Tag Archives: Iowa

Apportionment Announcement Tomorrow

As we reported last week, the Census Bureau will announce the 2010 population figures tomorrow, telling us how many congressional seats each state will have for the ensuing decade.

As has been covered for several months, the states virtually assured to gain seats are Texas (3 or 4), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Utah, while Ohio (-2), Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania appear to be sure losers. It also looks like Florida, South Carolina, and Washington will gain. Among Missouri, Minnesota, and Illinois, it is also a virtual certainty that at least two of these three will lose a seat. One unsubstantiated estimate also put Florida in the mix for gaining a second seat and New York losing a second, but these numbers seem out of context with what was previously known and released. North Carolina is also a potential long shot to gain, as it was in the 2000 census when it was awarded a 13th district.

As with all of the projections, the pre-release estimates are never fully correct. None of the previous calculations included 2010 data, and some of them were completed even before the 2009 population estimates were released. Therefore, uncertainty does exist as to exactly how the full complement of winning and losing states will unfold. The apportionment formula is complicated and state-specific.

The decade’s growth rate is certainly a determining factor for the number of seats apportioned, but that means vastly different raw numbers in each state. For example, a 10% rate of growth means a gain of approximately 9,700 people in Montana, but 3.7 million in California. Adding such a number to the Montana population will not result in an increase in representation, but the same percentage uptick for California very well may. Thus, simply put, it is easier for the bigger states to gain and lose districts than for the smaller ones to move up or down.

The apportionment numbers also affect the presidential race. Most of the swing means that the Democratic nominee, certainly to be President Obama, will have fewer electoral votes in his coalition of states than he did in 2008 because the states that the Democrats typically win are losing representation, and the ones Republicans normally carry are gaining. Just how great the electoral vote count change will be become known tomorrow. We will have a full analysis of the new congressional apportionment on Wednesday.

Looking Ahead Towards the 2012 Presidential Map

Even though the 2010 election results aren’t yet finalized, speculation among political pundits about President Obama’s re-election chances already is running rampant.

Whether or not certain Republican candidates can win their party’s nomination and defeat Obama are topics for another day. The main purpose of this report is to simply analyze the mathematics that govern each side’s ability to win the next national election.

Photo: The White House

In 2008, President Obama secured his victory by winning 365 electoral votes (EVs); 270 are required. With reapportionment becoming official before December 31st, the 2012 map will begin to take shape. Right now, though, we know that Obama’s winning coalition of states will yield fewer electoral votes than it did in 2008.

Assuming that Texas gains four congressional seats from reapportionment, and Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah all add one, a grand total of eight more electoral votes would be assigned to the group of states that supported ’08 Republican nominee John McCain. Obama states like Ohio (down two), New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa look to lose districts, thus meaning another 10 votes would be deducted from the President’s previous total. The only McCain state poised to lose a district is Louisiana. Florida, Nevada, and Washington are Obama states that look to gain representation, so add three EVs back to his total. Therefore, the new Obama state configuration would fall to an apparent total of 358 EVs.

The McCain coalition, on the other hand, would see a net gain of seven votes, giving this group of states a future total of 180 electoral votes. Assuming that pre-apportionment estimates are completely correct, which is unlikely (Oregon is in good position to gain and Missouri might lose, for example), the total swing away from the President when merely considering population shifts will be approximately 14 votes, or the size of a state like Michigan or Georgia.

If this analysis is correct, then the Republicans, in order to unseat Mr. Obama, would have to convert states with an electoral vote value of 90 votes, in addition to winning every previous state they claimed in 2008.

How can this be done? From a Republican perspective, they first must regain the states Obama won that traditionally vote for the GOP nominee. Indiana is priority #1, North Carolina is priority #2. Switching Indiana from blue to red would give the Republicans 11 more votes and take away the same number from the Obama total. An N.C. win is a swing of 30 EVs, thus bringing the EV count down to 332 to 206 and putting the GOP within 64 votes of denying the President a second term.

Next come Florida and Ohio. With Texas (38 electoral votes in the next presidential campaign) being the only large state that the Republicans traditionally carry, Florida and Ohio become central to a GOP win. A Democratic candidate can lose both of these states and still win the election, but it is virtually impossible for a Republican to do so. With Florida and Ohio added to the hypothetical Republican total, the adjusted electoral vote count moves to 286 to 252, still in favor of the Obama coalition. This leaves the generic Republican candidate 18 EVs away from winning.

While that can be done by taking Pennsylvania or the president’s home state of Illinois, neither seems likely today, especially the latter. Therefore, the Republicans must add multiple states. Two small swing states that could return to the GOP fold are New Hampshire (4 EVs) and Nevada (6 EVs).

If all the above happens, then the Republican nominee would go over the top by winning just one of the following states: Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, or Colorado. Another option, if this latest group of states all remain loyal to Obama, is to carry Iowa and New Mexico (11 total EV’s). These two places are the only ones that have consistently flipped between the two presidential party nominees in the 21st century and must be considered competitive for both the eventual 2012 Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

Though much will happen to define campaign 2012, the mathematical formula leading to victory will remain as described above.

The Senate is Finally Final … Almost

Washington Sen. Patty Murray (D) was declared the winner of the 2010 Senate contest with still more than 17% of the vote remaining to be counted. The 46,000+ vote margin made it impossible for challenger Dino Rossi (R) to close the gap. Rossi released a statement conceding the election. Campaign Manager Pat Shortridge indicated that the turnout in the Democratic stronghold of King County (Seattle) was greater than 70%, a huge number for a mid-term election and an obstacle that Rossi could not overcome.

The Murray victory ends all of the Senate races from a partisan perspective. It is still unclear if Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will retain her seat via the write-in process, but it is a foregone conclusion that the eventual winner will either be she or the Republican nominee Joe Miller. You will remember that Miller defeated Murkowski in the GOP primary. Though it will be two weeks or more before this election is finally determined, it does appear that Murkowski is well positioned to eventually declare victory.

The final count will show 53 Democrats in the new Senate versus 47 Republicans; a net gain of six seats for the GOP. Republicans won 24 of the 37 Senate elections, but needed 28 to claim the majority. They converted six Democratic states, but only defeated two incumbents – Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Democrats won zero Republican states, as the GOP was successful in holding all of the seats they previously controlled.

On the gubernatorial side, several more races were called yesterday. Former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) was declared the winner in Oregon, defeating ex-NBA basketball player Chris Dudley (R). Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) eked out a very close win over state Sen. Bill Brady (R) in a race that polling suggested was headed for a different conclusion. In Vermont, Democrats successfully converted the open Republican seat back to their column as state Senate President Peter Shumlin won a razor-thin victory over GOP Lt. Governor Brian Dubie.

Two states are still outstanding: Connecticut and Minnesota. Confusion reins in Connecticut as election officials and media outlets attempt to determine the actual vote count. Democrat Dan Malloy claims to be ahead in the race as most of the uncounted ballots come from the city of Bridgeport, which is a Democratic fortress area. Former Sen. Mark Dayton’s (D-MN) 8,000+ vote margin will likely stand, but the Minnesota election appears headed for a recount.

Should the Democrats win the final two races, the count will end with 29 Republican governors, 20 Democrats and 1 Independent (former Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island); a gain of five seats for the Republicans. Like in the Senate, only two incumbents were defeated, Govs. Ted Strickland (D-OH) and Chet Culver (D-IA). Republicans won a total of 23 gubernatorial elections this past Tuesday night as compared to the Democrats’ 13, assuming the last two campaigns finally break their way.

Looking at some House stats from Tuesday, 51 incumbents were defeated (49 Democrats; 2 Republicans), not counting any of the remaining outstanding campaigns; 35 of the ousted incumbents are either in their freshman or sophomore term, and 16 are veteran members. The House Blue Dog Coalition was decimated on Tuesday, as 28 of its 52 members will not return to the 112th Congress. Twenty-two BD’s were defeated on Election Day and six more either retired or ran for a different office.