Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

I had a very interesting paper make its way into my inbox today from the Political Methodology section of the American Political Science Association. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden examine the inherent bias against urban -- in this case Democratic -- parties in the redistricting process. As they describe it [pdf]:

"Our central claim is that a substantial, systematic bias against the urban party does not require any intentional manipulation of maps by its opponents. On the contrary, our contention is that under political geography conditions that are quite common in industrialized societies, virtually any districting scheme that privileges compactness and contiguity will produce a bias against the urban party."

In other words, if you were to take an evenly divided state with some number of urban centers and randomly divide the state into congressional or state legislative districts -- while adhering to the court mandated principles of compactness and contiguity -- the party most representative of the urban areas would garner substantially fewer than 50% of the seats in the congressional delegation or in either state legislative chamber. If, for example, you were to take, say, Florida and its basically tied election in 2000 and just randomly draw some districts (Well, not randomly. You'd have to keep the population in each district proportionate to the other districts.), the urban party wouldn't receive 50% of the seats (to approximate 50% of the statewide vote). That party would be more likely to get between 39-42% of the seats.

And in fact, that is what Chen and Rodden have done. They took the Florida 2000 election data and simulated thousands of redistricting plans. The result? Democrats, not through any nefarious plot to pack their partisans into as small a number of districts as possible, were disadvantaged. The bias results from the fact that those higher density population centers so homogeneously Democratic, it takes more less heavily Republican districts spread out in suburban/exurban and rural areas to round out the representation. As such, a state can end up with a tie in terms of the statewide, two-party vote, but end up with the non-urban party taking a significantly higher percentage of the congressional and state legislative seats.

And yes, this assumes there wasn't an overtly partisan redistricting plan put into place in the first place. Stated differently, there wouldn't be any of Elbridge Gerry's salamanders on the map.

This one is well worth your time with a new redistricting cycle on the horizon. Read away. I'll be revisiting some of the issues discussed in this piece in future posts. It really is rich with very pertinent information.


Recent Posts:
If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

I alluded to the 2012 trial heats last night, but Public Policy Polling has upped the ante today. Initially, PPP was taking suggestions for who to add to list of 3 possessors of recognized names* to poll against President Obama in the polling firm's monthly survey. Hey, we're all for democracy around these parts, but I will admit to being disappointed that they didn't keep Tim Pawlenty among the list of Republican candidates. One month of information doesn't tell us much. Well, it told us that more people had an opinion of the balloon boy than they did of Pawlenty. Still, FHQ would like to have seen the trendline.

[What? To see that it hadn't changed? Touche.]

Anyway, PPP has opened that fourth choice up to a vote. Your choices are:

[Click to Enlarge]

I'd like to see John Thune tested or Giuliani for the sake of having a more moderate Republican included, but honestly, Ron Paul needs to be polled. The chatter online in Ron Paul circles this year has been all about getting the Texas congressman in a poll. Well, here's their chance. Though, truth be told, if word gets out -- like other votes -- PPP's vote widget will either crash or end up being the highest turnout vote they've had over there for one of those.

So, go vote.

*I'm calling the group something and this gives Huckabee, Palin and Romney a regal air.


Recent Posts:
Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

FHQ is late to this, but in the interest of including all these early 2012 presidential polls, here is the latest from Gallup:

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

Fine, that's not any different than any of the other polls, horserace or otherwise, we've seen in 2009. How about among the nation as a whole?

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

No, that still doesn't stray too far from polls earlier in the year. Palin is still roundly dismissed. At least Barbour and Pawlenty's "nays" are based on a lack of name recognition. What's Gingrich's excuse? That can't be the 90s dragging him down, can it?

How about that Dan Quayle "qualified" question?

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

No, Palin isn't getting any better. Huckabee and Romney fare well, Gingrich breaks even and the masses still don't know Barbour and Pawlenty. But more than three out of five find the former Alaska governor to be unqualified.

[Click to Enlarge and Here to go to full Gallup Report]

And when things are broken down by party, not even Republicans see her as qualified as Huckabee, Romney or Gingrich. But more Democrats find her more qualified than Haley Barbour. It has been a slow crawl down in the polls this year for Palin, but it will be interesting to see how the book release/tour and Oprah visit affect these numbers.

Sadly, Public Policy Polling's 2012 trial heats will be in the field this weekend -- ahead of the book launch. Too bad.

NOTE: FHQ apologizes for the slow start to the week. The end of the semester around here is rapidly approaching and things are picking up. Amends will be made.


Recent Posts:
40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

Why exactly is it wrong from the perspective of the majority party in Congress to have members of Congress defect on a high salience vote? Does this make any sense? From the current Republican perspective, yeah, it does make sense. The party of Lincoln is in the minority and needs every one of its members to stand their ground against anything the Democrats want to pass through the chamber and hope that at least 41 Democrats see it their way. To the credit of the Republican leadership in both chambers of Congress, they have been able to do this very well in 2009.

What I don't understand, though, is why some Democrats are complaining about the 39 strays on the health care vote (HR 3962) on Saturday night. So what? Very plainly, the majority party in the House controls the agenda. The leadership from that party is never going to bring anything to the floor that would lose; not on purpose anyway. Let's assume that's a given in the case of the health care bill that came to the floor over the weekend. The other given here is that the Democratic coalition (or cartel if we want to put this in the agenda-setting terms of Cox and McCubbins, 2005) has forty votes to spare. As the majority, you have a choice between 1) watering the bill down even further to get all your members on board or 2) strategically distributing those 40 votes (FHQ will call them passes from now own.) to electorally vulnerable members.

Knowing that it had the votes, the Democratic leadership allocated its passes to freshmen, those in Republican leaning districts or a combination of the two. Could the leadership have run up the score?* Sure, but it likely would have cost them. They'd either have to water the bill down now or likely watch as Democrats in close or Republican-leaning districts lose in 2010. As I see it, that's not a winning strategy. If you've got -- as a majority party -- some votes to spare, you have some wiggle room and an opportunity to provide some cover for at most 40 of your more electorally vulnerable members. On a high salience issue like health care reform, why not use those passes?

Well, Pelosi, Hoyer and the others among the Democratic leadership did. But they didn't use them all (by design, some have speculated -- FHQ agrees). They only used 39 (and actually ended up having two to spare because of Joseph Cao's late defection from the right side of the aisle). So sure, Democrats can be upset that they lost 39 votes, or they could be happy that the leadership didn't have to use their full allotment of passes and gave cover to some of their members at the same time.

What's wrong with that?

*Winning 218-217 is the same as winning 258-177: the bill passes. A wider margin would not have affected anything in the Senate. It would have been/will be close in the upper chamber regardless.


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

Election Night 2009: Live Blog (ME-ref, NJ-gov, NY-23, VA-gov)

FHQ Friday Fun: The Day Mitt Romney Came Back from the Dead

[FHQ doubts it can get anything but worse after a title like that.]

The last two classes in POL 113 (American Government and Politics) here at Wake Forest have been devoted to a voting simulation I like to do in classes to attempt -- and I cannot emphasize that word enough -- to drive home the importance of the rules behind systems of voting. The main idea is that even when your preferences are stable, the outcomes of elections can differ depending on how the vote is conducted.

The first order of business in this exercise is to have everyone to rank order a list of twenty candidates of a variety of partisan backgrounds from 1 (most preferred) to 20 (least preferred). Here's the list (rank away and share in the comments below if you'd like):

_____ Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)

_____ N.Y.C. Mayor Mike Bloomberg (independent-NY)

_____ Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)

_____ Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

_____ Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)

_____ Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)

_____ former N.Y.C. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)

_____ former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)

_____ Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)

_____ Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

_____ Sen. Joe Lieberman (independent-CT)

_____ former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

_____ Ralph Nader, consumer advocate (independent)

_____ former Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)

_____ Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

_____ former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R-VA)

_____ former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK)

_____ Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)

_____ Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)

_____ Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Argue if you will about the list. I'm still moderately upset that I didn't include Tim Pawlenty and was questioned in my second class about the relative weakness of the list of Democratic candidates. As I explained -- and I really thought this was a good question -- I could have included Hillary Clinton, but she likely would have won the Democratic nomination repeatedly and ruined the intent of the whole exercise. Ideally, you want to simulate an environment where some "voters" know the candidates and others are uncertain -- it reflects the reality of the first part of the, in this case, presidential nomination process. I wasn't bothered then that no one knew who John Thune was or who Brian Schweitzer was. I did use the latter to illustrate the fact that for the Democratic field of candidates is, by its nature, more difficult to formulate because it requires a crystal ball to see 2016 even remotely clearly. I could have included the president but that is always a no-no, though, with both Republican-laden groups it likely would have been quite fun to them to see the president defeated in an "election" just a year after he'd won the real thing. But when you're doing this you never want a consensus choice because it ruins the exercise.

That is why it is at this point that I like to collect the ballots so that I can make sure that we can avoid this problem. If I see a candidate winning over and over again, the electoral god emerges and strikes said candidate from the ballot. For one class, that candidate was Colin Powell (Apparently this was a group that was not deterred by the former Secretary of State's endorsement of Barack Obama a year ago.) and for the other class it was Mitt Romney. I also looked for who got the greatest number of #20 rankings just for fun. [Any guesses?*] Yet, both only amassed five or six votes out of almost 30 in each class. "Ah, that won't be enough to ruin the exercise."

Famous last words.

On Wednesday, then, I plowed through a single vote plurality election simulation (with all 20 candidates) and a single vote plurality plus runoff. The results? Powell and Romney won. In the case of the former, that was a given. Still, I began to wonder if my decision as electoral god not to strike either one was a mistake. [Well, gods can't make mistakes, but that's an entirely different argument for a blog focused on something else altogether.] So, I figured I would experiment in my first class (the Powell class) this morning and remove Powell from the equation. Well, then we got to a simulated version of our current presidential nomination process. I like to do this in a couple of ways. First, I do a national primary for only registered Republicans and Democrats. This drives home the point that independents can't vote and have no say in the matter until the general election. Inevitably, someone always says, "But I didn't get to vote."

"Exactly."

After that, I'll go into a more accurate simulation of our current nomination process. I'll pick someone at random from each party (or ask for volunteers) to be Iowa. Their top three move on. Then I'll select someone to be New Hampshire. From those Iowa three, who are the New Hampshire representative's top two. Everyone else, then, is Super Tuesday and gets to choose from the winnowed field of two candidates. Once you do this a couple of times, it usually makes quite clearly the point that Iowa and New Hampshire have an out-sized impact on the nomination races.

But there was a problem in my first class: Romney (filling in for the now-absent Powell) began gobbling up all the wins (and continued to do so whether we were doing an instant runoff election or through approval voting or with an on-the-fly electoral college** both current and pre-12th amendment). Seeing this after the first go-round of the current nomination process and having Romney come in first in "Iowa" again, I made the rather rapid-fire decision to kill Romney off -- for the sake of the exercise. [Yes, I realize that by killing off "characters" I'm really defeating the purpose of the activity anyway.] Anyway, I concocted the all-too-familiar politician dies in a plane crash story, highlighting it with the joke that no one can lose to a dead guy.

...unless you're John Ashcroft.

Of course, later I wanted to bring Romney back to illustrate the impact of third party candidates. It was then that I said, "Alright, let's pretend that Romney was cryogenically frozen and once they found a cure to his cause of death they brought him back. Now he can participate in elections again."

This was met with silence; well, a split second of it at least. It was in that period of time that I remembered how I had killed Romney off in the first place. But I quickly recovered. "See, isn't it amazing how far medicine has advanced in the time Mitt Romney was gone. Now they can even save you from a horrific plane crash."

Now I bet you're wondering if this was the "fun" you read all this through to the end to find. If you aren't wondering that, you're probably wondering how to 1) get in my classes or 2) how I am teaching in the first place. Hey, I never make American government boring.

...not until I get to frontloading at least.

*It was Sarah Palin. She was by far the most unpopular candidate in both classes. Over a third of the voters ranked her dead last, many among them Republicans. Now, a few weeks ago I did a lunch and talk with a group of College Republicans about the 2010 and 2012 elections and not a single one of them thought Palin would be the nominee. Personally, FHQ doesn't either, but if certain things happen (again the rules), I can see a scenario where the former Alaska governor consolidates enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. I digress only because I held off judgment on this, well, judgment. I didn't want to chalk it up to being a Wake Forest thing. Well, these two classes have brought me closer to that particular judgment. I won't say it is representative necessarily, but if it is, Palin is going to have a very difficult time repeating what Bob McDonnell did the other night in Virginia -- win the youth vote.

**One other thing I learned (actually continued to learn) from all this is that I absolutely cannot do math in front of people. My efforts to add electoral votes on the board were disastrous and that's being nice about it. Part of the problem was that I constructed the electoral college vote distribution at random. I assigned a row of students to collectively be a big state worth 10 electoral votes and then divided up the rest of the individual students as medium states (7 electoral votes) and small states (3 electoral votes). That unnatural distribution always throws me. [God help me when I start doing the new series of maps with the new electoral vote distribution in 2012.] The "big state" in my first class was evenly divided along partisan lines, but the second class big state was comprised all of Republicans. At first the group was calling itself California until the first electoral college vote. Then they said they were South Carolina, to which I added, "Yeah, South Carolina on steroids."


Recent Posts:
New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

Election Night 2009: Live Blog (ME-ref, NJ-gov, NY-23, VA-gov)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

New Jersey, Virginia & 2010

What do any of the three have to do with each other?

FHQ would argue very little. After examining the polling in both states for the better part of five months, it is fairly clear that these races have virtually no national implications. In New Jersey, the election last night was as much about Jon Corzine as 2006 and 2008 were about George W. Bush. That is to say that each was about an unpopular incumbent. Corzine had not, as FHQ mentioned yesterday, broken the 45% barrier in polling all year and he needed to round his percentage of the vote share up to get there last night. The Democrat's chances hinged completely upon Chris Daggett's ability to siphon off votes from Christie and make 44 or 45% the winning total. When Daggett came up well short of where FHQ and most other monitors expected the independent to end up (He pulled in about half of his expected share; 5%.), Corzine basically had no chance. As was talked about on The Monkey Cage earlier today, someone viewed negatively and behind in the polls has to attack and bring his or her opponent down to their level. Lee Seligman put it better: "It’s not so much that attackers lose as that losers attack." Corzine had to attack, but in the end couldn't bring Christie down to a beatable level.

[Click to Enlarge]

The end result in Virginia was the same -- the Republican won -- but the process of getting there was very different. I don't think that Chris Christie or Jon Corzine were particularly great candidates, but in the commonwealth, Bob McDonnell just outclassed Creigh Deeds as a candidate. McDonnell basically held an advantage throughout the year no matter which Democratic candidate was pitted against him; an advantage that crescendoed rapidly when the votes began to be cast a day ago. Deeds, seeing that McDonnell had been spotted an edge, was essentially in the same position John McCain was in a year ago relative to Barack Obama, except the Democrat was without a presidential-level campaign team. [I'm not talking about folks from within the Obama administration. I'm talking about campaign staff that is steeped in experience. McCain had that. Deeds did not.] FHQ isn't here to throw Deeds under the bus. I just think that McDonnell was in the position of being able to take the high road (as most frontrunners are) through the thesis ordeal. Deeds' campaign, meanwhile, latched onto that story and quickly became associated with it to the point that once the issue faded there was no previously constructed message on which Deeds could lean.

[Click to Enlarge]

One other thing that might also be mentioned (that I haven't seen discussed anywhere) is how the primaries in this race played out. The parties tinkering with their presidential nomination rules would be wise to take note of this. FHQ won't argue that the Democratic primary battle hurt Deeds. It didn't. But Bob McDonnell was ceded the Republican nomination. In the absence of competition, the former attorney general was never forced to run to the right. Not only did that not provide Deeds or any other Democrat with any fodder for the general election campaign, but it also helped McDonnell, even with the thesis out in the open, to foster a more moderate image. In the end, it isn't the primary battle that's negative so much as the easy road to nomination is beneficial.

Fine, both New Jersey and Virginia were "all politics is local" elections. They were, but they weren't without their cautionary tales for next year's midterm elections. Neither race or outcome is a harbinger, at least not directly, but the underlying numbers present the Democratic Party with a real problem. Let's look at the numbers from 2008 and 2009. No, I don't think that is a fair comparison either, but I did want to compare the level of drop-off from last year to this year across parties. In other words, how much bigger was the drop-off difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates at the top of the ballot?

2009 New Jersey & Virginia Voting Drop-Off (vs. 2008)
State	2008	2009*	Drop-Off
Virginia	Obama: 1,959,532 McCain: 1,725,005	Deeds: 774,676 McDonnell: 1,100,470	Dem: 1,184,856 GOP: 624,535
Total:	3,684,537	1,875,146
New Jersey	Obama: 2,215,422 McCain: 1,613,207	Corzine: 1,048,697 Christie: 1,148,651	Dem: 1,166,725 GOP: 464,556
Total:	3,828,629	2,197,348
*Numbers may have changed slightly since these data were collected on the afternoon of Nov. 4, 2009. Sources: NJ 2008, 2009; VA 2008, 2009

In both cases, turnout dropped by approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. But the difference between the way in which the number of votes decreased was not uniformly distributed across each party. These are aggregate numbers, so were not talking about the same people in 2008 and 2009, per se. However, it is more than obvious that the Republican Party maintained more of its voters than did the Democrats. In Virginia, Deeds could only hold about 40% of Obama's voters from a year ago. McDonnell, on the other hand, was able to maintain about two-thirds the level of McCain voters. The story in New Jersey was similar. Corzine held but 47% of Obama's level of turnout to Christie's 71% of McCain's.

But that's not all. Some of the exit polling was noteworthy as well. Race actually didn't play that big a role in either state, for instance. The African American share of the electorate on Tuesday was actually higher in New Jersey (14%) than it was in 2008 (12%). In Virginia, there was a decrease in the black share from 20% a year ago to 16% yesterday, and Deeds got the same 92% of those voters that Obama got in 2008. The exit polling breaks on age were also interesting. McDonnell won every age group on Virginia (not surprising when you win by 17 points), while Obama lost narrowly among 40-49 year old and over 65 year old Virginians. In New Jersey, Obama just lost among the senior set while Christie only lost among the very youngest (18-29) group.

The real difference, though, was in the partisan make up of the 2008 versus 2009 electorates (at least through the lens of the exit polling conducted).

2008 vs. 2009 Exit Polling in NJ & VA (Party ID)
State	2009	2008
New Jersey	41% D 31% R 28% I*	44% D 28% R 28% I*
Virginia	33% D 37% R 30% I**	39% D 33% R 27% I**
*Christie won independents 60-30. Obama won them 51-47 over McCain. **McDonnell won independents 66-33. Obama won them 49-48 over McCain. Sources: CNN (NJ and VA) -- 2008, New York Times (NJ and VA) -- 2009

That paints a fairly stark contrast between the two elections. Republicans made up a larger share of the electorate in 2009 and both Republican gubernatorial candidates ran away with the independent vote. If yesterday's results mean anything for 2010, it is that the Democrats may have an enthusiasm gap riddle to solve between now and next year this time. FHQ still contends that these elections were decided based on local forces, but the tie that binds them is the fact that Democrats seemingly sat these races out. Resting up for 2010, or simply complacent post-2008? That is the question.

Outside of that, I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what a pro-medical marijuana/anti-same sex marriage voter in Maine looks like. Politics is great.


Recent Posts:
Election Night 2009: Live Blog (ME-ref, NJ-gov, NY-23, VA-gov)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

Election Night 2009: Live Blog (ME-ref, NJ-gov, NY-23, VA-gov)

12:26pm: FHQ will return in the morning for some parting shots on Election '09 and to tie up the loose ends in Maine and in CA-10. Everyone has something to spin tonight, but the GOP got the two biggest gets in New Jersey and Virginia.

12:22pm: One last update: Maine's Yes on 1 seems likely to win and repeal the gay marriage law in the Pine Tree state. With about 80% of the precincts in, the lead is nearly 5% for Yes.

[Click to Enlarge]

12:16pm: Hoffman has conceded NY-23.

[Click to Enlarge]

12:03pm: Owens has jumped back over 49% with almost 90% of the precincts reporting. If the Democrats win in California's 10th district special election the party will have swept all the congressional special elections in 2009. It hasn't been a good night for the Democratic Party, but that is one thing the DCCC can hang its hat on. Now, in 2010, their task will be more difficult.

[Click to Enlarge]

12:00am: Fox is calling NY-23 for Owens.

[Click to Enlarge]

11:55pm: In other words, of those 5800 absentee ballots returned, Hoffman is going to have to win by about 4:1 to make up the difference between himself and Owens. And yeah, a lot of those ballots were returned when Scozzafava was still in the race. That's an uphill climb for Hoffman.

11:52pm: From the Watertown Daily Times (in NY-23):

"Democrat Bill Owens is leading in the 23rd Congressional District race.

The Plattsburgh attorney has 58,851 votes compared to Conservative Doug Hoffman, a Lake Placid CPA, with 55,618 votes.

Dede Scozzafava, a Republican who dropped out of the race Saturday, has 6,749 votes.

There were more than 10,000 absentee votes sent out before the election and some 5,800 were returned and must be counted. More absentee ballots, if sent before the deadline, could still be received.

Owens now leads in Jefferson, St. Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton and Essex counties.

Hoffman leads in Lewis, Oswego, Oneida, Fulton, Hamilton and Madison counties.

Owens is maintaining a 48 percent to 46 percent lead.

Four precincts in St. Lawrence County are having mechanical problems and total results for the county won't be available tonight."

11:42pm: A last glance at New Jersey and Virginia (a lot of red tonight):

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

11:30pm: Also, The Albany Project is calling NY-23 for Owens. That's an unofficial call.

11:27pm: After a quick nourishment break, FHQ is back. Let's check in on NY-23 and in Maine. Owens continues to hold on with just under 80% reporting and Yes on 1 has stretched a thin lead into a "thin but not quite as thin" edge.

[Click to Enlarge]

11:04pm: Just about half of the precincts are reporting in Maine and Yes on 1 (to repeal the gay marriage law passed by the state legislature) is now ahead.

[Click to Enlarge]

10:51pm: Maine is down to 37 votes margin. From Political Wire via Twitter: "Maine gay-marriage initiative currently at a 37-vote difference. Yes, 37. (via @steve_shepard)."

10:45pm: Not vying for the honor of closest? That would be Virginia's gubernatorial race:

[Click to Enlarge]

10:43pm: Well, I suppose NY-23 would have to duke it out with the Maine gay marriage ballot measure for that distinction. Things are slightly tighter in the Pine Tree state than in the North Country.

[Click to Enlarge]

10:40pm: Over half precincts are in in Upstate New York. Owens has slipped under 50% and the Democrat's lead is down to under 3 points. Could this one be the close one we've been waiting for?

[Click to Enlarge]

10:28pm: Corzine could not pull the Brendan Byrne circa 1977 comeback. There has not been a Democratic come-from-behind in a New Jersey gubernatorial race since then. That's mostly because the Democrats are ahead in the polls. The incumbent Democrat was simple too unpopular statewide and Chris Daggett didn't end up pulling enough actual votes away from Christie to make that a non-factor. That's the way it had been in the October polls in the race. Independents broke for Christie in the end and not Daggett.

[Click to Enlarge]

10:22pm: Back to NY-23 (Don't worry we'll return for a few notes on Christie's win.): 31% of precincts are in and Owens is still over 50%. Others have said that the story in Virginia and New Jersey tonight was the independents (both broke for the Republicans), but is a moderate, albeit right-leaning, district going for the moderate Democrat instead of the more ideologically extreme Conservative, Hoffman?

[Click to Enlarge]

10:15pm: Had to point that out didn't you, FHQ?

10:13pm: We interrupt NY-23 to announce that the AP has called New Jersey for Christie. Wow! That's a much quicker call than we had anticipated. However, FHQ was 2 for 2 on the gubernatorial calls.

[Click to Enlarge]

10:10pm: Granted, the last round of polling in NY-23 had Hoffman pulling ahead. The Conservative Party nominee was the momentum candidate heading into today.

10:08pm: Of course, Erick Erickson (RedState) had this to say (also via Twitter): "Hoffman race too close to call for now, but they are still cautiously optimistic."

10:06pm: Marc Ambinder on NY-23 (via Twitter): "Republicans suddenly VERY nervous about NY 23...."

10:04pm: The results are slow to come in up in Maine. With 22% of the precincts reporting, the turnout rate is 81% and No on 1 holds a now very slim lead (50.62%-49.38%).

9:53pm: Nearly two-thirds of the votes are in in New Jersey. I think it is safe to say that Daggett is hurting Jon Corzine. Well, Daggett's having underperformed expectations are anyway. The independent is still at about half of the share FHQ projected him to have based on polling. As we've mentioned that may be a function of the fact that he was the lone alternative to Christie and Corzine in a lot of those polls. The support just wasn't there.

[Click to Enlarge]

9:49pm: In local election news, turnout was LIGHT in Winston Salem today. Joines (D) was running unopposed for mayor. I was voter #113 in my precinct.

...at just before 5pm. Yikes!

9:37pm: A quick peek at Virginia: McDonnell is under 60% and Deeds broke the 40% barrier. A big turnaround from a year ago in Virginia.

...for both parties.

[Click to Enlarge]

9:30pm: Owens with the early lead in NY-23. Well, that's a 37-25 lead over Hoffman. Scozzafava has 3. Let's project that one based on less than 1% reporting.

...or not.

[Click to Enlarge]

9:22pm: Update from Maine. No on 1 is ahead as is the medical marijuana. Turnout was 45% (unofficially) in the Pine Tree state today. That's not bad for a ballot full of referenda. Thanks to Jack for the link to the results.

9:08pm: The story so far in New Jersey is that Daggett is underperforming (Ah, the third party election day fade.) while the two major party candidates are overperforming expectations slightly. With just over a quarter of the state reporting, Christie is over 50%. The Republican hadn't seen that level of support in the polls since the summer. What was his last poll with over 50%? An early August Rasmussen poll. It's been a while. Corzine may yet break that 45% barrier we discussed earlier, but for the time being he's in the low 40s.

[Click to Enlarge]

9:05pm: Only 501 precincts yet to come in in Virginia. Nope, not getting any closer. Will Deeds break 40%? That is the question. FHQ had him pegged at 41.0%. There's little doubt McDonnell will exceed FHQ's projection.

[Click to Enlarge]

8:59pm: I love the map New York Times has up on their front page. There's nothing like a map being filled in a election results come in:

[Click to Enlarge]

8:56pm: Polls are about to close in NY-23. Let the uncertainty begin dissipating.

...maybe.

8:46pm: FHQ is late to start, but it doesn't look like we missed much in Virginia:

[Click to Enlarge]

That one gets an, "Ouch" rating. I felt like FHQ's averages may have undervalued McDonnell's potential vote share, but Deeds' polling versus Deeds' vote share aren't that different. Yes, I see that it's official in Virginia. Did the above graphic leave any room for doubt?


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

Final Virginia Update coming between 2 & 3 this afternoon.

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

[Click to Enlarge]

Prediction: Christie wins.

After looking back over the states FHQ incorrectly predicted a year ago in the presidential election (Indiana and North Carolina), we have come to the conclusion that close races are where our graduated weighted average can get into trouble. Yes, those are races that happen to be just like New Jersey. In our defense, Indiana was the only surprise. North Carolina was at least moving in Obama's direction. And though, New Jersey has moved in Corzine's direction in October, there is too much running against the incumbent Democrat. For starters, Corzine will likely have to poll over or around 45% to win unless Chris Daggett wins more than the 10% we have the independent projected to win. If Daggett doesn't get a larger share, Corzine will have to clear a barrier that he has yet to clear in any poll conducted in the race this year. He never got better than 44%. On top of that, Christie won no matter how we calculated our average, or more accurately what polls FHQ decided to include.

If all the 2009 polls were used, Christie won by the 3.4% you see above.

If only the polls since the June primary were included, Christie won by 2.2%.

If a simple average of all the final day polls is used, Christie won by one-third of a percentage point.

That may indicate that the momentum is behind Corzine in the aggregate. It could, but it could also mean that Corzine is still coming up short. Ordinarily, FHQ might be inclined to say that the tie goes to the one who has won statewide before because they would have some organizational advantage in a close race. In this case, though, Corzine's inability to crack 45% in any poll is the biggest piece of evidence against him.

And for FHQ, that is why we're giving the slight nod to Republican Chris Christie in this race.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

Final Virginia Update coming between 2 & 3 this afternoon.

Election Day 2009: What's on Tap? -- A Viewing Guide

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (11/3/09) -- Final

[Click to Enlarge]

FHQ is of the opinion that it did a better job putting the wraps on this race in our Sunday night update. Nothing in the two polls released on Monday in the Virginia gubernatorial race did anything to disrupt the conventional wisdom that Virginia will continue its streak of electing governors from the party not represented in the White House. If anything, both the PPP and Survey USA survey's provided additional proof that today's vote would be an overwhelming victory for Republican Bob McDonnell. More than anything, though, with the final polls in, we can assess the situation and, in this race at least, go out on a limb and make a prediction. That the state of Virginia in the graphic above is now completely red should be indicative enough of the fact that the evidence is pointing toward a McDonnell victory tonight. But now it is official.

2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Race Polling
Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Deeds	McDonnell	Undecided
Public Policy Polling [pdf]	Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 2.6%	1457 likely voters	42	56	2
Survey USA	Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 2009	+/- 4.1%	502 likely voters	40	58	2

Early on, the exit polls are showing the turnout is lower than expected in some Republican areas. The Democrats are touting those numbers, but it will take an awful lot of that to get Deeds anywhere close to winning this race. And lest everyone --Democrats specifically -- forget, the early 2004 presidential exit polls indicated that the United States would have a new president, President Kerry. Alas, it didn't quite turn out that way, if memory serves. As Markos Moulitsas just tweeted, "WTF, there are exit polls today? Big question -- which side will get punk'd by them?" Indeed. It would not be wise of Deeds supporters to put too much stock into them; not these early ones at least.

Prediction: McDonnell wins.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Final Virginia Update coming between 2 & 3 this afternoon.

Election Day 2009: What's on Tap? -- A Viewing Guide

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (11/2/09)

Final Virginia Update coming between 2 & 3 this afternoon.