Back to MyDD Weblog
U.S House results and minor party results
Adam Tondowsky has forwarded his 3rd Party findings in the House mid-terms:
I've cross checked the results and found a few mathematical errors, these are the final results:
Percentage of Vote
Total 73,280,244
Republican 37,390,372 51.0%
Democratic 33,623,365 45.9%
Libertarian 1,165,618 1.6%
Green 306,819 .4%
Other 794,070 1.1%
Number of Candidates
Democrat 391 (includes a write in candidate in California 49)
Republican 399
Libertarian 217
Green 58
Alan's Notes
Number of candidates without a major party challenger: 80 (excluding Bernie Sanders in Vermont, and California 49)
Number of candidates without any challenger or just write-in opposition: 35
3rd party total votes: 2,266,507 (includes Vermont)
3rd party votes in districts without one major party candidate: 904,003 (39.9%)
28 Libertarians ran in districts without one major party candidate and received 416,632 votes (an average of 14,880 votes) the remaining 189 Libertarian candidates received 748,986 votes (an average of 3,963 votes)
8 Greens ran in districts without one major party candidate and received 112,548 votes (an average of 14,069 votes), the remaining 50 Green candidates received 194,271 votes (an average of 3,885 votes)
The Libertarians showed much broader strength than did the Greens, who, besides making a couple of good showing in the Governor races, were very weak otherwise-- gaining less than "other" in total votes. In fact, at least on the House level, it's most likely the case that the Constitution Party is closer (in a percentage comparative ratio of votes) to overtaking the Green Party, than the latter is to the Libertarian Party.
There were plenty of close contests in the House, with both the Republican and Democrat candidates receiving less than 50% of the vote, though I don't recall any distinguished instances of the 3rd Party candidate costing a candidate their victory. Tomorrow, I'll post Alan's Senate and Governor 3rd Party findings, where Libertarians did account for the losses by Republican candidates.
As was stated, in 3rd Party factors in 2004, Bush is likely to have much more trouble on his right than the Democrats will to their left, which the 2002 mid-terms confirm. Not a lot, perhaps only 2 percent, but that is a lot (as long as Bush isn't at 51 percent).
Here were the closest House contests in 2002, again compiled by Adam:
Closest house races- under 10% in Open Seats:
1. Colorado 1st, Bob Beauprez(R) 47.3-47.2% 0.1%
2. Louisiana 4th, Rodney Alexander(D)
3. Georgia 3rd, Jim Marshall(D) 50.5-49.5% 1.0%
4. New York 1st, Tim Bishop(D) 50.2-48.6% 1.6% defeated incumbent
5. Florida 5th, Ginny Brown-Waite(R) 47.9-46.2% 1.7% defeated incumbent
6. Alabama 3rd, Mike Rogers(R) 50.3-48.2% 2.1%
7. Pennsylvania 6th, Jim Gerlach(R) 51.4-48.6% 2.8%
8. Georgia 11th, Phil Gingrey(R) 51.6-48.4% 3.2%
9. Arizona 1st, Rick Renzi(R) 49.2-45.6% 3.6%
10. Maine 2nd, Michael Michaud(D) 52.0-48.0% 4.0%
11. Maryland 8th, Chris Van Hollen(D) 51.7-47.5% 4.2% defeated incumbent
12. Indiana 2nd, Chris Chocola(R) 50.5-45.8% 4.7%
13. Tennessee 4th, Lincoln Davis(D) 52.1-46.5% 5.3%
14. Oklahoma 4th, Tom Cole(R) 53.8-46.2% 7.6%
15. California 18th, Dennis Cardoza(D) 51.3-43.4% 7.9%
15. South Dakota AL, Bill Janklow(R) 53.5-45.6% 7.9%
17. Maryland 2nd, Dutch Ruppersberger(D) 54.2-45.6% 8.6%
18. Florida 13th, Katherine Harris(R) 54.8-45.2% 9.6%
Incumbents:
1. Utah 2nd, Jim Matheson(D) 49.4-48.7% 0.7%
2. Pennsylvania 18th, Tim Holden(D) 51.4-48.6% 2.8% member vs.member
3. Kentucky 3rd, Anne Northup(R) 51.6-48.4% 3.2%
4. Kansas 3rd, Dennis Moore(D) 50.2-46.9% 3.3%
5. Kentucky 4th, Ken Lucas(D) 51.1-47.5% 3.6%
5. Pennsylvania 13th, Joe Hoeffel(D) 50.9-47.3% 3.6%
7. Texas 17th, Charlie Stenholm(D) 51.4-47.4% 4.0%
8. Washington 2nd, Rick Larson(D) 50.1-45.8% 4.3%
8. Texas 23rd, Henry Bonilla(R) 51.5-47.2% 4.3%
10. Texas 11th, Chet Edwards(D) 51.6-47.1% 4.5%
11. Norh Dakota AL, Earl Pomeroy(D) 52.4-47.6% 4.8%
12. Indiana 9th, Baron Hill(D) 51.2-46.1% 5.1%
13. Indiana 8th, John Hosteller(R) 51.3-46.0% 5.3%
14. Iowa 2nd, Jim Leach(R) 52.2-45.7% 6.5%
15. Connecticut 2nd, Robert Simmons(R) 54.1-45.9% 8.2%
16. Iowa 3rd, Len Boswell(D) 53.4-45.0% 8.4%
17. North Carolina 8th, Robin Hayes(R) 53.6-44.6% 9.0%
17. Indiana 7th, Julia Carson(D) 53.1-44.1% 9.0%
19. Illinois 19th, John Shimkus(R) 54.8-45.2% 9.6% member vs. member
19. Oregon 5th, Darlene Hooley(D) 54.7-45.1% 9.6%
Back to MyDD Weblog
Jerome Armstrong on Dec 27 @ 3:15 PM
|
TrackBack
Not including possible retirements, these 37 are the "vulnerable ones" for 2004. Running from Beauprez to Harris, from Matheson to Hooley, I would say that they will be targeted for defeat.
Now, for my thoughts. Since 2002 was a GOP year, assume that it would be status quo in 2004. I would use the +/- 3 for Democrats/Republicans. Based on that, Hooley, Carson, Boswell, Ruppersburger and Cardoza would be in a good position to hold their seats (they'd all have a 9-point "lead" over their Republican opponent). For the Republicans, Northup, Bonilla, Hostettler, Beauprez, Brown-Waite, Rogers, Gerlach, Renzi and Chocola would be especially vulnerable (less than a 3-point "lead" over their Democratic opponent).
The most vulnerable Democrats are Matheson, Alexander, Marshall, Bishop, Holden, Moore and Lucas. These 7 Democrats will be heavily targeted, as their districts lean Republican and they narrowly won in 2002.
Mydd, did you get my E-Mail?
yea, about the ARG polling, I put the link in an update below.
Good analysis, Mr. Liberal. As for troubled incumbents;
Democrats
Matheson-will never have an easy race, but if he survived this year, I like his chacnes.
Alexander-will have a very tough race.
Marshall-pretty safe. That's a very Democratic district that was close because of the year the GA GOP had, and if they couldn't win it in '02 then I really can't see them winning it anytime soon.
Bishop-won't be easy, but if he gets knocked off it would probably be in a midterm year (NY 1 is the Northern opposite of, say, OK 4-the GOP has a heavy registration edge, but Gore won it by 10 points).
Holden-wil never have an easy election, but isn't as vulnerable as people think-yeah Gekas sucked as a candidate, but I really can't see the GOP finding a better opponent than a 20-year Congressman with no baggage. And if PA has to redistrict (and I think it will), Governor Rendell will probably try to get him an easier seat.
Moore-see Matheson (also the 3rd is a moderate GOP district, and if they keep nominating conservatives he'll be safe).
Lucas-pretty much lost; while he himself would win it, he said three terms, this is his third, and he's the only Democrat who can hold that district.
As for the others mentioned, Ruppersburger is absolutely safe (beating a highly respected ex-Congresswoman by 10 points while his predecessor in the seat was elected Governor) and none of the others really have anything to lose sleep over.
Republicans
Northup-if the weather's nicer in Louisville on Election Day (and one of the statewide officers or Lucas is giving Jim Bunning a run for ihs money), Jack Conway will have a really good shot.
Bonilla-has to watch his back now, but won't lose with Bush on the ballot.
Hostettler-will never be safe in the Bloody Eighth, but will be tough to knock off unless he makes another "abortions cause breast cancer"-type comment.
Beauprez-looks like a one-termer, for reasons described here http://www.polstate.com/archives/000829.html#000829
Brown-Waite-barring huge coattails courtesy of President Graham, can't see her being knocked off in the new district if she won even after her husband got arrested for tearing down Thurman signs.
Rogers-if we couldn't win it as an open seat with a great candidate, can't see wining it if he's an incumbent.
Gerlach-reasonably safe in the seat he won, but if a PA remap has Governor Rendell's signature on it, he's a goner. (Still, it's a damn shame he won, because if Dan Wofford had beaten him, he would've been in prefect position to avenge his father by wiping out Little Ricky Mississippi in '06.)
Renzi-if Udall runs and gets the nomination, bye-bye.
Chocola-in good shape but not unbeatable.
And I would definitely add two Georgians-Gingrey and Burns. Burns is the Michael Patrick Flanagan (the GOPer who beat Rostenkowski in '94, then got blown out by Blagojevich in '96) of this cycle-and I would imagine anyone other than Champ Walker would clean his clock. And from what I've heard, if Buddy Darden gets the Democratic nomination,Gingrey is just as toast as Burns.
All I can say is that, in California, the Green Party is going gangbusters - where we consciously choose to run competitive candidates, we pulled 10% or better in state legislative races (three). We only ran two Congressional candidates, and one pulled 6% and another 4% (a local guy I know who choose to run a symbolic campaign for the purpose of appearing in debates). Our statewide candidates polled 4-6% across the board, and Peter Miguel Camejo did better than any "third party" candidate since Ed Clark (Libertarian) in the late 1970's.
I fully expect us to steadily improve these numbers... our party's registration is growing, and our organizational competence and experience base is constantly improving. Really, in a sense, the Green Party as a functional entity is less than a decade old... and it is only since Nader's 2000 run that we've really had anything even approaching a national infrastructure.
I am confident that, unless something exceptional happens, the Green Party candidate will comfortably out poll the Libertarian and any other third party candidate, and that the 5% threshold is more than approachable.