Power Map: State Governments

In my previous Power Map entry, I looked specifically at Texas. This time, I want to take a step back and look at the state governments as a whole. Of the 50 states, Democrats control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature in the following 8 states: Washington, New Mexico, Illinois, Maine, West Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature in 12 states: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and Indiana. Nebraska has a Republican governor and an officially non-partisan unicameral legislature that is conservative enough it might as well be considered Republican.

In a handful of states, the party in control of the legislature has enough votes to override the veto of the governor of the opposing party. Democrats have override power in (6): Arkansas, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Republicans have override power in Wyoming, and are just shy in Kansas.

States where a Republican legislature is checked only by the threat of a veto from a Democratic governor include (6): Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Arizona. States where a Democratic legislature is checked only by the threat of a veto from a Republican governor are (5): California, Colorado, Alabama, Mississippi, and Vermont.

States with a split legislature and a Democratic governor (6): Oregon, Montana, Iowa, Oklahoma, Delaware and Tennessee. States with a split legislature and a Republican governor (4): Nevada, Minnesota, Kentucky, and New York.

So, to illustrate this as a spectrum, control of state legislatures looks like this:

D: 8 5 6 6..4 6 2 13 :R

There are 25 states with more Republican control than Democratic. There are 25 states with more Democratic control than Republican. But among states Republicans control, they control them a little more strongly.

One additional note. Southern Democrats are very difficult for the national party to control, and far less likely to want to try any sort of partisan shenanigans in favor of the national party. This is an institutional problem the Democrats have that Republicans do not, for the most part, have any couterpart to. As such, Democratic partisan strength is overestimated by looking only at the numbers.

(Graph from Polidata)

Austin Mayor Averts Capital Metro Strike

There was no Capital Metro strike yesterday morning -- Capital Metro and the union reached a deal after Mayor Will Wynn intervened. News 8 Austin:

Capital Metro drivers and mechanics were prepared to strike by Sunday. By the late afternoon, the union had prepared hundreds of leaflets to instruct drivers what to do once the strike began at noon on Monday.

But by 3 a.m. Monday, both sides reached an agreement. Mayor Will Wynn stepped in during the early morning hours as a mediator.

I like this quote from union president Jay Wyatt too: "Everybody loses with a strike. So if you can by all costs, you avoid it. It's really a last resort," Unions usually don't have to strike. But they need to be able to threaten a strike to have any bargaining power.

Anyway, in this case, everybody wins. There's no strike, so bus service goes on as normal. Capital Metro looks reasonable for reaching a deal with their employees. Employees get a 3% raise. And the mayor looks good for brokering the deal.

State of the Union Drinking Game!

I doubt I'll watch the State of the Union address. Bush has offended me personally by claiming marriage needs to be protected from me. And I find it difficult to watch him. But if you plan to watch, and you understandably need to drink while doing so, consider playing the State of the Union drinking game. My favorites:

• If he mentions Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, drink one shot of Manischevitz.
• If he mentions Jack Abramoff, congressional corruption scandal, or congressional ethics, drink one sip of the drink belonging to the person next to you.
• If the camera shows a Bush daughter, drink one for each shown, or however many she's having.
• If the camera shows Nancy Pelosi, do one "shot" of botox, or just make a scary yet powerless face.
• If the speech is under an hour, finish your drink and have another.

If you're watching, make sure to watch the Democratic response, given a few minutes afterward by the newly elected, gay-unfriendly, governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine.

Roll Call Comparison

The 18 Democratic senators who voted for cloture on Alito: Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Dorgan (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO) [bold means they voted no on John Roberts.]

For the most part, senators who voted against Roberts last year were willing to filibuster Alito this year. The only exceptions were Maria Cantwell and Hawaii's two senators, Daniel Inouye, part of the Gang of 14, and Daniel Akaka, facing a strong primary challenge from a more DLC-type Democrat. Hawaii has been moving from Strong Democratic to Leans Democratic ever since Sept 11, so I suspect Hawaii's congressional representation is going to become less and less reliable for Democrats.

I believe only 4 Democrats have said they would actually vote for Alito in the actual vote (yeah I know it's confusing): Byrd (WV), Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), and Nelson (NE). The other 14 (and Republican Sen. Chafee (RI)) are voting against Alito, but also against a filibuster of Alito, guaranteeing his confirmation since Republicans have the votes.

Democrats did better than last year when they mustered only 22 votes against John Roberts. The 23 Democratic senators who voted for Roberts: Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Jeffords (VT), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO), Wyden (OR) [bold means they voted to filibuster Alito.]

The 15 Democrats who voted both for John Roberts and against a filibuster of Sam Alito make up a sort of "conservative wing" of the Senate Democrats. For the most part they are the Democrats who represent states Bush won in 2004, with Kent Conrad of ND, Evan Bayh of IN, and Tom Harkin of IA as the brave souls from red states who remained with the Democrats this time. The senators from blue states who abandoned the Democrats include reliably and unnecessarily conservative Lieberman of CT and Carper of DE, Cantwell of WA who is facing a tough re-election fight right now, and Hawaii's two senators, whom I spoke of above.

Question to be answered later: why do Democrats have a tougher time holding their red state senators to the party line than Republicans have holding their blue state senators: Chafee (RI), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Santorum (PA), Specter (PA), Sununu (NH), Gregg (NH), Coleman (MN), and Smith (OR)?

MyDD Redesign

One of my favorite sites, MyDD, recently did a redesign. It looks like "MyDD", which once stood for "My Due Diligence" now stands for "My Direct Democracy". Check it out.

On Partisan Control of State Governments

2006 looks to be anywhere from a mildly good year to a very good year for Democrats. National political analysts will minimize the Democrats' potential for gains because of some rough terrain in the U. S. Congress. But in addition to congressional elections, most states will also be holding elections for state officials from governors to state legislatures. The rough terrain that exists in Congress doesn't exist at the state level. At least, not in every state. So Democrats have the potential to take a few state governors' mansions and state legislative houses. This is important.

Even if Democrats take control of Congress, they probably won't have strong enough control to run roughshod over Republicans the way the Republicans do over them. It's in the nature of our party to be a loose confederation that operates on consensus rather than a dictorial regime that implements the ideology of deserved power. And besides, President Bush will have a veto over any legislation that gets out of Congress, and a friendly Supreme Court. And Republicans in the Senate would have a filibuster, which they'd be less reticent about using than Democrats have been.

The states have traditionally been used as laboratories for legislation. Consider the Maryland legislature overriding their Republican governor's veto to force Walmart to pay for health care for its workers. Or on the other side, consider the Florida legislature's bill last year to expand the the circumstances under which someone could use deadly force in self defense. Is it any surprise that when you look at the partisan composition of the Maryland and Florida legislatures, the Florida legislature is overwhelmingly Republican and the Maryland legislature has enough Democrats in both houses to override the Republican governor without a single Republican vote?

Gay rights are particularly important to me, as most of my readers know. Just looking at this last week, we have a anti-gay marriage amendment heading to the voters in Virginia; a bill to legalize gay marriage in Vermont and Rhode Island, Idaho and Pennsylvania legislators introducing an anti-gay marriage amendment, Washington state passing major gay rights legislation, the California Assembly voting to limit the "gay panic" defense for violent crime, and the likely future governor of New York saying he'll introduce a bill to legalize gay marriage. In Indiana, a bill to overturn local gay rights ordinances was withdrawn.

The fate of all these actions, and the genesis of actions like them, can probably be determined by looking at partisan control in those states, particularly of the legislatures. Virginia, Idaho, and Pennsylvania all have solidly Republican legislatures, so their anti-gay amendments will probably pass. Indiana has only a narrow Republican majority in the state house, which is where they are having problems. Vermont, Rhode Island, Washington, and Calfornia all have Democratic legislatures. If Elliot Spitzer wins the governorship of New York in 2006, it's at least possible that the Democrats will control the governorship and both houses of the legislature (though they only control the state house). If they can do that, New York will probably become the second state to legalize gay marriage.

For supporters of gay rights, it's fairly simple. Republican legislatures try and override courts' and municipalities' gay-friendly decisions. Democratic legislatures make gay-friendly decisions. So, if Democrats have a good 2006, gays and their supporters are likely to have a good 2007. I imagine it's a similar situation for other progressive interests as well.

Power Map: Texas

In Texas, Republicans control just about everything. Every statewide elected office is held by a Republican. Those officers are:

Governor Rick Perry
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst
Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn
Attorney General Greg Abbott
Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones
Agriculture Commisior Susan Combs

Yes sir. All Republicans. Republicans also control both houses of the state legislature. They hold 19 out of 31 seats in the state senate, and 86 out of 150 seats in the state house. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote from both houses of the legislature, and majority approval in a referendum. There are no voter initiatives in Texas.

Texas effectively has two state supreme courts: the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which has jurisdiction in criminal cases and the Texas State Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction in civil and juvenile cases. Both courts have 9 members, and all members of both courts are Republicans.

Democrats really have no way at the state level to push their agenda. They need to start winning elections.

Will Democrats Filibuster Alito's nomination?

Bowers:

From what I have heard, right now the "no" votes on Alito are somewhere in the range of 44-47, and the filibuster votes are somewhere in the range of 37-40. In other words, we are close, but not there yet. Unfortunately, I have no idea who the weak Senators are on the filibuster vote, so I can't give you any information which contacts would be best to make.

The no vote total sounds about right to me. Democrats (44) plus Jeffords (I-VT) plus Chafee (R-RI) minus Ben Nelson (D-NE), who has announced he's voting for Alito, Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who hasn't announced as far as I know. Although I'm predicting they vote against Alito, the following Democrats seem the most likely to prove me wrong: Pryor (AR), Lincoln (AR), Conrad (ND), Johnson (SD), Dorgan (ND), Byrd (WV), Carper (DE).

The "no" vote total is different from the filibuster total. The filibuster is an anti-democratic maneuver by nature, and that makes it harder to invoke. Senators are truly frightened of being labeled "obstructionists". So those Democrats I listed above I think are the most likely to vote no, but also vote yes to break the Democrats filibuster. Which would lead to a floor vote and 53-55 out of 100 votes to confirm.

If the Democrats can pull together a filibuster (and I tend to think they'll be able to do that), then we'll come back to the "nuclear option" debate from early last year. And it will be Republicans' turn to pull out an arcane maneuver. The upshot is, the Republicans will need to break the rules in order to break the filibuster. A filibuster takes 60 votes to overcome. But with the nuclear option, the Republicans will simply declare by fiat that the filibuster does not apply to judicial nominations. That takes a simple majority.

No Democrat will support the Republicans on the nuclear option vote. Five Republicans are likely to vote with the Democrats: Chafee (RI), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), McCain (AZ), and Warner (VA). Last time this discussion came around, 2 additional Republicans joined with those 5 to round out the Republican component of the Gang of 14: Graham (SC) and DeWine (OH). I doubt they'll be so keen to help out this time. That will create a 50-50 vote on the nuclear option. And ties in the Senate are broken by... wait for it... the Vice President, Dick Cheney, who as a member of the administration has somewhat of a vested interest in the confirmation of Alito.

Now, it's always possible that Democrats will be unable to muster a filibuster, or that some principled Republican will come out of the woodwork to block the nuclear option, but I think the most likely event is the scenario I outlined above. A Democratic filibuster, and a Republican nuclear option, passed only with the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President. Republicans will have to break the rules to do this, and then overrule the parliamentarian when he points that out. And the filibuster will be broken. And the Democrats will retaliate, to be sure, but Alito will have been confirmed. I wonder, though, if sometime in the not-too-distant future, it will be the Democrats with the Presidency and the Senate, and the Republicans will be wishing they hadn't pulled that trigger.

Power Map: Beginnings

One of the things I've found most frustrating as an avid student of politics is that there doesn't seem to be a complete guide to the partisan composition of offices nationwide. The individual components of the government will often have a guide to that component, but there is no one place to get all the information, as far as I know. Not even the parties' websites. Therefore, I intend to try and learn as much as I can about the partisan state of affairs in America, and let you guys know who's got what.

Let's start at the top, shall we? The Presidency, occupied by George W. Bush, is controlled by the Republicans. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans as well. There are 55 Republicans in the Senate out of 100 senators, while Democrats have 44 senators. There is one independent senator, Jim Jeffords, who is a former Republican who now "caucuses" with the Democrats, meaning he votes with them on procedural votes. In the House, there are 231 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 independent congressman who caucuses with the Democrats, and 2 vacancies: NJ-13 and CA-50. It takes 218 seats to control the House.

The Supreme Court is officially nonpartisan, but consists of 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic appointees. A more insightful way to look at the Supreme Court, however, would be to look at its ideological divisions. There are 4 liberal justices, 3 conservative justices, and 2 swing justices: Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor has announced her retirement upon Senate confirmation of her successor, and President Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace her. He is likely to vote with the conservative bloc. On partisan issues, the court seems likely to vote 5-4 in favor of Republicans, as it did in the case Bush v Gore. In that case, Kennedy and O'Connor voted with the conservative bloc.

That's who controls what. There are a handful of additional considerations. The President can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override that veto with a 2/3 vote. It also takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. Neither party has 2/3 of the vote in either house. In the Senate, it takes 41 Senators to filibuster, which is effectively a veto. Since the filibuster is not particularly democratic by nature (allowing a minority to thwart majority will), senators tend to be reluctant to use it lightly. Democrats have 45 votes (including Jeffords), and thus have the ability to use the filibuster as a veto of sorts in the Senate. No such tool exists for a minority of representatives to block legislation in the House of Representatives.

Well, that's the big picture power map of the federal government. But there's more at the federal level than that. There are a number of independent agencies that the President appoints members of over time, including the FEC and the Federal Reserve. There are appeals courts and district courts. And of course, there's the military. I hope to get to those some other time. But before I do, I plan to do a summary of state government partisan compositions.

Canadian Same-Sex Marriage Likely Safe

Under a cloud of scandal, the Liberal government of Canada just went poof! CNN:

Canadians elected Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper as their next prime minister Monday, but denied him the outright majority he would need to take any strong change in direction.

...

However, as the votes were being counted the Conservatives were hovering at around 125 seats, well short of the 155 they needed for a majority, while the scandal-plagued Liberals were winning around 100 seats, down from the 133 they held going into the vote.
...

In Monday's vote, the New Democrats appeared to be siphoning support from the Liberals on the left, increasing their seat count from 18 to around 30. The Bloc Quebecois lost a handful of seats but was still holding around 50.

So it looks like the Conservatives will need to form a coalition with one of three parties: their main opposition party the Liberals, the left-of-Liberal New Democratic party, or the incidentally leftist Bloc Quebecois (my guess). None of those parties will vote to roll back same-sex marriage there, so it's likely safe for this round. Other liberal policies though, I'm not so sure about.

One other effect of this will be a closer relationship between America and Canada. That will be positive for us Americans, but it's still hard to stomach that it will be because Harper and Bush share a terrible philosophy. Anyway, good luck Canadians with your new government! May it be less corrupt than its Liberal predecessor and its American counterpart!

Friday Poll Dump

Survey USA Bush approval 41% disapproval 56%

Interesting blue states:
NH: approval 44% disapproval 54%
WI: approval 44% disapproval 53%
HI: approval 43% disapproval 52%

Interesting red states:
NV: approval 39% disapproval 59%
AR: approval 38% disapproval 59%
OH: approval 38% disapproval 60%

Bush's 5 best states: UT 61%, ID 58%, NE 55%, WY 55%, TX 54%
Bush's 5 worst states: NY 33%, DE 32%, MA 32%, VT 32%, RI 29%

Rasmussen:

PA-Gov: Swann (R) 45% Rendell (D) 43%
AR-Gov: Beebe (D) 46% Hutchinson (R) 40%
MD-Gov: Ehrlich (R) 47% O'Malley (D) 42%
MD-Sen: Steele (R) 45% Cardin (D) 40%
VA-Sen: Allen (R) 57% Miller (D) 27%
IA-Gov: Nussle (R) 40% Culver (D) 40%

Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrat 46% Republican 35%

Democratic pickups are in blue. Republican pickups are in red.



Survey USA's Governors Approval Ratings

Governors Running for Re-election in 2006 under 50% approval:
MD-Ehrlich (R) approval 48% disapproval 43%
WI-Doyle (D) approval 46% disapproval 45%
MI-Granholm (D) approval 44% disapproval 53%
IL-Blagojevich (D) approval 42% disapproval 53%
OR-Kulongoski (D) approval 42% disapproval 48%
ME-Baldacci (D) approval 38% disapproval 56%
CA-Schwarzenegger (R) approval 34% disapproval 62%
AK-Murkowski (R) approval 29% disapproval 68%

TX-Gov: Rick Perry's approval rating is at 51% approval, 41% disapproval, his best showing since Survey USA started tracking back in May of last year.

Zogby Interactive Battleground States Poll:

NY-Sen: Clinton (D) 59.5% Cox (R) 31.8%
NM-Sen: Bingaman (D) 57.3% McCulloch (R) 26.4%
FL-Sen: Nelson (D) 51.4% Harris (R) 40.1%
PA-Sen: Casey (D) 51.1% Santorum (R) 41.4%
MI-Sen: Granholm (D) 50.8 Brouchard (R) 38.9%
WI-Sen: Kohl (D) 50.1% Neumann (R) 42.4%
WA-Sen: Cantwell (D) 50.0% McGavick (R) 41.3%
MD-Sen: Cardin (D) 49.7% Steele (R) 43.5%
MN-Sen: Klobuchar (D) 48.6% Kennedy (R) 42.8%
OH-Sen: Brown (D) 41.3% DeWine (R) 37.0%
NJ-Sen: Kean (R) 42.8% Menendez (D) 38.1%
TN-Sen: Bryant (R) 48.8% Ford (D) 40.7%
MO-Sen: Talent (R) 49.0% McCaskill (D) 45.1%
VA-Sen: Allen (R) 49.3% Webb (D) 38.3%
AZ-Sen: Kyl (R) 51.9% Pederson (D) 42.3%
NV-Sen: Ensign (R) 52.2% Goodman (D) 37.6%
TX-Sen: Hutchison (R) 56.9% Radnofsky (D) 31.8%

NY-Gov: Spitzer (D) 61.4% Golisano (R) 21.7%
MD-Gov: O'Malley (D) 52.6% Ehrlich (R) 40.0%
OR-Gov: Kulongoski (D) 50.6% Mannix (R) 37.8%
AZ-Gov: Napolitano (D) 50.2% Goldwater (R) 37.3%
MI-Gov: Granholm (D) 50.2% DeVos (R) 40.0%
MA-Gov: Reilly (D) 49.8% Healey (R) 32.4%
WI-Gov: Doyle (D) 47.7% Green (R) 45.7%
MN-Gov: Hatch (D) 44.9% Pawlenty (R) 41.4%
CA-Gov: Angelides (D) 44.7% Schwarzenegger (R) 40.5%
PA-Gov: Rendell (D) 43.9% Swann (R) 43.6%
CO-Gov: Ritter (D) 39.7% Beauprez (R) 37.3%
IL-Gov: Blagojevich (D) 39.7% Topinka (R) 38.7%
TX-Gov: Perry (R) 38.3% Strayhorn (I) 17.9% Bell (D) 17.9% Freidman (I) 14.4%
NV-Gov: Gibbons (R) 41.9% Gibson (D) 36.8%
IA-Gov: Nussle (R) 43.5% Culver (D) 43.2%
FL-Gov: Crist (R) 44.0% Davis (D) 38.5%
OH-Gov: Blackwell (R) 45.9% Strickland (D) 41.4%
AR-Gov: Hutchinson (R) 47.1% Beebe (D) 44.7%
GA-Gov: Perdue (R) 50.6% Cox (D) 38.9%

It seems the polls are still good for Democrats, though not quite as good as they have been in the past. Most notably in the Maryland and New Jersey open seat senate races, and the Ohio and Maryland governor races. Bush's approval seems to be hanging around in the low 40's -- which is a few points higher than it was late last year, and psychologically a much better place the President. Nonetheless, Bush's approval ratings since re-election have been very closely in line with Clinton's in his first two years in office. And we all know where that went.

TX-HD-047: Better Know a District

Ok, I'm cheating on this one. Philip Martin at Burnt Orange Report posted a great district bio on my state house district, HD-047. I just want to keep a record of it here so others can find it.

Bush carried HD-047 with 53.3% of the vote. But Bush tended to outperform other Republicans in Texas. Since Terry Keel is retiring at the end of this term, the district is a true tossup.

Interesting links he provides:

District map
Past election statistics
Evidence that HD-047 is white, wealthy, and urban

Thanks Philip! Great work!

State House Rankings Update

The passing of the state filing deadline has caused me to take another look at the rankings I did a while ago for the Texas State House and the Texas State Senate. In those posts, I explained my methods, which, as I warned, are completely amateur. I modeled them after the US House, Senate, and Governor rankings that Charlie Cook provides on the Cook Political Report.

The reasons I did all this are that I'm a complete rankings junkie, and that I wanted to provide a picture of the overall situation in the 2006 election for the legislature. No one was out there warning that Democrats might just take over the legislature, and I wanted to know why. Now I do.

The changes I've made have been as a result of some seats failing to attract a candidate before the legal deadline. A complete list of Democratic candidates can be found here. Republican candidates can be found here. There are currently 86 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and 1 vacancy (HD-48). Seats not listed are safe holds for the incumbent party (50 Democrats, 73 Republicans). I'm a tad excited that Democrats' best opportunities for pickups are here in Austin (HD-047 and HD-048).

Anyway, without further ado, here are the rankings:

Likely Democratic Hold
Homer (HD-003)
McReynolds (HD-012)
HD-038 Open (Solis)
Rose (HD-045)
Leibowitz (HD-117)
Hernandez (HD-143)

Leans Democratic Hold
Hopson (HD-011)
Cook (HD-017)
Toureilles (HD-035)
Strama (HD-050)
Farbee (HD-069)

Democratic-Held Tossup
HD-085 Open (Laney)
Vo (HD-149)

Republican-Held Tossup
HD-047 Open (Keel)
HD-048 Open (Baxter)

Leans Republican Hold
HD-054 Open (Hupp)
Anderson (HD-056)
HD-106 Open (Allen)
HD-126 Open (Hamnic)

Likely Republican Hold
Seaman (HD-032)
Orr (HD-058)
Phillips (HD-062)
HD-071 Open (Hunter)
HD-091 Open (Griggs)
Goolsby (HD-102)
HD-133 Open (Nixon)
Wong (HD-134)

Please feel free to contest my rankings in the comments. How else will I learn? You can find my updated State Senate Rankings here.

TX-HD-48: Howard Wins, But Fails to Avoid Runoff

Texas House District 48 had an open primary special election today due to former Republican Rep. Todd Baxter's resignation. The Austin American-Statesman has results:

Donna Howard (D): 49.5%
Ben Bentzin (R): 38%

Although Howard won the most votes, because she won with less than 50%, the top two vote-getters advance to a runoff. I think Howard's strong showing indicates she will be the favorite in the runoff. This would represent a pickup for Democrats in the State House, but we're still a long way from taking it back. Republicans currently hold 86 of 150 seats, and Democrats hold just 63. There is one vacancy: HD-48.

According to Karl-Thomas Musselman of Burnt Orange Report, Donna Howard missed avoiding a runoff by just 76 votes out of about 13,600. Isn't it amazing how few votes we're talking about here? You can make a difference in these elections, people. Look at the numbers.

Of course, I find it amazing that I couldn't find more people I knew in the district. I knew one co-worker (a Democrat) who lived there, and one friend from college (a Republican). That's it. And there are only 6 Texas house districts in Travis County. Who are these 13,600 people? Check out the map to see.

State Senate Rankings Update

In light of the passing of the deadline to file for office, I thought it's about time to update by analysis of the Texas House and Senate for 2006. The complete list of Democrats who filed and Republicans who filed can be found on the state parties' websites. I'll have the new State House rankings soon. Here's the new State Senate rankings:

Solid Democratic Hold
Ellis (SD-13)
Whitmire (SD-15)
Madla (SD-19)
Shapleigh (SD-29)
SD-14 Open (Barrientos)

Democratic-Held Tossup
SD-18 Open (Armbrister)

Leans Republican Hold
Eltife (SD-01)
SD-07 Open (Lindsay)

Solid Republican Hold
Deuell (SD-02)
SD-03 Open (Staples)
Ogden (SD-05)
Shapiro (SD-08)
Nelson (SD-12)
Janek (SD-17)
Averitt (SD-22)
Wentworth (SD-25)

I would like to emphasize that I am a complete amateur, so please take these rankings with an oversized grain of salt. But no one else I've seen has compiled a chart like this for the Texas State Senate or House, so I thought I might try to show people the bigger picture here. It really looks like the Republicans have 1 good opportunity to pick up a seat, while Democrats have 1 good opportunity, and 2 less-good opportunities. So the net change in the State Senate is likely to be anywhere from Republicans picking up 1 seat, to Democrats picking up 3 seats. With a current balance of 19 Reps to 12 Dems, we could end up anywhere from 20-11 to 16-15, but in all conceivable cases, Republicans appear set to hold on to control of the Texas State Senate.

UPDATE: SD-03 was mistakenly "Republican-Held Tossup" because I mistakenly thought a Democratic candidate was contesting the seat. My error was brought to my attention in the comments, and I have moved SD-03 to "Solid Republican Hold". As a result, Democrats seem to have only 2 less-good opportunities, while Republicans have an excellent opportunity to pick up SD-18.

TX-22: DeLay Will Probably Lose Re-election

A new poll of TX-22, Tom DeLay's district, indicates he'll probably lose re-election.

Lampson (D) 30%
DeLay (R) 22%
Stockman (I) 11%

Now, the level of undecideds in this poll is unusually large in my opinion. But, this certainly shows that DeLay is in trouble. Political analyst Charlie Cook has just downgraded DeLay from "Leans Republican" to "Tossup".

DeLay's opponents are both former congressmen. Steve Stockman was a one-term very conservative Republican who ousted Democratic House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks in the 1994 Republican revolution. Nick Lampson is the Democrat who defeated him in 1996. Lampson served until 2004, when he was redistricted out of his seat. So he moved to Tom DeLay's district, which after the 2003 redistricting, included about 20% of Lampson's old district.

I can't think of another race involving three current and former congressmen running against each other. It's definitely the most interesting House race in the country.

My Kingdom For a Triangle

Peter Daou says the triangle is broken. What on earth is he talking about? Well, I'm glad you asked.

Daou think the universes of the political left and right are made up of three groups that form a triangle when they work well together: the political establishment, the traditional media, and bloggers. He also thinks the right's triangle functions well, while the left's triangle malfunctions because the Democratic political establishment is clueless about such things as the triangle, while the traditional media enthralled by the Republicans. The article's worth a read because of his example of how the left might have handled the Alito hearings if they had possessed a properly functioning triangle.

Daou's Triangle could also be called, and sometimes is elsewhere, a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (VLWC). That is what the left needs. Now, I don't mean a conspiracy in any illegal sense. In fact, conspiracy is really not the right word. Really, I suppose I mean an "idea infrastructure" to parallel the one on the right. If we only had the overflowing coffers, established think tanks, pundit army, message development team, and cooperation with the politicians that Republicans had, Democrats would be far better off. How do we get there? Well, it starts with money, of course. I'll probably talk more about this later. It's 1:46 am and I'm exhausted.

Another Slippery Slope Gone Awry

James and I have been slipping down slope after slippery slope lately. I thought I had thoroughly and utterly exhausted the subject until I came across this nugget (emphasis mine):

On Tuesday, an Arizona judge ruled that fetuses should not be considered passengers in HOV lanes. On Nov. 8, Ahwatukee, Ariz., resident Candace Dickinson, who was nine months pregnant and driving alone, hoped to break out of Phoenix's heavy rush-hour traffic and moved into an HOV lane. Police pulled her over and wrote a ticket.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety says a vehicle can't occupy the HOV lane unless two or more persons are in it. The statute, however, doesn't define what a "person" is.

Dickinson, 23, fought the ticket, saying that her then-unborn child was her other occupant. She appeared in court Tuesday to state her case, but Municipal Court Judge Dennis Freeman rejected her argument.

This is, of course, a point on the slippery slope of "fetus personhood" that anti-abortion folks want us to slide down. The next point on the slope is where a mother pregnant with quintuplets gets cited for exceeding the maximum occupancy of her Corolla... (have to give credit to my good friend Paul for that one...)

MT-Sen: Burns is in Trouble

Rasmussen has a new 2006 poll for Montana Senate:

Burns (R) 45% (51%)
Tester (D) 45% (38%)

Burns (R) 46% (51%)
Morrison (D) 43% (39%)

The numbers in parentheses are the September 2005 values. Senator Conrad Burns' support has basically collapsed in the last few months as Democrats have hammered him over his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. From his Wikipedia entry:

Burns is an alleged recipient of illegal favors and $136,000 in campaign contributions from scandal-plagued lobbyist Jack Abramoff, currently under indictment by one grand jury and under investigation by two more.

As the chair of the Interior subcommittee on Apropriations, Burns received over $136,000 in campaign contributions through Abramoff and then directed $3 million to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, an Abramoff client and one of the wealthiest tribes in the country from a program intended to help the neediest tribes fix delapidated schools.

After initially claiming credit for the appropriation Burns subsequently denied knowledge of it, "A lot of things happened that I didn't know about. It shouldn't have happened, but it did."

In September, 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Burns one of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress. [3]

In December, 2005, a leader of a tribe which gave $22,000 in campaign contributions to Burns in 2002 stated that they had done so solely at the request of Abramoff and believed the senator was part of “Abramoff's group.”

His poll numbers, assuming they are held up in other polls, show him to be seriously vulnerable. Incumbents under 50% are typically seen as vulnerable because, according to Mystery Pollster's Incumbent Rule, 82% of undecided voters on average break for the challenger.

If Burns decides not to run for re-election, I wouldn't be surprised. If he does drop out, look for relatively popular Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg, Montana's at-large representative, to run, opening up his House seat. If Burns resigns, that gives Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer the opportunity to resolve the Democratic primary early in favor of either Tester or Morrison. The other could then run for Rehberg's House seat. Rehberg would be a tough candidate for Democrats to beat -- Democrats might be better off if Burns stuck around, wallowing in his own lobbyist-infused filth, to coin a phrase.

Damn You Roosevelt! No Turnip Tax!

Blueberry at Texas Oasis found a hilarious guide to Republican phenotypes. So of course, I shamelessly stole it. But now I feel guilty...

Monkey Unions!

James over at Opiate of the Masses abuses the slippery slope, taking us from monkey money to monkey marriage and beyond. I think soon we'll be looking at monkey counterfeiting, monkey silver wars, monkey bake sales and bingo tournaments, and monkey lobbying scandals (Jack Ape-ramoff!!!). And of course, munkywoodjam. Ah... the good old slippery slope.

TX-21: Better Know A District

I can't believe how much of a political junkie I am. I'm just bouncing off the walls because I just got a copy of the 2006 Almanac of American Politics! Basically, it's a compendium of factoids about different politicians around the country and the electoral districts they represent. To give you a taste of the kind of information it contains, I'm going to present a little report about my district, TX-21.

TX-21 is the congressional district that includes much of south, west, and central Austin, and north San Antonio, and is currently represented by Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. The district was given its current boundaries by the Texas legislature in the 2003 mid-decade redistricting that occurred after Republicans took over the Texas House in 2002. Rep. Smith is being challenged this November by San Antonio teacher and Democrat, John Courage, Smith's opponent in 2002 (before the district was redrawn).

In 2004, Rep. Smith was unopposed in the primary. In the general election, he spent $606,121 and garnered 61% of the vote (209,774 votes) against Democrat Rhett Smith, who's now running against Texas Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary. That's nearly identical to President Bush's 61% in the district in 2004.

Roughly 40% of the district's population is in Travis County, but not all of Travis County is in TX-21. The University of Texas campus, the Texas State Capitol, and downtown Austin are all part of it, as are the hills in the western part of the County. The City of Sunset Valley, my hometown, is also in TX-21. In 2004, the Travis County portion of the district was carried by Rep. Smith 50%-46%.



At the other end of the district is San Antonio's Bexar County, where another 40% of the district's population is located. Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, and the mostly white north side of San Antonio are in the district. In 2004, Rep. Smith carried the Bexar County part of the district 70%-28%.

In between the two cities are Blanco, Hays, and Comal counties where the other 20% of the district reside. Rep. Smith carried this part of the district with 65% of the vote in 2004.

The district is 73.1% White, 18.1% Hispanic, 3.8% Black, 3.0% Asian, with the remaining 2% including Native American, Hawaiian, and those of two or more races. The total population is 651,619 people. The district is 82% urban and 18% rural. The median income is $55,609, compared to a U.S. median income of $44,473 and a Texas median income of $41,275. 7.0% of the district is below the poverty line. Jobs are 75.7% white collar, 13.4% blue collar, and 10.9% gray collar. 15.4% are military veterans. 15.2% have German ancestry, 9.7% English ancestry, and 8.6% Irish ancestry.

So now you know about TX-21. The Almanac has stuff like that for every state and every congressional district in the country. If you want to keep track of the race for Representative, check out the candidates sites here and here, and the TX-21 blog.

TX-Gov: She Shook Up the Race

When Strayhorn decided to run as an independent, she sure shook up the race for Texas governor. Rasmussen:

Perry (R) 40%
Strayhorn (I) 21%
Bell (D) 14%
Friedman (I) 12%

Boy are those numbers depressing...

Texas Rep Races

Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff had a comment on Swing State Project that got elevated to the front page in which he talked about the Democrats' best opportunities to pick up house seats. They are:

• TX-14: Shane Sklar vs. incumbent Ron Paul (Bush-Kerry: 67-33)
• TX-21: John Courage vs. incumbent Lamar Smith (Bush-Kerry: 61-39)
• TX-22: Nick Lampson vs. incumbent Tom DeLay (Bush-Kerry: 64-36)

Go John Courage! I've been thinking about possibly doing some volunteer work for his campaign, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have this year. I'm definitely excited to see someone as knowledgable as Kuffner marking TX-21 as competetive. Here's what he had to say about the race:

Lamar Smith ran against a no-name perennial candidate (Rhett Smith, who is now on the GOP (!) primary ballot for Governor; he also ran for San Antonio Mayor last year) and barely achieved parity with the district's GOP index. He carried Travis County (Austin) by a 50-46 spread (there was another candidate in the race as well), and it's about 40% of the district. If Courage can win Travis and hold his losses in Bexar County, he can win.

After seeing Travis County's Proposition 2 results, I have no doubt that John Courage can win here. Bexar County, I'm less certain about, but that is where he's from.

I suspect Tom DeLay is the most vulnerable Texas Republican though, with all the scandals he's neck-deep in, and challengers left and right. He certainly seems embattled to me. He only won last year with 55% of the vote. and this year the Democrat is a stronger candidate, and DeLay has at least one serious Republican primary challenger, as well as an independent candidate (former Rep. Steve Stockman) challenging him from the right in the general election.

More Rasmussen Polls

Rasmussen's latest batch of 2006 Governor and Senate polls:

GA-Gov: Perdue (R) 51% Cox (D) 37%
GA-Gov: Perdue (R) 55% Taylor (D) 32%
TX-Sen: Hutchison (R) 64% Radnofsky (D) 25%
VT-Sen: Sanders (I) 70% Tarrant (R) 25%
VT-Sen: Sanders (I) 70% Parke (R) 24%
OH-Sen: DeWine (R) 45% Brown (D) 40%
OH-Sen: DeWine (R) 43% Hackett (D) 39%

Well, first it's clear Gov. Perdue has edged into safe territory. Sen. Hutchison has been safe and getting safer I think. The Vermont Senate open seat looks almost certain to go to Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent candidate who thinks the Democratic party is too conservative. And Sen. DeWine, while still vulnerable, looks better off than he has in any previous poll I've seen. Of these races, the Ohio Senate seat is the only one that's seriously contested, and Brown and Hackett are engaged in a bitter and personal primary. I hope they don't blow it by tearing each other to shreds.

The Slippery Slope Slips Both Ways

I have to admit I'm fascinated with the Slippery Slope. It can be an awfully persuasive tool, and it's easy to abuse. Gay rights opponents use it to no end in combination with guilt-by-association like so: "If we allow same-sex couples to marry, that will lead to polygamy or interspecies marriage or something else equally revolting to all of us." as O'Reilly did Mar 29, 2005 on his show on Fox News (via Media Matters):

O'REILLY: The judges in Massachusetts knew they weren't going to be impeached when they said to the state legislature, "Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts because we say it is. We the judges" -- they knew they weren't gonna be impeached. They knew the legislature didn't care. You get the government you deserve. In California, the prevailing wisdom is marijuana is no big deal, let's legalize it. And since we can't get that through the legislature, we'll do it this way. And they did it! You see?

And 10 years, this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now. Laws that you think are in stone -- they're gonna evaporate, man. You'll be able to marry a goat -- you mark my words!

One way to, I think, effectively respond when presented with this sort of nonsense is to point out that the slippery slope slips both ways. If our government can outlaw same-sex marriage, then why can't it outlaw same-race marriage? Or same-religion marriage? Or same-generation marriage? Or same-hairstyle marriage for crying out loud?

Look. Nobody on the left wants polygamous marriage. If that change ever comes, it will come from the right. Nobody on the left wants interspecies marriage either. That doesn't even make sense! And it goes right to the charge the right wants to make, which is that gays actually want to render marriage meaningless.

But if you actually listen to what gay people are saying, and (here's the key) trust that we aren't hiding any secret conspiratorial agenda, you'll see that gay people want to get married because we love each other. In the same way that straight people do. And that we just want to be included in a powerful and good institution, and get the same legal benefits as everyone else.

The slippery slope only wins if we let it. We're not slipping back toward outlawing interracial marriage because there's consensus across the political spectrum that we shouldn't do that. We're not slipping toward polygamy or interspecies marriage either for the same reason. And those consensuses are powerful. We're have a Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on polygamy (Reynolds v. US), and we have one striking down a ban on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia). Why should we be any more likely to slip one way down the slope than the other?

Poll Roundup

National polls from AP and Rasmussen:

AP Bush Approval: Approve: 40%, Disapprove: 59%
Rasmussen Bush Approval: Approve: 44% Disapprove: 54%

AP Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats: 49%, Republicans 36%

2006 State Polls from Strategic Vision and Rasmussen:

FL-Gov:
Crist (R) 36% Davis (D) 35%
Gallagher (R) 37% Davis (D) 37%
Crist (R) 40% Smith (D) 35%
Gallagher (R) 36% Smith (D) 35%

FL-Sen: Nelson (D) 54% Harris (R) 31%
WA-Sen: Cantwell (D) 51% McGavick (R) 36%
WA-Sen: Cantwell (D) 50% McGavick (R) 39%
MO-Sen: McCaskill (D) 46% Talent (R) 43%

UT WIIIIIIINNNNNSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

I haven't been this excited about sports in a long time! YAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

ME State House -- Party Switcher Ruins Party

Rep. Barbara Merrill in the Maine State House of Representatives left the Democratic party to become an independent yesterday. Village Soup (emphasis mine):

Rep. Barbara Merrill Monday informed her constituents in Maine House District 44, and the leaders of the Maine House of Representatives, that she has unenrolled from the Democratic Party.

As a result, the Democrats have 73 members, the Republicans 73, the independents four and the Greens one in the Maine House of Representatives.

In her letter to her constituents, Merrill wrote, "I do not take this step lightly or without long consideration. I have talked directly with many of you about the concerns which have led me to this action, and I know that many support my decision. I joined the Democratic Party when it was led by Ed Muskie, and I had the privilege of getting to know him personally before he died.”

So now the Maine House is split evenly. DC Political Report sees this as a precursor step to an independent bid for governor against Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who is rather unpopular.

TX-HD-39: Divorce Gone Horribly Awry

Now this is just cruel (DFW Star-Telegram -- emphasis mine):

PHARR -- The wife of a state representative filed Monday to run against her husband in a South Texas race that both candidates said coincides with an impending divorce.

Democratic state Rep. Armando "Mando" Martinez, a 13-year incumbent from Weslaco, faces a primary challenge from his wife, Jessica Reyes-Martinez. The District 39 seat covers part of Hidalgo County.

Reyes-Martinez, 28, filed as a candidate in the March 7 primary only 30 minutes before the Monday deadline, The Monitor reported in its Tuesday edition. She's making her first bid for public office and is now a homemaker.

"I'm actually running for office, not against him," Reyes-Martinez told the McAllen newspaper. "It just happens he's in office right now."

Oh bullshit. She's running out of spite. Not that there's anything wrong with that. May the best candidate win. And if Jessica pulls it off, you know she'll be a hardball player in the Texas House for the Dems.

TX-Gov: The Strayhorn Effect

So now that the dust has settled a bit, the Texas blogosphere is rife with analysis of the effect of Strayhorn's independent bid on the gubernatorial race. Read 'em for yourself:

The Austin American Statesman
Burnt Orange Report (pointing to Bob Gammage's Campaign Site)
Off the Kuff
Brains and Eggs
Perry Vs World

I sadly still give Perry the edge. But, to the extent it helps any of the other candidates, Strayhorn's announcement probably does help the Democrats. Why? Because Strayhorn is probably taking from Kinky and Perry more than Bell or Gammage. Strayhorn is a Republican. People who despite Perry's low approval rating (46%) still aren't willing to vote for a Democrat but are willing to vote for an independent are the people who previously were going to vote for Kinky. I guess I'm trying to say that Democrats who would vote for Strayhorn over a Democrat were probably going for Kinky before this. Plus, Strayhorn knocks a few points off Perry. So it lowers the threshold needed to win for the Democratic nominee.

However, as a few others point out, Strayhorn gets cash from trial lawyers, a traditionally Democratic source, making cash harder to come by for Bell and Gammage. And on the third hand, all the other candidates will be launching attacks on Perry. So there's some good some bad for the Dems the way I see it. Anyway, it shakes up a Texas political scene in which the status quo was crap for Democrats. So I say, roll the dice! Let's see where this crazy path leads.

NV-Sen: Run Goodman Run!

Oscar Goodman, Democratic Mayor of Las Vegas, is considering a run for the Senate against Republican freshman Sen. John Ensign. Las Vegas Sun:

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - The U.S. Senate's Democratic leader confirmed Tuesday that Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has discussed with him the possibility of challenging Republican Sen. John Ensign this election year.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., added during a brief interview that the Democratic mayor is "a real vote-getter" and would be "a very, very strong candidate" if he entered the race. He noted Goodman got 86 percent of the vote in his last race.

If Goodman enters the race, it immediately becomes competetive. Ensign's approval is soft at 49-33 approval, but against his only announced challenger so far, Jack Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter, Ensign gets 59% of the vote. Way into safe territory. Matt Stoller at MyDD has more, but here's what it comes down to: Ensign was last elected in 2000; Goodman in 2003. The Las Vegas metro area is around 2 million out of Nevada's 2.3 million people. Goodman's approval rating is 86% (within Las Vegas) to Ensign's 49% (all of Nevada). But most of the part of Nevada that didn't vote for him is well aware of his work. See what I'm saying?

Voting is a habit and more people voted for Goodman more recently than for Ensign. And, more than any other city and state in America, Las Vegas is Nevada. See where I'm coming from?

Please, Oscar, run!

Strayhorn (I), Filings, and GOSH DARN IT!

It's official. Today was the filing deadline for 2006. (Obnoxiously early if you ask me.) And Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn has filed as an independent. News 8 Austin:

Comptroller and gubernatorial hopeful Carole Keeton Strayhorn turned her back on the Republican party today, announcing she'll seek the state's top job as an Independent candidate.

The move allows Strayhorn to escape a potentially ugly battle against Gov. Rick Perry before the March 7 Republican primary election.

“Rick Perry has so politically fractured this state that the only way we’re going to get anything done is to have independent leadership in this state. I am a Republican, but it is time to set partisan politics aside for the future of Texas,” she said.

Strayhorn, who called herself “One Tough Grandma'' in previous campaign ads, has been a harsh critic of Perry's leadership over the last couple of years.

"Governor Perry may be doing the best he can, but after five years, we have learned that he is not a strong leader. We need to put Texas above politics. He has made politics of division worse in Austin, not better," she said.

Strayhorn won't say her move is strategic. She instead focused on the failed school finance sessions during Perry's tenure.

So how does this affect the race? Kuff thinks it draws trial lawyer cash away from the Democrats. Over at the Chris Bell blog, not surprisingly, they see it as good news for Democrats. Why? There will be one more campaign trying to "sack the castle", basically creating one more newsmaking organization criticizing the Perry governorship. And it shakes up a political world which hasn't been kind to Democrats lately.

I think it will probably be a bit of both. Which is to say it's too soon to say. If I were a betting man, I'd still bet on Perry. But one thing I think it may do is help Democrats down the ticket. Excitement at the top will do a couple of things. First, it will draw some Republicans away from voting a straight ticket. And second, it will bring out more non-traditional voters. That usually, but not always, is a recipe for Democratic success. And it may focus some national attention on Texas and bring in some out-of-state dollars. I don't know that many voters would think of that as a good thing, but it could bring Texas Democrats some help.

Or maybe I'm just engaging in a bit of starry-eyed optimism and wishful thinking.

Anyway, Democrats did a good job getting out their candidates to file. According to the Texas Democratic Party's filing page, we have a candidate in every congressional district except one --TX-11 Mike Conaway (R) -- in all of Texas. Excellent! Although it's by no means sufficient, you can't beat somebody with nobody. I wonder if Chris Bowers will still boycott? We only missed by one, Chris.

And gosh darn it! No Democrat stepped up to run against Sen. Wentworth (SD-21). GOSH DARN IT ALL TO HECK! In what looks likely to be the best Democratic election in a decade or more, we still can't get someone to take that fool on. Alas.