Observations on the AL-02 Race
Post has been edited. Details here.
A long-time political observer who knows southeast Alabama very well shared some observations with the Parlor regarding the race for the 2nd Congressional District.
Given the fact that the Republican Party has held AL CD-2 since the Goldwater sweep of 1964, many assume this is a “safe” GOP seat.
And while this district of 16 counties has a definite Republican lean, a close look at the state’s 2006 statewide races indicates that it may not be as “safe” as some presume.
Nor can it be assumed that the extreme southeast region of the state known as the Wiregrass controls the outcome of a Congressional election.
The district should be viewed as three distinct areas, which are basically the north, the middle and the south.
Even though Montgomery County is divided between CD-2 and CD-3, it is still the most vote-rich county in the district. Counties adjoining Montgomery (Autauga, Elmore, Lowndes, Bullock, Crenshaw, Butler) should be considered the north end of the district.
In the 2006 Governor’s race, these seven counties cast 48.8 percent of the total vote in the Congressional District.
The south end (Wiregrass) of the district includes Houston, Dale, Geneva, Henry and Coffee. These five counties cast 35.0 percent of the total vote in CD-2 in the 2006 Governor’s contest.
And Barbour, Pike, Covington and Conecuh (middle counties) cast 16.1 percent.
Again using figures from the 2006 Governor’s race, here is the ranking of counties within CD-2 by voting strength.
| 1. | Montgomery | 36,190 | 2. | Houston | 25,958 | 3. | Elmore | 20,740 | 4. | Autauga | 13,955 | 5. | Coffee | 13,160 | 6. | Dale | 12,385 | 7. | Covington | 11,251 | 8. | Pike | 8,020 | 9. | Geneva | 7,246 | 10. | Butler | 6,796 | 11. | Barbour | 6,215 | 12. | Henry | 5,781 | 13. | Lowndes | 4,303 | 14. | Crenshaw | 4,286 | 15. | Conecuh | 4,227 | 16. | Bullock | 3,098 |
Redistricting Montgomery County definitely favored the Democrats as candidates of this party running statewide in 2006 generally ran 5-8 percentage points better in the Montgomery County precincts than they did districtwide.
For example, DA John Tyson was handily defeated for Attorney General by incumbent Troy King, 62.1 percent to 37.8 percent, throughout the district. But Tyson got 48.1 percent of the Montgomery vote.
While Jim Folsom lost the district 51.1 percent to 48.7 percent to Luther Strange, he won Montgomery with 55.7 percent. Susan Parker lost the District to Perry Hooper, 50.9 percent to 48.9 percent, but won Montgomery with 58.1 percent.
Commissioner of Agriculture & Industries Ron Sparks won the district 60.9 percent to 39.0 percent for Albert Lipscomb, but won Montgomery 67.3 percent to 32.6 percent.
From this, one can conclude that a strong Democrat from the north end of the district would be the candidate of choice to challenge the Republican nominee.
A close look at the extremely competitive race for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court between Sue Bell Cobb and incumbent Drayton Nabors verifies this contention.
Cobb won CD-2 by the narrow margin of 50.1 percent to 49.8 percent. But her vote shows a decided split between the north, middle and south sections of the district.
Cobb took 52.4 percent in Autauga, Elmore, Montgomery (56.5 percent), Lowndes, Bullock, Crenshaw and Butler. She received 56.1 percent in Barbour, Pike, Covington and Conecuh, but only 44.1 percent in Houston, Dale, Geneva, Henry and Coffee.
Congressman Terry Everett from the Wiregrass first won this seat in 1992 and has held it since with little difficulty. Because of the impact of peanuts and Fort Rucker, the Wiregrass would definitely like for Everett’s successor to be “one of their own.”
But while they are seeking one of their own to anoint as the heir apparent, they may be overlooking the growth in the north end of the district and the steady erosion of the Republican vote in Montgomery County.
I appreciate the thoughts offered. What are yours?
Related Articles:
I assume those are the numbers for total votes in the Governor’s race - not just republican votes? A closer look at likely voters in the republican primary will be more helpful. It is true that the “wiregrass” counties must add some votes from the middle part of the district like Covington or Pike to win the nomaantion in the primary. The general election will be easy for a republican candidate in my view. can anyone say Hillary? She will bring out the republican base to vote in the general election come November.
Comment by PikeCountyguy — November 15, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
You wrote: “Redistricting Montgomery County definitely favored the Democrats as candidates of this party running statewide in 2006 generally ran 5-8 percentage points better in the CD-2 precincts than they did statewide.”
You meant: Dems ran 5-8 pts ahead in the mtgmy county precincts of CD-2 than they did districtwide.
Comment by JD Hogg — November 15, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
What this means — Bright can win.
What it doesn’t say — he’s yellow.
Comment by Anonymous — November 15, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. In previous post I asked why Republicans and the mainstream Alabama media are against redistricting. This analysis proves that it’s because it will benefit Democrats and God forbid that happen. Alabama is last in just about every area under Republican control. I guess Republicans like being last.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 15, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Why does this person throw in Lowndes, Bullock, CRENSHAW AND BUTLER with the MONTGOMERY METRO AREA as a defined “area” in the district? That makes zero sense. This person obviously intended to inflate the voting throw weight of the Montgomery metro area in this sample. The fact that he would do that makes his conclusions highly suspect.
And yes those ARE general election numbers which makes them worthless in assessing the GOP primary. These numbers are deliberately misleading. I will bet you anything that they were produced by a Democrat consultant who has worked with Lowell Barron in the past.
Comment by Bogus — November 15, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Agree with bogus that the real issue right now for candidates is to first win their primary. The way the votes are published here puts a lof of weight in the Montgomery area when the southeastern part of the district can also be vote rich in the primary. Maybe more so. People need to remember that the 2d district does not include all of the City of Montgomery. In fact, specific to the republican primary, its vote count is lower than you would think as there are a lot of dem primary voters in that part of Montgomery.
Comment by JT — November 15, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Looking at vote counts specific to the primary would be more helpful to a candidate right now; and I am sure they are looking at those numbers.
Comment by JT — November 15, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
bhmhomeboy - we are talking about a congressional (i.e. federal race). if you want to complain about alabama lagging behind in some areas, talk to your state legislators about that. they are the ones making state policy.
Comment by PikeCountyguy — November 15, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Thanks for posting this information. As others have said, candidates must first win their respective primaries, but I think this shows that a Democrat with strong support from the north end of the district (like Bright?) could win this seat in the general.
Comment by mooncat — November 15, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Hey PikeCountyguy, If Republican state legislators would stop obstructing Democrat state legislators maybe Alabama wouldn’t lag behind “in some areas”. If Republicans would work with Democrats instead of against Democrats our state would be much better off. Maybe then Alabama wouldn’t be first in infant mortality and last in education. The two Federal Representatives are Republicans. Can we blame them for the condition of the state too? The Governor is a Republican, can we blame his policies too? It’s not the Democrats fault our state is in the condition it’s in.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
The 2 fed reps are R’s? what two would that be? we have 7 fed reps that are Rs. And Dems have been in control of this state since i can remember - if you want to place blame - then i know where you can place it for sure.
Comment by PikeCountyguy — November 15, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Bhmhomeboy, Republicans have not “been in control” of the state legislature since the 1870s. We did not even control a majority of the offices statewide until 9 years ago. I guess somehow our right wing conspiracy was the one keeping our state behind for the other 120 years when Republicans were not in control either.
Comment by Cam Ward — November 15, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Cam is correct. I think bhamhomeboy has spent too much time on Kos. The Democrats not only control the Legislature but they have a super majority of the county offices throughout the state.
Comment by dan t — November 15, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
So Cam, when Spencer Bachus retires like Everett are you going to run for his seat like Love? You guys could be back in the House together if you both win, huh? :)
Comment by GOPer — November 15, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
I still say if Republicans would stop obstructing Democrats and work with them the State would be much better off. The two Senators from Alabama are Republican. The Governor is a Republican. Republicans threatened to shut the Legislature down if Democrats dared to try and redistrict. Why can’t Republicans work with Democrats for the good of ALL the people? Nothing is getting done because of the gridlock. Democrats are always extending the olive branch only to have it thrown back in their face over and over again.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 15, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Cam and dan t, todays Republicans are yesterday’s Democrats.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 15, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
bhmhomeboy….you are lost.
Comment by JT — November 15, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
In response to post No. 5 above: Alabama is not a state of 67 counties, it is a state of probably 8-9 regions that all revolve around some urban hub. So draw a circle around Montgomery and that is a region basically. Look at commuting patterns, regional medical centers, daily newspapers read. Lowndes, Bullock, Crenshaw and Butler definitely fall into the Montgomery region. Do you think folks in these counties read the Dothan Eagle? Do they watch Dothan TV.
As to these being general election numbers, of course they are. This was not an effort to assess the GOP primary. It was to shed some light on what might happen next November if the Democrats come out of the primary with a strong candiate against a strong Republican.
Comment by LA — November 15, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Repubs in this thread, and all over this blog seem so darn desperate to prove that they are going to win this without a fight that I think they doth protest too much.
But it’s their nature — make up fake fights, distract people from real issues, and when in doubt, just yell louder.
Comment by WiregrassGuy — November 16, 2007 @ 4:54 am
If there’s a need to redraw the lines for any congressional district for other than purely political or racial advantage it seems like district 7 should be enlarged because districts should all be as near the same size population-wise as feasible. District 7, has over 14% fewer residents than the average of all districts based on the 2000 census data which I believe was used when district lines were last drawn. The closest any other district comes to that disparity is District 6 at 4.64%. Merely a glance at the districts map shows that District 7 is the most gerrymandered district in the state. To correct this disparity some territory would likely have to be taken from Districts 1, 2, and 4 which all adjoin 7.
Didn’t Joe Reed have a hand in drawing the squiggly boundary lines for District 7?
Comment by Don — November 16, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Interesting comments all around…
JD Hogg in comment #2, thanks for the sharp eye. You are correct, and the post has been edited.
Bogus in comment #5, the premises are clearly and transparently laid out. If you disagree with clear and transparent premises, that is well and good, but I don’t see how that could be interpreted as “deliberately misleading.”
As always, thoughtful and civil disagreement is welcomed.
And lastly, Bogus, you would bet anything that it was written by a Democratic consultant who had worked with Barron? Anything? Does that mean someone gets to name the stakes and accept your bet?
:)
Comment by Danny — November 16, 2007 @ 8:03 am
How ironic that the Montgomery City fathers - who have been throwing hand grenades and trying to screw over Autauga & Elmore Counties , and whom hold these two counties in such contempt , now must look to those counties to pull their annointed candidate into victory lane….
The key to these two swing counties , and the key to victory for the candidates will be who wins these two counties — Mayor Byard in Auitauga and barry mask in Elmore Could be the king-makers here. Check it out again - Elmore and Autauga thogether are almost big as Montgomery interms of voters , even more so in the republican primary.
And therein lies Bobby Bright’s problem - even DEms. in Autauga and Elmore County will not support him .
Comment by Pike Road momma — November 16, 2007 @ 9:05 am
District 2 only includes a part of the city of Montgomery. Montgomery needs to remember that - they don’t exert total control over who wins or does not win. In fact autauga and elmore play a bigger role as does the wiregrass…especially in the primary race as has been pointed out.
Comment by Anonymous — November 16, 2007 @ 9:39 am
The problem with these numbers is that they used a Gubernatorial cycle instead of a presidential election cycle. In Alabama Democrats are stronger in Gubernatorial years than in presidential years. Look at the numbers from 2004 and I suspect you will see a much different analysis.
Comment by Susan — November 16, 2007 @ 9:45 am
If people want to figure out what is really wrong with this state, they need only to look through the above list of posts. We should attempt to quit approaching politics with an “Iron Bowl” mentality of win at all costs. AL-02 should not be trivialized as the “horse race.” While I am as guilty as anyone of enjoying the polls leading up to election day, the winner’s responsibility is to represent the district AND do what is best for the entire region (and state). Race, religion, region, party affiliation, wealth, there are an abundance of tools to easily divide. Let’s work towards implementing points of agreement and continue to negotiate towards compromise on those points which divide us.
Comment by Trvld — November 16, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Well said Trvld, I agree.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 16, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Hey Danny - here is a clue - LL - . . .still want to take that bet?
I believe evidence indicates the numbers were skewed - that’s why I believe that they are “deliberately misleading.” Of course, that sort o fthing is what consultants are paid to do suppose . .so you can’t blame a partisan consultant for doing his job . . .
Comment by bogus — November 16, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
bhmhomeboy tries to latch on to a comment that actually makes sense? That’s a nice change.
Comment by PikeCountyguy — November 16, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I took another look at the numbers and here is why they offer no hope at all for Dems in CD 2. Rembering that Democrats run better in a Gubernatorial election cycle than a presidential election cycle, In 2006, by the analysis own numbers Democrats Jim Folsom Jr, Susan Parker, and John Tyson all LOST the district. It doesn’t matter how well they did in Montgomery County, they LOST the district. Montgomery County was part of that vote total. In 2008, a presidential cycle, they vote will go even more heavily toward Republicans. CD-2 is still a safe Republican seat. Count on it.
Comment by Susan — November 16, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Why in the world would anyone vote “even more heavily” towards Republicans in 2008?
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 16, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Intdresting insertion of pitchfork into own overalls by “LA” at #18 above: he states that it makes sense to throw Bullock, Lowndes, Crenshaw, Butler counties in with the Montgomery area because of “commuting, regional medical centers” etc.
This is interesting because the way that the United State census department defines Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) is by the amount of people in an outlying county who commute into the central city. If less than 25%(I think this is the current level, but don’t quote me) of the population of a county commutes to work in the metro center, the county is NOT counted as part of the metro area.
Currently ONLY Montgomery, Autauga, and Elmore Counties qualify for inclusion in the MSA. So by the rationale used by “LA” my original point- that it is improper and misleading to count Bullock, Crenshaw, Butler, and Lowndes counties as part of the Montgomery area” - is confirmed.
Comment by bogus — November 16, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Bogus, as I have stated elsewhere (here, for one), I don’t confirm or deny identities of people who have asked to remain anonymous here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone was willing to take you up on your bet.
I have no quibble with anyone who disagrees with any premises or conclusion here (and I know some who are in agreement on this one). As I said before, the premises and conclusion are clearly and transparently laid out, so it’s easy to see where this person is coming from.
Solid (and civil) discourse is healthy and welcomed. On this one, I’ll mark you down in the Disagreement column.
Good comments, Susan. Trvld, thank you especially for your good comment.
Comment by Danny — November 16, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
alabama will vote more heavy republican in 2008 in (for federal candidates) because of the way nancy pelosi and harri reid are running things and because hillary will lead the dem ticket. where are your from bhmhomeboy….New York? You have been way off base on almost every comment about the nature of how voters feel in this state.
Comment by JT — November 16, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
As discussed herein, Lowndes County is not considered a part of the Montgomery metropolitan area in either a statistical or a practical sense. Perhaps the legislature in its infinite wisdom would see fit to incorporate Lowndes County into the 7th district. That would remedy the concerns of population averages per district, as well as placing Lowndes County in a district where Black Belt Counties may actually have some representation. Now we’re simply a conduit to reach suburban Elmore and Autauga Counties. Just wishful thinking on my part.
Comment by Fo-fiver — November 16, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
The voting history is important, but not crucial for which party and candidate can win. All campaigns are about message and money. The candidate with the right message, and enough money to deliver the message can win regardless of party. If 7 or 8 candidates run in the R primary, there will be a runoff with a north district candidate and a south district candidate. Message and money will be the decider like most campaigns. Bright can win as a Democrat. Any other D will have a hard time. Everett won in 92 on message and money.
Comment by NG — November 16, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Hey Bhm, What olive branches? Can you name a few? Also, do you have any clue why the Republicans shut down the Senate last year? Furthermore, why should we believe the Senators will pass the legislation they promise when they have killed most of it for the last 7 years?
Comment by Margaret — November 16, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Why did this analyst insist Covington County was not in the Wiregrass? If Covington is included with the Wiregrass (as it should be) and the questionable counties (Bullock, Crenshaw, Butler, Lowndes) that should be considered as being between the Montgomery metro area and the wiregrass are moved to the central area voila! - the wiregrass and the tri-county area voting blocs are almost precisely the same size. And that is a more reasonable construct of this electorate.
Comment by Anonymous — November 16, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Post 37 is EXACTLY RIGHT. Covington does consider themselves part of the wiregrass just fyi. and the other coutnies named are not apart of any montgomery area block.
the previous post #34 that noted lowndes should be moved into district 7….well - it was in 7 once upon a time and then the state legislature saw in its infinite wisdom to move it to district 2 and chop up montgomery between districts 2 and 3. they did this in an effort to make both 2 and 3 more dem. in the last redistricting. it didn’t work. see what happens when they gerrymander too much - its just crazy and makes a mess.
Comment by GOPer — November 16, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Attention JT, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren’t the ones “running things”. Bush and Dick are “running things”. Are you saying the citizens of Alabama hate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership more than they care about their country and their state? The Republicans in the Senate block every thing Democrats attempt to do and Bush continues to use his veto pen. I want to know you you mean by “the way Pelosi and Reid are running things”.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 17, 2007 @ 10:17 am
If you think Reid and Pelosi are not loading up bills with over spending for a huge growth in the federal government then you are nuts. As the speaker and the majority leader they control their respective chambers and had a hand in nominating every chair of every committee. they control legislation. their latest is to try to control troop levels in Iraq by attempting to pass a defense funding bill that required troop withdrawel by a certain date. yes, I would say they are running things on the legislative side of government. And that comment about alabamians hating clinton more than they care about their state? That shows how amazingly off course you are. that very question makes the assumption that we would be better off with hillary. I hate to tell you this, but she will not win alabama - not by a LONG shot - and it is not because voters here hate her, it is because voters do not agree with her policies and the direction she would take the country. so voters do care about their sate enough to vote against her and any other left leaning dem based on their policies. The fact that such voters Do in fact care about their state is shown by such a vote. I have never seen any one so far off about how the people of this state feel about things. but then again - you have made so many off the wall and non factual statements on this blog that nothing is a shock.
Comment by GOPer — November 17, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Uh Pelosi and Reid aren’t the ones spending the country into 13 trillion dollar deficit. Democrats are trying to bring our troops home from Iraq instead of keeping them there until God knows when. Democrats were elected to bring our troops home. Republicans are blocking that effort. Bush vetoed the Children’s health care bill. Everytime the Democrats try and pass legislation it’s either blocked or vetoed. The war in Iraq cost about 4 BILLION dollars per month, not to mention the cost of life and limb for our troops and innocent Iraqis. The State of Alabama is number 1 in infant mortality, number 1 in poverty, last in education, 43 million children in the state don’t have health insurance. 24 high schools in the state are classified as drop out factories. Hillary’s “policies” aren’t the problem in Alabama, but they could be the cure.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 17, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
Who is to blame for the problems in Alabama?
Comment by Margaret — November 18, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
It’s not productive to play the blame game. Democrats and Republicans should start playing the solutions game and work together for the common good of ALL the citizens of our great state and our great nation. Refer to post #25 for reference.
Comment by Bhmhomeboy — November 18, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Bham you are such a hypocrite. You get on here and blame Bush and Republicans for all the ills in the world and talk about how Hillary and Dems can be the saviour. You seem to lack knowledge about how dems have controlled the legislature in this state for God knows how long. I guess thay have nothing to do with our current conditions that you cite. But after you blame Reps for something they didn’t even do…you say “it’s not productive to play the blame game.” Look at your own post #41 and see what a hypocrite you are with that statement. And in terms of children’s health insurance - you need to study why Bush vetoed it. That legislation was morphed in to something it was never intended to be. it should not be step toward socialized medicine and dems tried to make it just that by expanding it to a purpose it was never meant to serve. And just to point out, it was the republican party that first initiated the SCHIP program when it first came to be. Get educated on what really is going on Bhamhomeboy.
Comment by GOPer — November 18, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
With all due respect GOPer, SCHIP was first mentioned as a federal initiative by President Clinton during his State of the Union speech in January of 1997. SCHIP only gained support from the Republican Congress when it was bundled with other reduced expenditures in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Furthermore, the chief proponent in Alabama (the first state to qualify) was the Democratic Lieutenant Governor who worked with a Democratic Legislature. All in all, although it was not really a Republican initiative, it was only passed and implemented through compromise. The important lesson here is not “who” deserves credit for SCHIP, but that Republicans and Democrats worked TOGETHER to reach consensus interests of providing health care to children in need while balancing the US budget.
Comment by Trvld — November 19, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
it would be a good idea for dems to try and work with republicans again on SCHIP and not try to change the very nature of the program. it was never meant to move kids off of private party insurance and on to the government roles. it was meant to cover those kids that could never get on private insurance in the first place. it’s a good program in its present form - not in the free for all form dems proposed. i agree with you though, that they should compromise.
Comment by GOper — November 19, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
GOPer, Democrats and Republicans did work together to pass the SCHIP Bill, Bush vetoed the bill. One last thought on this subject, you said it would be a good idea for Dems to try and work with Republicans again on SCHIP, how about if Republicans try and work with Democrats instead of against them for the good of the country? Compromise doesn’t mean it’s my way or the highway.
Comment by bhmhomeboy — November 19, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Bush is a republican - they need to work with him on schip. period.
Comment by GOPer — November 19, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Dems only want schip as an issue to talk about - they could care less about passing it. In fact, they send Bush bills they know he will veto so they can keep it as an issue. Its pathetic. And you wonder why the poll numbers for Congress, the Congress that dems lead, are even lower than Bush’s numbers.
Comment by PikeCountyguy — November 19, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Can we get back to talking about the district 2 race please? The only way for this to be even remotely close between a dem and a rep. is for the reps to nominate someone weak (like Senator Smith) and the dems to nominate someone strong (like bright). That match up could be bad news for the GOP.
Comment by Tom D — November 20, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Tom D. - if the match-up you present could actually be “bad news for the GOP” why in the wide world would Bobby Bright - who you insist is so “strong”- be actively talking to Republican leaders about his chances at election as a REPUBLICAN? He is doing that - it is a fact.
Comment by Anonymous — November 20, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
I know he is doing that - so does everyone else on this blog. The talk is will he roll the dice as a dem and hope for a weak GOP candidate
Comment by Tom D — November 20, 2007 @ 10:04 pm