Sign of the Apocalypse

posted by Josh Goodman

You can now bet on the 2012 presidential election on Intrade.

Arizona Gay Marriage Ban: The Counties to Watch

posted by Josh Goodman

I'll make this short and sweet. Arizona voted on a ballot measure to ban gay marriage in 2006. It failed (the first time that's happened in any state), so the state is voting on the subject again -- this time with more limited language that would only affect marriage and not other types of same-sex relationships.

In 2006, that measure received 48.2% of the vote. The county that came closest to mirroring that statewide result is Maricopa County, which gave it 48.4% of the vote. Nearly 4 million of Arizona's 6.2 million people live in Maricopa (where Phoenix is located). So, there's a very good chance that if the gay marriage ban passes in Maricopa County it passes statewide and if it fails in Maricopa County it fails statewide.

The Myth of Red and Blue States

posted by Alan Greenblatt

The Washington Post's political chat just featured this exchange:

New York: In at least nine states, the governor of that state is of a different party than the presidential candidate of choice for the majority of that same state's electorate. For example, according to the current electoral map, the majority of California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont voters are likely to choose Barack Obama. However, all four of those states have Republican governors. Similarly, the map shows Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma as states that will likely go to John McCain and all have governors who are Democrats. How does this happen? What makes a governor from a certain party more palatable than a president from the same party?

Michael Abramowitz: It's a good question: What I would say that in some cases, it really depends on what kind of governor you have. Take California, which is as blue of a state as you could get. There's no way that McCain would win that state, and there's no way that a a conservative Republican would be governor right now. But Schwarznegger is govering as a liberal Republican, just as Janet Napolitano in Arizona is considered more moderate.

In other words, the presidential leanings are a good indicator of the state's ideological leanings, and governor often finds a way to reflect that in how they govern.

Correction of the Day

posted by Josh Goodman

From Politico:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story conflated two non-existent audio tapes of Michelle Obama.

Watching the New York Senate

posted by Alan Greenblatt

The divided government argument that some Republicans are employing in federal elections is also being put to good use in New York State. Democrats only need to gain two seats Tuesday to take over the state Senate for the first time in more than 40 years.

Republicans are warning not only of unified Democratic control for the first time since 1935, but pointing out that all three of the state's top leaders -- Gov. David Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Democratic leader Malcolm Smith -- all hail from New York City.

"The reality is that if Democrats take over, you're going to get more 'city' representation," Henry L. Taylor Jr., director of the University at Buffalo's Center for Urban Studies, told the Buffalo News.

New York Democrats hope that general enthusiasm for their party will put them over the top. The Journal News of Westchester County reports on voter registration figures, noting that enrollment does not mean straight-party voting:

Republicans in 2006 held a roughly 8,600 edge in enrollment over Democrats in Sen. James Alesi's 55th District, which covers the eastern Monroe County suburbs. But with more than 8,200 voters enrolling as Democrats since the last Senate election, the Republican lead is down to just about 500 voters as Alesi faces Democrat David Nachbar.

The 61st District, which is an open seat in western New York and a critical race for both parties, now has 5,800 fewer Republicans than it did in 2006. So instead of a 9,794 enrollment edge the GOP enjoyed, the lead is now about 4,100.

The other day, Newsday speculated about the possibility of the chamber ending up in a tie, getting Paterson to say he could easily see that happening, or either party ending up with a one-seat majority. The Long Island paper also provided a handy tip sheet on races to watch:

California's Gay Marriage Ban: The Counties to Watch

posted by Josh Goodman

As we get ready for California to vote on a closely watch ballot measure to prohibit gay marriage, it may be helpful to look back to the last time California voted on gay marriage, eight years ago. Then again, it may not.

Voters in California and nationally support gay marriage at higher rates than they did in 2000. Plus, for the particular purpose that I'm interested in -- determining which counties will be bellwethers for the state results -- it's also important to note that many places have undergone demographic shifts in the past eight years. If you map the "yes" and "no" votes after Nov. 4, the result could very well look quite a bit different than the map from 2000.

That said, I have nothing else to go on. It's almost impossible to use a previous election between Democratic and Republican candidates to forecast what a ballot measure's result will look like (as will be obvious by the end of this post), so the 2000 vote is it.

Why California?

posted by Alan Greenblatt

By now, it's been widely reported that Mormons are providing the bulk of the funding in support of California's Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in that state. The Knights of Columbus have been big backers, too.

My question is, why are these groups playing such a big role in California, when gay marriage bans in other states have been largely the province of evangelicals?

This Salt Lake Tribune story, largely about the rift this issue is causing within the LDS, offers one clue. Apparently during an earlier gay marriage fight, the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco reached out to the Mormon leadership.

Could Obama Kill the California Gay Marriage Ban?

posted by Josh Goodman

Barack Obama opposes Proposition 8 in California, which would ban gay marriage. But, other than announce his opposition, he hasn't been actively involved in the campaign. Now, some gay rights supporters are asking him to do more. Here's Andrew Sullivan:

As expected, one reason Proposition 8, stripping gay couples of marriage equality, is still viable in California is because of strong African-American support. Black Californians back the anti-gay measure by a margin of 20 points, 58 - 38, in the SUSA poll. No other ethnic group comes close to the level of opposition and black turnout is likely to be very high next month.

All this makes it vital, in my opinion, that Barack Obama strongly and unequivocally oppose Proposition 8 in California, rather than keeping mainly quiet as he has done so far. We need him to make an ad opposing it.  This is a core test of whether gay Americans should back Obama as enthusiastically as they have in the last month. If he does not stand up for gay couples now, why should we believe he will when he is in office? And if black Americans are the critical bloc that helps kill civil rights for gays, that will not help deepen Obama's governing coalition. It could tear it apart.

Kevin Naff of the Washington Blade makes a similar point.

It's asking a lot of a politician to involve himself in a divisive ballot campaign a few days before he's trying to be elected president of the United States, especially when Obama's position on gay marriage has a level of nuance that only a former law professor could love.

He opposes gay marriage, but opposes both state and federal constitutional amendments to prohibit gay marriage, even in places (like California) where gay marriage is already legal and where, therefore, the practical effect of opposing the constitutional amendment is to allow gay marriage to continue.

Of course, even if Obama isn't involving himself, Prop. 8's opponents could use him in their advertising campaign. 

NC-GOV: The Counties to Watch

posted by Josh Goodman

I've spent the last 24 hours pondering how I'll figure out which counties to watch on election night in the North Carolina governor's race. Identifying the key counties to watch in Washington state (for the governor's race) and South Dakota (for the abortion ban ballot measure) was easy. The Washington governor's race is a rematch of 2004 and the abortion ban vote is a repeat of 2006. The same places that mirrored the statewide vote in those elections probably will again this year.

In North Carolina's there's nothing like that. Republican Pat McCrory and Democrat Bev Perdue haven't faced off in an election before. McCrory's never even run statewide before now. And, since North Carolina hasn't had a major statewide election since 2004, every possible comparison is a bit stale. 

That means that identifying the counties to watch in North Carolina is more art than science. But, here's my solution. 

Governors Galore!

posted by Josh Goodman

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention all of the governors who showed up in Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial last night: Kansas' Kathleen Sebelius, Ohio's Ted Strickland, Virginia's Tim Kaine, Massachusetts' Deval Patrick and New Mexico's Bill Richardson. The governors outnumbered U.S. senators five to three (Joe Biden, Dick Durbin and Obama himself), which I'm sure wasn't an accident.

The world got to see Richardson's beard and Kaine's famous raised eyebrow.