CA-10

[sbane]

Yay, map. Obviously missing context, so it's not that useful.

Garamendi won the Sacramento county part of the district. As for a little context, the Alameda part of the district contains the most conservative part of the county as well as the district. The only reason it wasn't jettisoned during redistricting is because Tauscher wanted to keep Lawrence Livermore lab inside here district. Otherwise Garamendi basically won where he was supposed to although it was way too close for comfort.

[Flyers2010]

53.0-42.7. Final result.

Contra Costa 54.7-41.2
Solano 50.1-43.1
Alameda 44.9-52.0
Sacramento 48.1-45.8

Contra Costa is 74% of the vote cast.

This is what I thought the results would be if SUSA was correct. For a while I thought Garamendi might pull off close to a 15 point margin but that was not to be. The part of Alameda county this district covers is basically the city of Livemore (voted Obama 57-40). This area is pretty similar to the type of areas Mcnerney needs to do well in to hold on to the 11th district. Not looking good for him at all. Republicans will be smart if they target that seat with a good candidate focused on economic issues and supply him with lots of money.

Hate to say it, but this result scares me.  I know CA-10 isn't the most liberal district out there, but it's definitely moreso than PA 7, 8, and even 13 and I know you need to keep at least PA 7 and/or 8 to have a majority in Congress.  If you get more Republicans focused on economic issues, I could see some Northeastern seats flip back along with the Southern ones.

The district I fear for, CA-11, is more conservative than PA-7 or 8 and certainly more conservative than the 13th. That being said we must be careful not to extrapolate too many conclusions from this result. The turnout was around 125,000 in contrast to 196,000 in 2006 and 163,000 in 2002 with no republican challenger. The electorate should be more democratic in 2010 but by how much is the real question.

Still if republicans play their cards right they will get close to winning in CA-11 and democrats hold a bunch of seats more conservative than it. I don't foresee the republicans gaining control of the house again but they should gain a good amount of seats. I think Hoffman losing actually hurts the democrats in 2010 as the republicans won't be forced to nominate crazies.

CA-10 sounds a lot like a PA-7/8/suburban 13th in that the GOP has a chance if they run a social moderate to liberal who rails against taxes and governmental economic expansion.  With Murphy (8th) and Schwartz (13th), I'm not too worried as of now though.  The rest of PA would be like comparing apples to oranges in this case because of social issues and the Dems already having social cons so it's irrelevant.  However, I'm also looking at MD-2, DE-AL, NJ-3, NY-1, 2, 19, 20, CT-4 and 5, the NH districts, and yes even MA-10 (wealthy district and McCain didn't do so shabby there) as districts that could bite us in the ass if the GOP plays their cards right and emphasize economic conservatism.

[Mr.Phips]

53.0-42.7. Final result.

Contra Costa 54.7-41.2
Solano 50.1-43.1
Alameda 44.9-52.0
Sacramento 48.1-45.8

Contra Costa is 74% of the vote cast.

This is what I thought the results would be if SUSA was correct. For a while I thought Garamendi might pull off close to a 15 point margin but that was not to be. The part of Alameda county this district covers is basically the city of Livemore (voted Obama 57-40). This area is pretty similar to the type of areas Mcnerney needs to do well in to hold on to the 11th district. Not looking good for him at all. Republicans will be smart if they target that seat with a good candidate focused on economic issues and supply him with lots of money.

Hate to say it, but this result scares me.  I know CA-10 isn't the most liberal district out there, but it's definitely moreso than PA 7, 8, and even 13 and I know you need to keep at least PA 7 and/or 8 to have a majority in Congress.  If you get more Republicans focused on economic issues, I could see some Northeastern seats flip back along with the Southern ones.

The district I fear for, CA-11, is more conservative than PA-7 or 8 and certainly more conservative than the 13th. That being said we must be careful not to extrapolate too many conclusions from this result. The turnout was around 125,000 in contrast to 196,000 in 2006 and 163,000 in 2002 with no republican challenger. The electorate should be more democratic in 2010 but by how much is the real question.

Still if republicans play their cards right they will get close to winning in CA-11 and democrats hold a bunch of seats more conservative than it. I don't foresee the republicans gaining control of the house again but they should gain a good amount of seats. I think Hoffman losing actually hurts the democrats in 2010 as the republicans won't be forced to nominate crazies.

CA-10 sounds a lot like a PA-7/8/suburban 13th in that the GOP has a chance if they run a social moderate to liberal who rails against taxes and governmental economic expansion.  With Murphy (8th) and Schwartz (13th), I'm not too worried as of now though.  The rest of PA would be like comparing apples to oranges in this case because of social issues and the Dems already having social cons so it's irrelevant.  However, I'm also looking at MD-2, DE-AL, NJ-3, NY-1, 2, 19, 20, CT-4 and 5, the NH districts, and yes even MA-10 (wealthy district and McCain didn't do so shabby there) as districts that could bite us in the ass if the GOP plays their cards right and emphasize economic conservatism.

I dont know about MD-02 and NY-02.  MD-02 was gerrymandered to include just enough of inncer city Baltimore to make it impossible for a Republican to win.  NY-02 was also gerrymandered to include the most Democratic parts of the island. 

[Flyers2010]

53.0-42.7. Final result.

Contra Costa 54.7-41.2
Solano 50.1-43.1
Alameda 44.9-52.0
Sacramento 48.1-45.8

Contra Costa is 74% of the vote cast.

This is what I thought the results would be if SUSA was correct. For a while I thought Garamendi might pull off close to a 15 point margin but that was not to be. The part of Alameda county this district covers is basically the city of Livemore (voted Obama 57-40). This area is pretty similar to the type of areas Mcnerney needs to do well in to hold on to the 11th district. Not looking good for him at all. Republicans will be smart if they target that seat with a good candidate focused on economic issues and supply him with lots of money.

Hate to say it, but this result scares me.  I know CA-10 isn't the most liberal district out there, but it's definitely moreso than PA 7, 8, and even 13 and I know you need to keep at least PA 7 and/or 8 to have a majority in Congress.  If you get more Republicans focused on economic issues, I could see some Northeastern seats flip back along with the Southern ones.

The district I fear for, CA-11, is more conservative than PA-7 or 8 and certainly more conservative than the 13th. That being said we must be careful not to extrapolate too many conclusions from this result. The turnout was around 125,000 in contrast to 196,000 in 2006 and 163,000 in 2002 with no republican challenger. The electorate should be more democratic in 2010 but by how much is the real question.

Still if republicans play their cards right they will get close to winning in CA-11 and democrats hold a bunch of seats more conservative than it. I don't foresee the republicans gaining control of the house again but they should gain a good amount of seats. I think Hoffman losing actually hurts the democrats in 2010 as the republicans won't be forced to nominate crazies.

CA-10 sounds a lot like a PA-7/8/suburban 13th in that the GOP has a chance if they run a social moderate to liberal who rails against taxes and governmental economic expansion.  With Murphy (8th) and Schwartz (13th), I'm not too worried as of now though.  The rest of PA would be like comparing apples to oranges in this case because of social issues and the Dems already having social cons so it's irrelevant.  However, I'm also looking at MD-2, DE-AL, NJ-3, NY-1, 2, 19, 20, CT-4 and 5, the NH districts, and yes even MA-10 (wealthy district and McCain didn't do so shabby there) as districts that could bite us in the ass if the GOP plays their cards right and emphasize economic conservatism.

I dont know about MD-02 and NY-02.  MD-02 was gerrymandered to include just enough of inncer city Baltimore to make it impossible for a Republican to win.  NY-02 was also gerrymandered to include the most Democratic parts of the island. 

I thought MD-2 was most of the northeastern suburbs of Baltimore and were fairly wealthy.  NY-2 you maybe right though.  I think MD-1 will flip to the GOP however.

[Sam Spade]

MD-02 changed a lot after redistricting in 2000, Flyers.  It's the main reason why Bob Ehrlich ran for Governor in 2002.

[Torie]

Ya the Dems put a chunk of the Baltimore City ghetto into MD-2, which pushed it out of reach of a Pubbie winning it.

[Mr.Phips]

Ya the Dems put a chunk of the Baltimore City ghetto into MD-2, which pushed it out of reach of a Pubbie winning it.

Yeah, thats the only reason why a Democrat was able to win the seat handily in a year like 2002. 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Dutch Ruppersberger was a popular local elected official, the Baltimore County Executive, before being elected to Congress. So it wasn't just the district, although it certainly helped.

[ROBERTBYRD]

Certainly, Republicans conceded that one faster than they absolutely needed to.

[SoIA NiK]

I want the Livermore Lab out of this district. I live right next to it. I want it out.

[sbane]

I want the Livermore Lab out of this district. I live right next to it. I want it out.

 The only reason you are in the 10th is because of Livermore lab. Or else you would have been put in the 11th.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Certainly, Republicans conceded that one faster than they absolutely needed to.

Harmer raised about 2/3 the money that Garamendi did, so it wasn't like he was a sacrifical lamb.

[Lunar]

Certainly, Republicans conceded that one faster than they absolutely needed to.

Harmer raised about 2/3 the money that Garamendi did, so it wasn't like he was a sacrifical lamb.

He got very little international support though.  I feel like the Republicans would have been wiser to make a serious play at the seat, especially as Garamendi went hard-left for his campaign.  But I think they didn't want the media to be paying attention to a probable Democratic win when they had the running odds to make a complete sweep of the East Coast contests.

[Mr.Phips]

Dutch Ruppersberger was a popular local elected official, the Baltimore County Executive, before being elected to Congress. So it wasn't just the district, although it certainly helped.

He likely would have lost the pre-2002 MD-02, which didnt go into the city of Baltimore and included many heavily Republican exurban areas now in MD-01. 

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

victory = demotion

who's Lt. Gov now?

Whoever is appointed by Arnold, what is the liklihood he appoints a Republican? Its been 26 years since a Republican has held the office of Lt. Governor of California, correct?