Nomentum IV: Blanche Lincoln Political Ad Proclaims "I Don't Answer to My Party, I Answer to Arkansas"

Some small-beans nomentum this time -- the Democrats can afford to lose a full nine votes in the Senate. They'll lose... well, like six or seven. At the end of the day, though, they will almost certainly have enough hardcore liberals to push this monstrosity through.

However -- that being said -- it does demonstrate which side is having the better of it in the public square. One doesn't advertise one's unpopular votes.

And it demonstrates she's running against her party and her president.

She brags in this video of voting against the supposedly-popular public option.

And, of course, it demonstrates that Obama's big sales closer-line -- unlike in 1994, you've got me, baby -- isn't going to move a lot of units.

Not only is he 0 for 3 in recent high-profile big-time elections, but he's toxic in any state or district where anyone's wavering.

And on that -- remember, 2010 is especially important, because it's the election in a census/redistricting year. The party who gets to draw the maps builds itself a strong advantage for a full decade.

Will the Tea Party Uprising cost the Democrats control of state houses, too?

Most likely a few:

Control of the state legislature matters whether a state loses or gains seats. Take fast-growing Texas, which is expected to pick up as many as four seats next year. Democrats had a 17-13 edge in the state's congressional delegation after the 2000 elections. Republicans won control of the Texas House in 2002 and redrew the state's congressional map. As a result, the GOP now controls 20 congressional seats in Texas while Democrats control 12. Similarly in Georgia, following the 2000 census Democrats redrew district lines to give themselves control of the state's two new congressional seats.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans controlled 11 congressional seats and Democrats 10 before reapportionment cost the Keystone State two seats in 2001. Afterward, the Republican legislature redrew the map to the GOP's advantage, creating 12 Republican seats and seven Democratic ones. (Democrats later picked up some of those GOP seats.)

To understand the broader political implications, consider that the GOP gained somewhere between 25 and 30 seats because of the redistricting that followed the 1990 census. Without those seats, Republicans would not have won the House in 1994.

Control of redistricting also has huge financial implications. The average winner of a competitive House race in 2008 spent $2 million, while a noncompetitive seat can be defended for far less than half that amount. Moving, say, 20 districts from competitive to out-of-reach could save a party $100 million or more over the course of a decade.

There are 18 state legislative chambers that have four or fewer seats separating the two parties that are important for redistricting. Seven of these are controlled by Republicans and the other 11 are controlled by Democrats, including the lower houses in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Republican strategists are focused on 107 seats in 16 states. Winning these seats would give them control of drawing district lines for nearly 190 congressional seats. Six of these states are projected to pick up a total of nine seats, and five are expected to lose a combined six seats.

Nationally, the GOP's effort will be spearheaded by the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC). Funded by 80,000 donors, it spent more than $20 million in the last election cycle on legislative races and for attorney general, lieutenant governor and secretary of state campaigns.

They've got a "REDMAP" reapportionment strategy going, and, if you're inclined, they'll even let you give them some of your money.

posted by Ace at 04:23 PM

| Access Comments