evan Bayh vs. Steve Buyer
            Iowa: Jim Nussle vs. Dave Loseback
            Kentucky: Jim Bunning vs. Ben Chandler
            Louisiana: Charles Boustany vs. Mike Powell
            Missouri: Kit Bond vs. Russ Carnahan
            Nevada: Harry Reid vs. Brian Krolicki
            North Carolina: Richard Burr vs. Mike McIntyre
            North Dakota: Byron Dorgan vs. Wayne Stenejhem
            Ohio: George Voinvich vs. Richard Cordray
            Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey vs. Patrick Murphy
            Utah: Rob Bishop vs. Jim Matheson

            Results:

            Alabama: 56%-44% Hubbard
            Arizona: 54%-46% Shadegg
            Connecticut: 66%-34% Larson
            Florida: 50%-48% Wexler
            Hawaii: 71%-27% Case
            Indiana: 53%-47% Buyer
            Iowa: 57%-41% Loseback
            Kentucky: 59%-40% Chandler
            Louisiana: 61%-38% Boustany
            Missouri: 53%-45% Carnahan
            Nevada: 51%-48% Krolicki
            North Carolina: 52%-47% McIntyre
            North Dakota: 53%-46% B. Stenejhem
            Ohio: 54%-43% Cordray
            Pennsylvania: 59%-40% Murphy
            Utah: 59%-39% Bishop

            2010 Gubernatorial Prospects:

            Projected Pickups: Democrats: 6(Alabama, California, Connecticut, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont)
            Republicans: 8(Arizona, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wyoming)

            Retirees:

            Alabama: Bob Riley
            Arizona: Janet Napolitano
            California: Arnold Schwarzenegger
            Connecticut: Jodi Rell
            Georgia: Sonny Perdue
            Hawaii: Linda Lingle
            Maine: John Baldacci
            Michigan: Jennifer Granholm
            New Mexico: Bill Richardson
            Nebraska: Dave Heineman
            Oklahoma: Brad Henry
            Oregon: Ted Kulongoski
            Pennsylvania: Ed Rendell
            Rhode Island: Don Carcieri
            South Carolina: Mark Sanford
            South Dakota: Mike Rounds
            Tennessee: Phil Bredesen
            Vermont: Jim Douglas
            Wyoming: Dave Freudenthal

            Open Seat and Pickup Candidates:

            Alabama: Jim Folsom Jr. vs Troy King
            Arizona: Jan Brewer vs Terry Goddard
            California: John Garamendi vs Steve Poinzer
            Connecticut: Richard Blumenthal vs Rob Simmons
            Georgia: John Oxendine vs DuBose Porter
            Hawaii: James Aiona vs Mufi Hannemann
            Maine: Mike Michaud vs Chandler Woodcock
            Maryland: Michael Steele vs Martin O’Malley
            Michigan: Mike Bishop vs John Cherry
            New Mexico: Diane Denish vs Heather Wilson
            Nebraska: Rick Sheehey vs Scott Kleeb
            Nevada: Ross Miller vs Jim Gibbons
            Oklahoma: Steve Largent vs Jari Askins
            Oregon: Randall Edwards vs Jason Atkinson
            Pennsylvania: Mark Schwieker vs Jack Wagner
            Rhode Island: Charlile Fogarty vs Steve Laffey
            South Carolina: Andre Bauer vs Tommy Moore
            South Dakota: Dennis Daugaard vs Tom Daschle
            Tennessee: Ed Bryant vs Lincoln Davis
            Vermont: Tom Salmon Jr. vs Martha Rainville
            Wyoming: Fred Parady vs Paul Hickey

            Results:

            Alabama: 53%-46% Folsom Jr.
            Arizona: 55%-45% Brewer
            California: 57%-42% Garamendi
            Connecticut: 58%-41% Blumenthal
            Georgia: 63%-36% Oxendine
            Hawaii: 51%-49% Aiona
            Maine: 65%-31% Michaud
            Maryland: 50%-47% Steele
            Michigan: 49%-48% Bishop
            New Mexico: 55%-43% Denish
            Nebraska: 57%-43% Sheehey
            Nevada: 67%-30% Miller
            Oklahoma: 52%-47% Largent
            Oregon: 59%-38% Edwards
            Pennsylvania: 53%-45% Schwieker
            Rhode Island: 77%-22% Fogarty
            South Carolina: 61%-38% Bauer
            South Dakota: 54%-45% Daugaard
            Tennessee: 52%-48% Bryant
            Vermont: 54%-46% Salmon Jr.
            Wyoming: 66%-34% Parady

          • Jaded

            who can run against him? I don’t know the state but there must be a conservative who can unseat him in the primary..

            Oh PLEASE let someone run against him in the primary with CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS!

          • SE779

            Could run for McCain’s seat.

          • WOSG

            I almost hope that KBH defeats Perry in the primary. He has been in office for 10 years and voter fatigue is bound to set in.

            I am with you there. I am prolife and I think KBH is too ‘squishy’, but the fact is that Perry is damaged goods who only got 39% last go around in a 4 party race. Those voters are up for grabs if Perry runs agains, but I think KBH would win the strayhorn ‘moderate woman’ vote hands down.

            KBH wins Gov in a walk in 2010.

            I kind of wish Perry ‘blinks’ and decides not to run again. I have no use for Dewhurst also but how do we put out a rich, ambitious RINO incumbent out to pasture? … without a train wreck?!? … I say we promote Greg Abbot to Lt Gov, and Michael Williams to Senator, and/or put Jerry Patterson in for the Senate and move Williams over to AG.

            My guess is that Perry or Dewhurst or both would try to run for Senate.

            My top guys for the future of TX GOP are Abbott, Patterson, Williams.

          • Jaded

            thanks for the heads up….I like him and I think he could take McCain….man I love this site for information :-)

          • Diogenes314

            We can only hope.

          • mbecker908

            Especially Shadegg.

          • mbecker908

            either Jane Hull or Rose Mofford. They were both SoS. And both got reelected. For some reason we are reluctant to toss out incumbents.

          • Diogenes314

            …after taking over from Raul Castro (Carter’s appointee as ambassador to Argentina, I believe). Giving us Atty. Gen. Bruce Babbitt as governor.

  • Herodotus

    Hugh??? Mass is going to lose at least one seat.

  • jeffreywturner

    Actually, even without gaining a seat, I think that we would have an R+1 in SC with redistricting because this will probably be the first time since reconstruction that the GOP has been in COMPLETE control of the redistricting process here, and we have a pesky old Democrat named John Spratt that we should finally be able to draw out of his district. So, if we actually gain a seat from the census, we should be able to get a +2 for the GOP here.

    Also, I wonder if a DOJ in an Obama administration is going to become active in trying to prevent aggressive GOP re-districting efforts in southern states (like SC) which are subject to DOJ review under the Voting Rights Act. Anyone know of any good analysis on this?

    Finally, to all those people who are saying crazy things like “North Carolina is a blue state now”, with all due respect, you are just not correct. It may have voted by a sliver for Obama, but that is in an election where he won by 7% nationally, spurred largely by record turnout among blacks and depressed turnout among conservatives, which means NC is still AT LEAST an R+6% state. The same holds for Indiana. Heck Reagan won Massachussets and New York in 1984, but they were no “redder” than they were the day before the election.

    • SE779

      Should run for Governor if Perry retires. He would be a great alternative to Perry and would make a great Governor, serving 4 terms.

      • jackdonaghy

        This is a great post about a very important topic. With the possibility of a super majority in the senate we could be in real trouble for the next 2-6 years. That is why focusing on winnable state elections is a way to regain some power. People vote differently for state representation then they do nationally as they see the control of state legislatures/governors less fiscal and more socially based issues so it is easier to get conservatives out to the polls. This cannot be forgotten, we need to get organized.

        • izoneguy

          n/t

  • Pingback: Heriberto Woolwine

  • Pingback: aci Sarault