Who Is Jan Brewer?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

If Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is, in fact, appointed to the Obama cabinet, her current job would be filled by Jan Brewer, the secretary of state. Arizona doesn't have a lieutenant governor.

Brewer, 64, is a Republican first elected in 2002, after having served in both chambers of the state legislature and as a Maricopa County supervisor. The GOP currently controls the legislature and so the party would have free rein to shape next year's budget, which looks to be a mess.

AP reports, ungrammatically, "Brewer had already been regarded as a likely Republican candidate for governor in 2010, when term limits would bar both she and Napolitano from running for re-election to their current posts."

An Arizona source tells National Review Online:

We will now have a Republican governor because the Secretary of State is Jan Brewer. Since we control both of the houses of the legislature, a lot of bills that were vetoed by Napolitino will probably pass. Personally I can't imagine the Dems giving up a governor's mansion.

The Democrats have lost their best candidate in Arizona.  Napolitano was a canny politician who knew how to outflank the GOP.  I think going to Washington and taking up Homeland security will not be a boon to her future political career. Several Republicans were lining up to run for governor in 2010.  With Jan Brewer as an incumbent, they may modify their plans.

A quick look on Nexis suggests that Brewer has drawn what have become standard complaints for secretaries of state that she was partisan when it came to vote-counting controversies. But the Arizona Republic endorsed her 2006 reelection bid, saying she had run the department well, updating voting machinery and doing a good job implementing an initiative to require voters to show ID at the polls.

She has what looks to be a not incredibly active MySpace page.

The States that Could Legalize Gay Marriage in 2009

posted by Josh Goodman

As a result of Prop. 8, California has, quite understandably, become the focal point of the gay marriage debate. But, while the legal drama unfolds in California, the issue will be heating up in other places too.

Next year, as legislatures around the country return to work, several will discuss gay marriage. In two states and the District of Columbia, there's a good chance (perhaps a 50-50 chance or better) that gay marriage will pass. If one of these places does legalize gay marriage, it will be the first time a state (or a non-state in D.C.'s case) has taken that step without being ordered by a court to do so.

Vermont, the state that was at the center of the same-sex civil union debate a decade ago, seems likely to be at the center of the gay marriage debate this year.

Democrats have lopsided majorities in both houses of the legislature. They seem disposed to push for gay marriage. The legislature commissioned a study of the issue last year, which found that Vermonters with civil unions faced legal obstacles to recognition of their relationships. Many observers saw that report as setting the stage for gay marriage.

Nepotism Central

posted by Alan Greenblatt

I just got a press release from the Democratic Governors Association announcing, "Glendening Named DGA National Political Director." Naturally, I thought at first they meant Parris, but really it's Raymond, the son of the former Maryland governor.

Raymond was already working for DGA this year, which is run by Nathan Daschle -- son of the former senator and apparent HHS pick.

All this reminded me of a time last year when an old college friend was in town trying to shop his idea for a book. It was kind of a left-bashing thing and everyone he pitched it to was a child of Brit Hume or Gordon Liddy or some other offspring of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

I guess politics has always been a family business. Remember all the talk of dynasty when it looked like Hillary Clinton would succeed the second President Bush?

Obama May Tap Napolitano

posted by Alan Greenblatt

The cabinet pick trial balloon du jour is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security.

The AP story quotes Napolitano's remark that building a 50-foot fence only encourages people to use 51-foot ladders. Remember also that she signed Arizona's strict immigration and employer verification law.

Here's Josh's piece about how the Democrat prospered in a still-red state.

I have to admit that I hadn't known or remembered that she was Anita Hill's lawyer until it's gotten mention in recent speculative stories about Napolitano's prospects.

She does seem to have been the most-mentioned governor of late. I'm wondering whether supporters such as Tim Kaine, Bill Richardson and Deval Patrick are going to get anything. I expect surprise picks are more likely to happen than any prediction I might make, however.

The Election's Nearly Over

posted by Alan Greenblatt

It looks like Missouri finally falls into the McCain column, leaving Obama with a total of 365 electoral votes.

With Begich the winner over Stevens, that leaves just the upcoming Georgia Senate runoff and completion of the slow-drip counting of Coleman vs. Franken for the 2008 election season to be over.

Just in time for Christmas, if not Thanksgiving.

Palin At Home and Nationwide

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Anchorage Daily News:

As Sarah Palin settles back into her job as the state's chief executive, a new ethics complaint filed Tuesday says she's already improperly mixing her official duties and broader political ambitions.

The charge: That Palin broke state ethics rules by holding national television interviews about her run for vice president from the governor's office.

I certainly doubt this will get far but I do wonder how Palin's obvious continuing national ambitions will play with the folks back home.

Move Over Missouri, Iowa Is the New Bellwether State

posted by Josh Goodman

There's some hand-wringing going on in Missouri right now. Unless Barack Obama improbably rallies to win the Show-Me State when provisional ballots are tallied, Missouri will, for the first time since 1956, give its electoral votes to a losing candidate. Is Missouri no longer a bellwether state?

I have some good news for Missouri: You haven't lost anything. You haven't been a bellwether state for quite a while, except under the most simplistic definition of the term.

By definition, a bellwether is "a person or thing that shows the existence or direction of a trend." Sure, a state that goes with the national winner is showing the direction of the trend to some extent. But, a state that mirrors the national popular vote gives a much better indication of the trend. This year, Virginia was a much better bellwether than Vermont.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in Missouri 47.54%-41.24%, for a 6.30 percentage point victory. Nationwide, Clinton won by 8.52 points. That's a 2.32 percentage point gap between the Missouri result and the national result -- not bad.

But, in 2000 the gap was up to 3.86 points, in 2004 it was 4.74 points and, this year, it was 6.89 points. Each time, Missouri was more Republican than the country as a whole. So, the truth of the matter is that Missouri has had a small but consistent (and increasing) Republican lean for four straight presidential elections.

Voting for a Full Slate

posted by Alan Greenblatt

An analysis by the Nashua Telegraph shows that most people voted for candidates all the way down the New Hampshire ballot on Nov. 4, putting to rest concerns that the abolition of straight-ticket voting would frustrate or impede people.

Can Spitzer Stage a Comeback?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Eliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal and resignation as New York governor seem like a long time ago now, but it was just this past May. Is it too soon for him to stage any sort of a comeback?

Spitzer wrote a piece for this past Sunday's Washington Post, laying out the roots of the current financial meltdown. It was pro-regulatory and just a little bit self-serving:

Those of us who raised red flags about this were scoffed at for failing to understand or even believe in "the market." During my tenure as New York state attorney general, my colleagues and I sought to require investment banking analysts to provide their clients with unbiased recommendations, devoid of undisclosed and structural conflicts. But powerful voices with heavily vested interests accused us of meddling in the market.

Nevertheless, there was this voice, crying out from the wilderness. And it came on the heels of Ben Smith's trial balloon, suggesting Spitzer for Senate if Hillary Clinton gets the top job at State.

Now we have Steve Benen conceding that the Senate would be a stretch, but arguing that Spitzer would be ideal for head of the SEC (although, as John McCain found out, presidents can't fire the current guy).

Do we have to exclude Spitzer from addressing the issues on which he has considerable expertise? Issues that have nothing to do with an unrelated sex scandal?

The Anonymous Liberal says amen, arguing that Spitzer's mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The argument is simple. When you're really sick, you hire the best doctor you can. You don't care about his/her personal life. Our economy is really sick right now. We need the best people we can find to help resuscitate it and get it back on track. Or to mix metaphors a bit, this is an all hands on deck moment for the country. We need to put trivial issues aside and put the most capable people we have at the helm.

This is in keeping with Jacob Weisberg's Slate piece the other day, arguing that the Obama administration needs the brightest minds the Democratic Party's has to offer, even if they happen to belong to some anti-social jerks.

I'm all for using talented people, despite their flaws. And I'm normally sympathetic to the argument that a person's sexual issues, even if they slip into illegality, are basically irrelevant to public servant.

But I think it's too soon for Eliot's rehab. One Washington Post oped is not the equivalent of a weepy Hollywood star making the confessional round of the talk shows. And it's not like Spitzer was apologizing, anyway.

Part of Spitzer's problem -- a big problem -- is that he's always been sanctimonious, certain that his own way is the right way. His transparent hypocrisy is why his downfall was so immediate. And it's why he's not going to be cast so quickly in any role that calls for him to tell people what to do.

Christie Gets Ready

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Chris Christie, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, has announced that he's leaving his post on Dec. 1. All signs indicate that he'll be gearing up for a gubernatorial run.

Christie is a Republican who has successfully prosecuted more than a hundred state and local officials, including some very big fish. He's routinely accused of targeting pols for partisan reasons, but his perfect record -- no one he's indicted has walked -- suggests he has uncovered real malfeasance.

At any rate, his efforts have been rewarded with poll numbers suggesting he's running neck and neck with Gov. Jon Corzine before the race even begins. Corzine, of course, may skip reelection if he's appointed Treasury secretary or some boffo administration job like that.

Either way, it should be a fascinating race. New Jersey is a state that seems deeply sick of politicians -- and the reining powers are all Democrats. And yet, even when presented with flawed Democratic candidates, New Jersey has remained strictly blue in statewide races for years.

Gavin Newsom for Governor: Over Before It Starts?

posted by Josh Goodman

I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out -- I'm probably not among the first hundred -- but doesn't the passage of Prop. 8 have to doom Gavin Newsom's gubernatorial ambitions, at least for 2010?

Newsom, San Francisco's mayor, is an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage. It was Newsom's decision to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples which set off the court battle that eventually led the California Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage.

That by itself doesn't doom Newsom. Forty-eight percent of California voters agree with his position. Without a doubt, most of the other 52% will have other issues they care about more than gay marriage in 2010. In fact, I'd be very surprised if the Democratic nominee for governor doesn't support gay marriage.

Newsom's problem is the particular role he played in the Prop. 8 debate. Newsom had a starring role in the ads from the supporters of the gay marriage ban. In effect, Prop. 8's supporters bet that Newsom was a sufficiently polarizing figure that video of him supporting gay marriage would lead voters to take the opposite view.

Whether it's true or not, the perception is that the bet paid off. Prop. 8's poll numbers improved after the Newsom ads aired. Ultimately, of course, it passed.

Newsom's problem in a Democratic primary was always going to be questions about his electability. Now a lot of people have a lot more reason to believe that the San Francisco mayor can't win statewide. And, after seven years of Gov. Schwarzenegger, the last thing Democrats will want to do is nominate a loser.

Nebraska's Electoral Vote Split: One and Done?

posted by Josh Goodman

By splitting its electoral votes for the first time this year, Nebraska made history. By 2012, the system that made the split possible could be history.

John McCain won Nebraska as a whole and carried the 1st and 3rd congressional districts in the state. Obama prevailed in Omaha-based 2nd district. In every state except Maine and Nebraska, Obama's victory in the 2nd would have been irrelevant. However, under Nebraska law, Obama will receive one electoral vote -- the first time a Democrat has won any of Nebraska's districts since the vote-splitting law went into effect for the 1992 election.

Nebraska's governor is a Republican, Dave Heineman. The legislature is nominally non-partisan, but I'm fairly sure that in reality Republicans have a majority. As a result, the question now is whether Republicans want to make Nebraska a winner-take-all state again -- and, most likely, ensure that the state gives all of its electoral votes to Republicans for the foreseeable future.

 They're thinking about it. Here's what CQ reported last week:

A Theme for the Republican Party

posted by Josh Goodman

As the G.O.P. tries to figure out why it lost so much ground in 2006 and 2008, Republicans have pretty much narrowed it down to three possibilities (within which there are a nearly infinite number of variations). The trouble with these three explanations is that they're a tad contradictory:

1) The Republicans lost because they were too conservative.

2) The Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough.

3) The Republicans lost because President Bush did a lousy job. Ideology had nothing to do with it.

Obviously, when folks have diametrically opposed ideas of what went wrong, it's not easy to come to a consensus as to what the Republican Party should do now. That said, I think there's a theme that could unite the competing elements of the G.O.P.

Was Palin's Task Impossible?

posted by Josh Goodman

Since the election, we've now had a few days of recriminations against Sarah Palin and a few days of Palin fighting back. Palin's bid to repair her reputation will continue at the Republican Governors Association meeting today.

There's one argument that you can make in Palin's defense, though, that I doubt we'll hear from the governor: As a small state executive without a background in most federal policy issues, she never had a chance.

To understand what I mean, let me take you back to an argument I made in April, when I made one of the worst predictions of all time. I predicted that Sarah Palin didn't stand a chance to be picked as John McCain's running mate. Here's part of what I said:

Anchorage Mayor, Giant Slayer

posted by Alan Greenblatt

At some point yesterday, it became clear that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich had erased Ted Stevens' election-night lead in their Senate race and was ahead by three votes.

At last count, Begich has pulled into an 814-vote lead. The celebrated Nate Silver says that the remaining votes come from likely Begich territory, making him the "overwhelming favorite" to prevail.

Apparently, the total number of votes should put to rest conspiracy theories about why turnout would be down in the state when a native daughter was on the national ticket. But I haven't yet read an explanation about why vote counting is so slow in Alaska.

How Do Republicans Rebuild?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

I confess that I haven't read all the many, many articles and blog posts wondering whither the GOP, but I've seen enough to be surprised that the much-anticipated circular firing squad doesn't appear to be happening. A couple of House GOP leaders have stepped down, but not their top leader. And we haven't yet seen widespread finger-pointing between the anti-taxers and the social conservatives and the few remaining party moderates.

Perhaps one reason is that the party appears to be trying to look forward rather than backward. The attention Sarah Palin has been getting in recent days is part of that. Instead of McCain rehashing, we have her seeking to rebuild her image with an eye toward other offices, whether the Senate or the White House. We'll keep an eye on that.

More broadly, though, there seems to a dawning awareness that the party needs to expand its reach. So far, this hasn't been specific enough to lead to intraparty fights.

There's the problem of geography, for one -- the South and the wheat-growing states do not a national party make, as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty pointed out yesterday at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Florida.

"We cannot be a majority governing party when we essentially cannot compete in the Northeast, we are losing our ability to compete in Great Lakes states, we cannot compete on the West Coast, we are increasingly in danger of competing in the mid-Atlantic states, and the Democrats are now winning some of the Western states," Pawlenty said. "That is not a formula for being a majority governing party in this nation."

Pawlenty also recognized that the party can't write off minorities, a familiar enough statement but one that is certain to become more urgent in the face of the Obama coalition.

The fights will come as the party turns to the question of how to address issues it hasn't liked, such as global warming.

As for the way back, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said the governors have a chance to show how to apply Republican principles of fiscal conservatism and smaller government to practical problems. He said they should concentrate on "issues that really matter" to voters, such as education, energy, the environment and health care.

It will be fascinating if Republican governors can truly step into the role of thoughtful pragmatists in the years ahead, coming up with salable ideas while the congressional minority plays defense as best it can. Certainly there are more pragmatists in the gubernatorial ranks than in the remaining GOP caucuses on the Hill.

For all the speculation along these lines that we've been hearing it's hard to think of an idea arising from the GOP governors to rival their predecessors' takes on crime and welfare during the 1990s. But we'll give them some time.

Prusi Takes the Helm

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Michigan Senate Democrats have elected Mike Prusi as their new leader. His predecessor, Mark Schauer, is coming here to Washington after a successful congressional run.

Also today in MI politics, Dick DeVos, the GOP's 2006 challenger against Gov. Jennifer Granholm, says he won't go again in 2010.

GOP's Southern Success

posted by Alan Greenblatt

The South was for Republicans last week what the rest of the country was for Democrats. Republicans made some gains in state legislative seats leading to control of three new chambers (the previously tied Tennessee and Oklahoma Senates, plus the Tennessee House), but the overall net gain in seats was not overwhelming.

Hastings Wyman wraps it up:

The Republicans gained control of two chambers from the Democrats -- the House of Representatives in Tennessee and the state Senate in Oklahoma.  Thus, when the legislatures convene in January, Republicans will have a majority in seven of the thirteen state senates (FL, GA, KY, OK, SC, TN & TX), while Democrats will control six (AL, AR, LA, MS, NC & VA). On the House side, the GOP will have the upper hand in seven chambers (FL, GA, OK, SC, TN, TX & VA); the Democrats in six (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS & NC). Nationwide, the Democrats gained five legislative chambers, the GOP gained three, including Tennessee and Oklahoma.

Overall, however, the partisan breakdown of Southern legislatures changed little. Southwide, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Republicans gained three state senate seats and three state house seats.

...

And in South Carolina, for the first time since Reconstruction, an African-American Republican has won a seat in the state’s House of Representatives.

Farewell, Reagan Democrats

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Stan Greenberg, the pollster who made his name studying the Reagan Democrats of Macomb County, Michigan, had a piece in the NY Times the other day pointing out that neighboring Oakland County has become a better barometer:

While Macomb County is home to the white middle class that America’s auto industry made possible, Oakland County is home to the affluent, business-oriented suburbanites of Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills, some of the richest townships in America. Just a quarter of Macomb County residents have college degrees, but more than 40 percent do in Oakland.

Oakland County has formed part of the Republican heartland in Michigan and the country. From 1972 to 1988, Democratic presidential candidates in their best years lost the county by 20 points. From Bill Clinton to John Kerry, however, Democrats began to settle for a draw. Over the past two decades, Oakland County began to change, as an influx of teachers, lawyers and high-tech professionals began to outnumber the county’s business owners and managers. Macomb has been slow to welcome racial diversity, but almost a quarter of Oakland’s residents are members of various racial minorities.

These changes have produced a more tolerant and culturally liberal population, uncomfortable with today’s Republican Party. When we conducted our poll of 600 voters in Oakland County on election night, they were a lot more open than voters in Macomb to gay marriage and affirmative action. We asked those who voted for Mr. Obama why they made that choice. At the top of the list was his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, followed by his support for tax cuts for the middle class and affordable health care for all, and the idea that he will bring people together, end the old politics and get things done.

On Tuesday, Oakland County voters gave Mr. Obama a 57 percent to 42 percent victory over John McCain — those 15 points translated into an astonishing 96,000-vote margin. That helped form one of the most important new national changes in the electorate: Mr. Obama built up striking dominance in the country’s growing, more diverse and well-educated suburbs.

So, good riddance, my Macomb barometer. Four years from now, I trust we will see the candidates rush from their conventions to Oakland County, to see the new America.

Republicans Hold the Texas House by 20 Votes

posted by Josh Goodman

No, Republicans don't have a 20-seat majority in the Texas House of Representatives. Their majority is actually 76-74. Republicans have a 20-vote majority -- 20 votes in one seat is all that has prevented Democrats from drawing to a 75-75 tie. From the Dallas Morning News:

Republicans held their one-seat advantage in the Texas House late Monday as incumbent Linda Harper-Brown maintained a victory in the tight District 105 race.

However, her already small lead shrank from 34 to 20 votes after a Dallas County ballot board accepted 61 provisional ballots, amid Republican allegations of impropriety.

Her narrow victory could lead to a recount that might have implications for embattled House Speaker Tom Craddick.

A prediction: In 2010, we'll be talking about the Texas House of Representatives in the same way that we were talking about the New York Senate this cycle. This year, the campaign for control of the New York Senate had everything: national implications (for redistricting), historical significance (because Republicans had ruled the Senate for decades) and an uncertain results (Republicans ended up losing their narrow majority to Democrats).

In 2010, Texas Democrats will be trying to gain a foothold in the redistricting process, with their best shot being a House majority. There would be symbolic significance to a Democratic win in the biggest red state. And, of course, with Republicans holding a 76-74 edge, the result will be anyone's guess.

 

More Women Than Ever

posted by Alan Greenblatt

More women than ever have been elected to state offices, according to the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers. There will now by 1,784 women state legislators, up slightly from the current count of 1,749.

Interestingly, most of the gains are among Democratic women. There will now be fewer Republican women legislators, in fact, than at any time since 1988.

With Bev Perdue in and Ruth Ann Minner out, there's no net gain among women governors. But the number of women in statewide office increases slightly, from 75 to 81.

IA House GOP Picks New Leader

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Yesterday, Iowa House Republicans replaced Minority Leader Christopher Rants with Kraig Paulsen.

Iowa Defense Alliance:

This is the first step of what is shaping up to be a long and painful process of rebuilding the Republican Party of Iowa.

Outgoing House Minority Leader Christopher Rants has presided over three straight election cycles of Republican losses. Rants has been in the House of Representatives since he first won election to the office in 1992. At one time Rants may have been an effective leader, but lately his leadership has brought some hard times to the Iowa GOP.

Upcoming PA Leadership Fight

posted by Alan Greenblatt

One certain leadership fight will take place next week in the Pennsylvania House. Democrats expanded their majority from one seat to five so they'll want to undo the deal that made Republican Dennis O'Brien speaker two years ago.

Majority Leader Bill DeWeese has been tarnished by the Bonusgate scandal, so Whip Keith McCall has announced his run for the top job, with DeWeese's backing. O'Brien has said he expects to be out, due to the changed numbers.

Val Kilmer for N.M. Gov?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Actor Val Kilmer tells the New York Post that he's thinking about running for governor.

"I know I'm not yet qualified for the job. It's not like I need fame. If that's what it's all about, I wouldn't live in New Mexico. But I don't want to be a train wreck. I have to see if people will put up the money for my run. I have to think about putting my acting on hold. Being famous as a movie actor is one thing, but they take no prisoners in politics. I have to think what this might do to my kids.

"Or to anybody. I plan to sit down with Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Current Gov. Bill Richardson has had nice things to say about a potential Kilmer run. New Mexico blogger Heath Haussamen notes:

Kilmer, a registered Democrat, would have to take on Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, the likely Democratic nominee and possibly already the incumbent if Richardson leaves the state in the coming months to take a job in the Obama administration. It’s no secret that Richardson and Denish haven’t always seen eye-to-eye, and the governor’s comments about a potential Kilmer run fueled rumors that Richardson is looking for someone to take on Denish.http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/11/kilmer-confirms-that-he-may-run-for.html

Where Michigan Dems Gained

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Michigan Liberal chews over the results of state legislative contests, noting that Democrats added to their House majority through big gains in the Detroit area, plus western Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. The post is replete with maps and tables.

Looking ahead,

There are thirty four seats open in 2010.  While the GOP might talk bravely about how they are going to pick up 13 seats and return to the majority, the odds of achieving this are rather steep.  Of the thirty four races, seven are safe Democratic seats, and seven are safe Republican according to the 2007 PVI.  Of the remaining seats, the Democrats hold twelve, while the GOP currently holds nine.  

To make a chamber flip possible, the Republican Party would need to pick up a majority of these Democratic seats, hold five swing seats, and knock off a few incumbents.  This would be a big task to accomplish.  

Thirdly, from all indications, 2010 is going to be a year where both parties will focus on the gubernatorial race and the State Senate.  I'll be posting on the state senate early next year, but at this point it will be very possible that the Senate could be ground zero for Republican efforts to hold onto political control to reduce the impact of statewide redistricting.

Recriminations in Florida

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Democrats made almost no gains in the Florida legislature last week, despite Obama moving the state into the Democratic win column. Florida is home to a particularly strong Republican gerrymander, but the Dems' lack of success may have been self-inflicted, the Sun-Sentinel reports:

Money was spent on the wrong races, which may have cost the Democratic Party a chance to loosen the Republican grip on the Legislature in a year voters clamored for change, key lawmakers said.

Party officials now say it was a mistake to devote resources toward unseating Sen. Jeff Atwater, R- Palm Beach Gardens, the new Senate president, with a seemingly unlimited campaign checkbook.

In the House, the party spent broadly in an effort largely aimed at protecting Democratic incumbents — some in relatively safe districts.

"I think we have some good candidates, but we need to have serious discussion in Tallahassee on the management of these campaigns," said Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres. "You have to recognize the missed opportunities when Florida goes blue and yet the Democrats pick up a total of one seat in both houses."

Sarah Palin's New Nemesis?

posted by Josh Goodman

In late 2006 a "working group" of Democrats and Republicans formed a bipartisan majority in the Alaska Senate, selecting Republican Sen. Lyda Green as their leader. Despite sharing a party label with Governor Sarah Palin, Green quickly became the governor's leading political rival.

Now, two years later, Green is gone (having retired when a Palin ally challenged her in a primary). But, the Alaska Senate has organized again along similar lines. The body's Democrats joined with three Republicans to create a new bipartisan majority. The president is another Republican, Gary Stevens of Kodiak (no relation to Ted Stevens or Ben Stevens).

So, will Gary Stevens be Governor Palin's new nemesis?

Can Obama Corral Congressional Dems?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

We've been negligent in not linking to a column our own Alan Ehrenhalt published today in The New York Times. He offers a reminder to Obama fans that the last two Democratic presidents also took office alongside congressional majorities that seemed promising for their agenda, yet Carter and Clinton failed to push through much of their plans because of factional rifts or congressional logjams.

Obama faces a different challenge:

The Democratic Party in Congress is no longer the fragile and ideologically disparate group it was in 1977 or even 1993; it is now a remarkably cohesive left-of-center majority, with the presence of several dozen fiscally conservative “blue dog” Democrats in the House only a minor obstacle to its unity. Now the question is not whether the next Congress will be willing to support President Obama’s vision, but whether this majority will want to move further in a liberal direction than the country wishes to move.

Can Rudy Save NY GOP?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

New York Republicans facing the wilderness after the loss of the state Senate are hoping that former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani will step in and take over the reins of party power, according to the NY Post:

"I know Rudy is being urged to get in and take control of the party," said former state GOP Chairman William Powers, whose tenure during the 1990s saw the election of Giuliani and Gov. George Pataki, and the re-election of US Sen. Alfonse D'Amato.

Palin Speaks

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Gov. Palin will be on Fox with Greta Van Susteren tonight. Meanwhile, the Anchorage Daily News has put up its interview with the governor, in which she blames the Bush administration for the GOP defeat, says future earmark requests will be fewer but "sensible" and doesn't rule out further national ambitions.

Here's her take on Troopergate:

Q. Were you aware that during the campaign there were some large protests in Anchorage against your candidacy as well as your handling of the Walt Monegan issue? What do you think about that and what can you do to bring those people back.

A. To bring those people back in terms of ... I wasn't aware of all the protests until like after they'd happened, I hear about it, a friend e-mailing me or something saying that there were placards out there saying whatever they would say. I think that's the nature of a national level campaign also. The opposition to our ticket on the national level, that's going to be expressed here on the local level too. The whole Monegan thing, I am glad that we've already gone through two different processes now, the personnel board, which is where it should have been all along, and the legislative investigation of it also. It's done. It's over. People need to move on.

And on taking state per diem money for nights spent at home:

Q. One of the things that came up during the campaign is that you charge the state per diem for time spent here in Wasilla. Is that something you are going to continue to do?

A. We've always followed the law and fully disclosed all that. The choice there in many months of the Juneau mansion being re-plumbed and all the improvements being made in the infrastructure of the Juneau house, where we weren't going to be there anyway. Knowing that in the end it would have cost the state more money to do what other governors had done and that is either charge the state for hotel rooms. Or the state rents you an apartment like they did for Governor Murkowski. We said no, we just won't sell our house, knowing that we're going to spend quite a bit of time here, especially those months where the remodels were taking place in the governor's mansion. And we would disclose my per diem, we wouldn't try to hide it ... trying to go above and beyond, not accepting any per diem for the kids or Todd at all, they've lived outside of the governor's house. Trying to follow the rules and doing what is legal and ethical and full disclosure.

Same with the family's travel. That's baffled me that all of a sudden two years later, again, never having tried to hide anything with either traveling back and forth to Juneau for first family events that were outside the capital city, in bringing Piper and, once in a while, Willow with me also, that anybody would think that I was trying to hide that they came with me ... just trying to do my job and part of my job is with the first family, having them with me at some of these events.

Career Advice: Don't Become a State Legislator for the Pay

posted by Josh Goodman

The salaries of state legislators in Arizona have stayed the same for a decade: $24,000 a year. A bipartisan commission placed a proposal on last Tuesday's ballot to increase the salary to $30,000.

The good news for Arizona legislators: nearly 700,000 Arizonans voted for the idea.

The bad news: more than 1.25 million voted against it.

The political impossibility of paying state legislators $30,000 a year is just more proof that voters have no lower priority than compensating elected officials. It seems relevant to mention that the federal poverty line for a family of five is $24,800.

Purpling of the Exurbs

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Pace Josh, Charlie Mahtesian notes that Obama made significant inroads in the nation's fastest-growing counties, which were formerly near-pure Bush territory:

Four years after George W. Bush underscored the Republican dominance of these places by winning 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties, Obama won 15 of them in 2008 and dramatically scaled back the GOP's margin of victory in many more, according to a Politico analysis of unofficial election results in the Census Bureau’s 100 counties that grew the fastest between April 2000 and July 2007.

Obama won the three largest of these high-growth counties: Riverside County in Southern California, Las Vegas’ Clark County and the Research Triangle’s Wake County, N.C.

Obama ran ahead of Democrat John Kerry’s 2004 performance in 94 of the counties and grew the Democratic share by 8 or more percentage points in 29 of them. His improved performance over John Kerry in these high-growth places probably provided his margin of victory in at least two closely contested states: Indiana and North Carolina.

The Fastest Growing Counties Stay Republican, But Does It Matter?

posted by Josh Goodman

If there's one statistic I remember hearing over and over after the 2004 presidential election, it's this: Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in country. That fact, as much as anything else, seemed to herald a lasting Republican majority.

Since the Republican majority didn't last, I was curious to figure out who won the fastest growing counties this time around. As it turns out, they're still Republican territory. By my count (using data from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections), John McCain won 85 of the 100 fastest growing counties. That number might change slightly as vote totals are refined, but it won't change dramatically.

That finding raises two questions: How was Barack Obama able to be elected president without winning the places with the most population growth? And, does McCain's strength in these areas still suggest that the long-term prospects of the G.O.P. are bright?

Obama's Urban Policy

posted by Alan Greenblatt

London's Center for Cities lays out likely highlights in urban policy from an Obama White House.

Hope for the GOP?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

With modest gains Tuesday building on their sweep in 2006, Democrats are nearly back where they were in terms of state legislative seats in 1994, before that year's big Republican election.

But Republicans can look to history with some hope. The party controlling the White House has lost legislative seats in every midterm election back to 1902, except for the Depression year of 1934 and the post-9/11 election of 2002. So says Tim Storey of NCSL.

25 out of 27 times -- that's gotta be a coincidence...

More Polarized?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Scattered notes on red and blue America:

It looks like only eight states are going to have divided legislatures, where the two main parties each controlling one chamber. That's the fewest since 1982 and perhaps a sign of increased polarization after a long period of near-parity.

Bill "Big Sort" Bishop says that Obama won by running up the D vote votal in cities, while also trimming the margin in rural counties.

Here's what Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz sees in the presidential voting, per TNR:

Number of states decided by less than 5 points in 2008: 7, down from 12 in 2000 and 11 in 2004.  Percentage of electoral votes in those states down from 26% in 2000 and 25% in 2004 to 17% in 2008.
 
Number of blowout states (10 percent plus) in 2008: 34 plus DC.  That's up from around 25 in 2000 and 2004.  Percentage of electoral votes in blowout states up to 71 in 2008 from 57 or 58 in 2000 and 2004.
 
Average state winning margin in 2008 at around 17 points, up from 14 or 15 in 2000 and 2004.
 
Conclusion: more, not less polarization in these results.  The country is more, not less divided than ever.  While there are more blue states, the divide between the red states and blue states is larger than ever.  There may be only one United States of America, as Barack says, but the divide between the red states and blue states is deeper than at any time in the past sixty years.  
 
And the correlation between 2004 Bush margin and 2008 McCain margin: .95.  So same divisions are four years ago, only deeper. 

Spitzer Walks

posted by Alan Greenblatt

AP reports that former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will not be charged in the prostitution case that led to his political downfall:

"In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this Office, as well as Mr. Spitzer's acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter," Garcia said in a statement.

A remorseful Spitzer issued a statement in which he expressed relief that he will not face charges.

"I appreciate the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and I acknowledge and accept responsibility for the conduct it disclosed," he said. "I resigned my position as Governor because I recognized that conduct was unworthy of an elected official. I once again apologize for my actions."

McCain Country

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Ben Smith and other bloggers are starting to post some interest maps.

He compares the two below. The first shows counties where McCain did better than Bush in 2004. The second shows in gray counties where the most people self-report their ancestry as "American," as opposed to some foreign heritage.