Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Paul Babeu to Paul Gosar: 'Are you insane?' (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think I chimed in with jncca yesterday (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, jncca

    But I largely agree with him--also recall Nate Silver's "Partisan Propensity Index", which found that House Dems do the best job of winning PVI-hostile districts with lower incomes, and House Republicans do the best job of winning PVI-hostile districts with higher incomes.  And Bachmann's district is wealthy--much wealthier than Peterson's, as well as having a more-hostile PVI.

    http://proximityone.com/...

    I think the question is precisely whether or not a "suburban analogue of Colin Peterson" exists.  Incumbency is certainly an advantage--but Peterson is drawing on 22 years of incumbency.  I don't think our hypothetical Democrat's one term of incumbency, while it would be some advantage, would be enough against a decently generic business-friendly Republican who didn't become such a lightning rod on social issues.  In other words, it might not be Jefferson/Cao, but it might well be Musgrave/Markey.  (Yes, 2010 was a wave year--all recent examples are wave years!  Think also of Boyda losing to Jenkins after beating Ryun,  Lampson losing to Olson after beating Gibbs, or Mahoney losing to Rooney after beating Negron--all in 2008.  Admittedly, those districts are quite a bit more Republican than Bachmann's except for Mahoney/Rooney's.)

    26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

    by Xenocrypt on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 09:58:08 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nancy Boyda is a good example. (0+ / 0-)

      Her district is different than Bachmann's, as I understand it, but that aside, she came very close in 2008. Perhaps there was no way to get around that, but I don't think that much is clear.  What is clear, I think, is that being the incumbent meant she had the ability to get the resources necessary to compete and establish something of a base with voters. One term doesn't mean much, but it's better than nothing.

      You know, in a lot of ways, it is like throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, or rather hoping something does. But that's how we get really big numbers in congress or at least make the Republicans work their asses off getting their big numbers.

      •  The only suburban district in Kansas (0+ / 0-)

        is KS-03. Which is R+3.

        21, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

        by sapelcovits on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 11:10:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sapelcovits

          I mentioned Nate's "partisan propensity index".  It's worth pointing out that he intends it only to cover open seat races--that's all he looked at in his regression.  But Bachmann's district comes out as harder for a Democrat to win in an open-seat race than Jenkins'--even though Jenkins has a higher PVI.

          http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...

          Namely, Democrats would have a 5.3% chance of winning Bachmann's and a 15.4% chance of winning Jenkins'.  Also by the way, Nate uses "the percentage of households with incomes below $25,000", not median income--although he says that education would be highly correlated, so presumably median income would be as well.

          Take that for whatever it's worth--but it's one more piece of evidence that our sense that some districts are harder for Democrats than others, separate from or on top of PVI, isn't totally out-of-nowhere.

          26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

          by Xenocrypt on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 11:36:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Boyda came close in 2008 (0+ / 0-)

        which might have been a friendly environment for Democrats across-the-board, however Obama did in their particular district.  More precisely, Boyda's seat was R+9.  Republicans got 42.5% of the overall House vote that year, and Democrats got 53% of it.  So, very loosely, you might expect a Republican to get 51.5% of the vote in this House seat, and a Democrat to get 42%.  That's not too far from what happened--Jenkins got 50.6% and Boyda got 46.2%.

        Alternately--Democrats got 55% of the national two-party House vote and Republicans got 45%.  In an R+9 seat, then, you'd expect a Republican to get 54% of the two-party vote and a Democrat to get 46%.  Boyda got 48% of the two-party vote to Jenkins' 52%.  

        In other words, I think the incumbency effect might shave a few points off the PVI, but the PVI and the national environment will likely still matter most in most cases.  

        More broadly: I think I understand that, in general, you think Democrats should put more effort into more "long shot" races as part of an overall electoral strategy.  I think we often end up talking about two different things--I say that such-and-such district would be really unlikely for Democrats to win or make competitive, and you say maybe, but they may as well try, since that's good strategy, and so on.  I don't really have a reaction or suggestion to that--I just think it's worth noting the difference in approach.

        26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

        by Xenocrypt on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 11:21:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand the difference to our approaches (0+ / 0-)

          and notions about how to think about such a strategy.

          I guess you sum my views by saying that we shouldn't always get lost in numbers and models but rather use them as a guide. Such things reflect underlying attitudes and trends, but they also illustrate the specific actions we take in response to such attitudes and trends.

    •  also Mahoney had his own problems (0+ / 0-)

      but yes, I think Boyda is a good example.  Or Markey in 2010.  Or Minnick.

      I don't think Markey or Minnick would've survived a neutral year either, simply because they won due to who they faced, not who they were.

      19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. Put your age and CD here :) -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 11:12:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site