There's never a time for prejudice

Recently Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) has said that Rep-Elect Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) poses a threat to American values because he wishes to use the Qu'ran during his private swearing-in ceremony when the new congress opens and he officially takes office. Congressman Goode made these comments in a letter to hundreds of voters, according to the New York Times.

There is NEVER A TIME for comments such as Congressman Goode's, as Keith Ellison was duly elected by the people of his district and has the same right to be a member of the House as any other member from any other district. Goode seems to believe that there is something wrong with a member using the Qu'ran for swearing-in, and that Ellison would be setting a damaging precedent. Apparently he believes that if other muslims are elected then if they wanted to use the Qu'ran then that would pose a threat to "American values."

As I just said, there is NEVER a time for this. NEVER.

We must be tolerant of all religions and opposed to discrimination not only in rhetoric but also in reality because its the right thing to do. Goode is not being tolerant or accepting either in rhetoric (as this note is pretty intolerant) or in reality (as I assume he genuinely believes this), and he does no service to either himself, his party, or the cause of justice and equality by making comments like this.

This is not to say that I don't have problems with Keith Ellison, as I find the fact that he skipped an event at the White House to be obnoxious. I certainly would not have done that no matter who the President was, if any President wanted to give me an invitation (which I doubt, but work with me here), be it Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, or Ford, I would go because I think that the presidency itself deserves respect regardless of who the current President is. I also find his ties to the Nation of Islam troubling and they don't seem to be fully explained. Indeed, the voters of his district had some problems with this as well, given that this is a safe Democratic seat, and yet Keith Ellison was only elected with 55.56 percent of the vote, with about 21 percent each for the Republican and for an independent who promised to caucus with Democrats. This is a safe Democratic seat and he may (and I think probably should) face a primary challenge in 2008, but that has nothing to do with his religion and everything to do with shady connections that he may have.

That said, there is never a time for prejudice of this sort. In trying to defend "American values," Virgil Goode seems to have forgotten acceptance, one of the most important American values of all.

New Hampshire Massacre

The Republicans in New Hampshire suffered the worst of any state party in 2006, and since in the last post I mentioned it, I thought I would describe what happened in more detail--

Governor: In 2004 John Lynch narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Craig Benson by a margin of 51.07 to 48.93. Here is the result in 2006:

John Lynch (D) 298,677 (74.13%)
Jim Coburn (R) 104,223 (25.87%)

State House--

2004: 252 Republicans, 148 Democrats
2006: 234 Democrats (+86), 156 Republicans (-96), 10 Independents (+10)

The victories by 10 independents tell me that the voters of New Hampshire decided to send the GOP there a message that they would never forget, voting out anyone and everyone they could who had the scarlet letter R beside their name on the ballot. Even if there was no Democrat on the ballot they decided that they were going to elect an independent rather than a Republican.

State Senate--

2004: 16 Republicans, 8 Democrats
2006: 13 Democrats (+5), 11 Republicans (-5)

1st congressional district--

2004: Jeb Bradley (R) 63.40, Justin Nadeau (R) 36.60
2006: Carol Shea-Porter (D) 51.39, Jeb Bradley (R) 48.61

2nd congressional district--

2004: Charles Bass (R) 58.52, Paul Hodes (D) 38.04
2006: Paul Hodes (D) 52.63, Charles Bass (R) 45.54

This is what happens when the people of a state get so angry that they decide to punish anyone and everyone wearing a certain party label in an election. The Democrats also seized a majority on the powerful Executive Council, going from a 4 to 1 Republican majority to a 3 to 2 Democratic Majority.

Republicans who lost in upsets in 2006

The Democrats 31 gains in the House were often against Republicans who did not prepare for the election, or who did not seem vulnerable until the final days of the campaign. Here were the Republicans who lost but were expected to survive this election--

1. Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-New Hampshire) part of what I like to call the "NH Massacre of 2006"
2. Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kansas)
3. Rep. Anne Northup (R-Kentucky)
4. Rep. Sue Kelly (R-New York)
5. Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pennsylvania) talk about being caught off guard
6. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-California)
7. Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minnesota)
8. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa)
9. Rep. Charles Bass (R-New Hampshire) the other Republican who was defeated in the massacre

10. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) defeated in a special election by former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez that was held a few days ago. Bonilla led in every poll leading up to the election, and the margin of 54 to 45 by Ciro Rodriguez was quite an upset.

The survivors of 2006

Before the election the Democrats were expected to win control of the House, and the Senate was seen as totally up for grabs although far more uncertain. There were frequently lists of the incumbents who were the most vulnerable Republicans, and were thought certain to go down if the Democrats were going to win control of the House. The Democrats won the number of seats they were expected to win, but the untold story is that many of their gains came against incumbents who were not expected to lose, while other Republican incumbents who were not expected to survive ended up prevailing against the trend. In this post I am going to talk about the survivors of 2006, and in the next post I am going to talk about the unexpected casualties.

1. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pennsylvania)

Jim Gerlach has lived dangerously as the Congressman from the 6th district of Pennsylvania since he was elected in 2002 by a narrow margin. While most members of the House are easily reelected, Gerlach has always had tough fights, and in all three of his elections he has come out narrowly--

2002: Jim Gerlach (R) 51.37, Dan Woofard (D) 48.63
2004: Jim Gerlach (R) 51.01, Lois Murphy (D) 48.99
2006: Jim Gerlach (R) 50.64, Lois Murphy (D) 49.36

The most interesting thing about Gerlach is that of the Pennsylvania Republicans who faced competitive challenges, he was long thought to be the most vulnerable. The Democrats were able to get Lois Murphy to run against him again and she was thoguht likely to win, and this was thought to be one of the seats that was definately going to be a takeover if they were to win control of the chamber. Gerlach's victory was probably attributable to the fact that he is a good candidate, and also that he was prepared for this, he has had tough campaigns before and knew that he might not be reelected in this environment, so he prepared his hardest for this campaign and ended up winning a third term. This is definately going to be a competitive seat again in 2008, although I do think that if Gerlach can win in this environment then he has at least an even chance of prevailing again in two years.

2. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico)

Before the election, the National Journal reported in its rankings of the house races that "if you believe that the Democrats are going to win the majority, you believe that Patricia Madrid is going to be one of their freshmen." Guess what, the Democrats won the majority, and outgoing NM Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) is not going to be one of their freshmen. Heather Wilson is another one of those members like Gerlach, who faces a competitive challenge every two years and knows how to overcome them. Here are her results--

June 1998 special election: Heather Wilson (R) 44.58, Philip Maloof (D) 39.61, Robert Anderson (G) 14.79

1998: Heather Wilson (R) 48.44, Philip Maloof (D) 41.88, Robert Anderson (G) 9.64
2000: Heather Wilson (R) 50.34, John Kelly (D) 43.25, Daniel Kerlinsky (G) 6.41
2002: Heather Wilson (R) 55.34, Richard Romero (D) 44.66
2004: Heather Wilson (R) 54.39, Richard Romero (D) 45.51
2005: Heather Wilson (R) 50.21, Patricia Madrid (D) 49.79

I think this is another example of what having competitive races every two years does to a member in terms of preparation for challenges. They are not going to be caught off guard and if they lose its going to be due to lack of preparation. As with Jim Gerlach I think its entirely possible that Wilson could lose at some point, particularly if the Democrats in New Mexico redraw this district, but she knows how to win tough fights and I think that gives her something of an advantage in future contests.

I went into detail about the first two becuase their reelection was truly at least somewhat unexpected, whereas with the others it was winning against the trend in a competitive contest.

3. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut)
4. Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-New York)
5. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado)
6. Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky)
7. Rep. Thelma Drake (R-Virginia)
8. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio)
9. Rep. Dave Reichart (R-Washington)
10. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)

Here are the open seat Republican victories that occured in 2006 against the national trend--

1. Florida 13 (could be challenged): Vern Buchanan (R) defeated Christine Jennings (D)
2. Illinois 6: Peter Roskam (R) defeated Tammy Duckworth (D)
3. Minnesota 6: Michelle Bachmann (R) defeated Patty Wetterling (D)

Early battlegrounds in 2008

In 2004, here are the states that were relatively close (within 10 points)--

Democratic States--

Delaware (3 electoral votes): Kerry 53, Bush 46
Hawaii (4 electoral votes): Kerry 54, Bush 45
Maine (4 electoral votes): Kerry 54, Bush 45
Michigan (17 electoral votes): Kerry 51, Bush 48
Minnesota (9 electoral votes): Kerry 51, Bush 48
New Hampshire (4 electoral votes): Kerry 50, Bush 49
New Jersey (15 electoral votes): Kerry 53, Bush 46
Oregon (7 electoral votes): Kerry 51, Bush 47
Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes): Kerry 51, Bush 48
Washington (11 electoral votes): Kerry 53, Bush 46
Wisconsin (10 electoral votes): Kerry 49.7, Bush 49.3

Republican States--

Arkansas (6 electoral votes): Bush 54, Kerry 45
Colorado (9 electoral votes): Bush 52, Kerry 47
Florida (27 electoral votes): Bush 52, Kerry 47
Iowa (7 electoral votes): Bush 49.9, Kerry 49.2
Missouri (11 electoral votes): Bush 53, Kerry 46
Nevada (5 electoral votes): Bush 50, Kerry 48
New Mexico (5 electoral votes): Bush 49.8, Kerry 49
Ohio (20 electoral votes): Bush 51, Kerry 49
Virginia (13 electoral votes): Bush 54, Kerry 45

Governor Predictions reviewed

So I thought that I would review some of my predictions for Governor, and I was wrong about two of them. Namely, I predicted that Governor Bob Ehrlich (R) of Maryland would win reelection over Martin O'Malley (D), when it turned out that O'Malley won the race by a margin of about 53 to 46. I was also wrong about Minnesota, where I predicted that Attorney General Mike Hatch (D), would defeat incumbent Governor Tim Pawlenty (R), when in fact Pawlenty won by about 21,000 votes.

The 2006 Elections are not over: Texas 23rd district

The election for the House is over and the Democrats have won control, but there are two more races that have yet to be decided at the polls. One of them is the Democratic seat currently held by Bill Jefferson, who is being opposed by Karen Carter. The other seat, the one I am talking about right now is the one held by Congressman Henry Bonilla (R), who represents the 23rd congressional district of Texas, and is being opposed by Former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (D), in a race that is largely under the national radar. I am not going to play this up as an "epic battle" or anything of the sort, because the 2006 elections have already been decided, but it is interesting nonetheless.

In November Rep. Bonilla won about 48 percent of the vote, but he needed 50 percent to avoid a runoff becuase the district was reconfigured by the courts in a challenge to the 2004 redistricting. Ciro Rodriguez was the Democrat with the most votes and he was thus the candidate opposing him in the runoff in December.

Here is the SurveyUSA poll of the district-- http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=e66c6e0f-0e47-43e4-82b8-955e2b96df23

According to this poll, Bonilla is leading by a margin of 53 to 46, and its going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Billy Beane and Politics

Billy Beane is the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, and has very little to do with politics, which is the main topic of this blog. However, his style of managing the Athletics using Sabermetric principles (analysis of baseball using statistical evidence) holds great lessons for parties who want to win elections. Conventional wisdom in baseball is that statistics like batting average are important, while sabermetric principles state that it matters very little because batting average deals with hits rather than runs and does not examine how effective a player is at creating runs that win games. Politics is fundamentally an inefficient business that is looking for its "Billy Beane" so to speak, who can rate candidates objectively based on how many votes they create (or lose) as compared to the standard candidate that year and figure out seats to target on this basis.

For example: Michael Steele is a better candidate than George Allen, although Allen came much closer to winning the election in Virginia.

Here is why: Michael Steele created 10 percent additional support among African American voters than the typical Republican canddiate would recieve. The exit polls (which probably overestimate his black support) said that he won about 25 percent support although there is not that much difficulty in assuming that he got at least 20 percent or somewhere in that range. That was not enough to win but discounting the Democrats nationwide victories and the disapproval of President Bush he still created positive votes.

George Allen, on the other hand created negative votes for the Republican Party and this was what caused his defeat, not the underlying factors. Sure he would not have lost had he said Macaca in say, 1994, or at least in an environment similar to that type but he would still have done worse than Republicans generally.

I guess where I am going here is that things should be addressed relative to the national trend rather than on their own, because that risks drawing the wrong conclusions. Both parties should get those who created votes relative to the national trend to stand for election again, and dissuade those who did not create positive votes.