Posted by 
In the wake of the big win by Republican Paul Sanford (pictured) Tuesday night in Senate District 7, I want to pass along this interesting bit.
This is excerpted from an email that John Pudner, the Director of External Affairs for the Alabama Farmers Federation, sent out Tuesday night.
A win by Sanford, the owner of the popular “Little Paul’s” Restaurant, [is] truly surprising since no other Republican holds a majority Democratic Senate District. Only Ben Brooks holds a 50/50 district in Mobile, while every other Republican Senator holds a district that is at least 55% Republican:
- Paul Sanford – 44% Republican-56% Democratic
- Ben Brooks – 50% Republican-50% Democratic
- Charles Bishop – 55% Republican-45% Democratic
- Arthur Orr – 55% Republican-45% Democratic
- Del Marsh – 56% Republican-44% Democratic
In addition, only 40% of voters in Senate District 7 call themselves “conservatives,” a very low number for an Alabama district.
While Republicans have held NO majority Democratic districts, Democrat Marc Keahey’s landslide win last week in south Alabama made him one of nine Democratic Senators who has been able to hold a Republican leading district, including; Hinton Mitchem (59% GOP), Wendell Mitchell (57%), Marc Keahey (54%), Tom Butler (53%), Zeb Little (53%), Kim Benefield (53%), Ted Little (52%), Phil Poole (52%) and Lowell Barron (51%).
Interesting note: An Alabama campaign veteran in conversation with me last week challenged the notion that SD 22 (that Keahey won last week) was a lean-Democrat district, as others have characterized it. (For example, a Republican here, a Democrat here, and, in a statement released June 3, state GOP chair Mike Hubbard called SD 22 “a traditional Democrat district.”) The campaign veteran said that though Democrat Pat Lindsey had previously held the Senate seat, when you looked at other races in the last couple of election cycles that the district clearly trended a little Republican, maybe 52 or 53%. Pudner figures it about the same here (54%).
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Congratulations to Paul Sanford and all those who helped win this race. My advice: take the weekend off and then keep campaigning. They are coming after you.
What are these numbers based on? Is 56% in SD the number Obama got vs. McCain, or is it an average of all partisan races in the district? Knowing this would add a lot more context to this post.
4.Arthur Orr – 55% Republican-45% Democratic
Taking this district for a dheck on accuracy.
District is all of Morgan with a small bit of Madison and Limestone.
Republicans have only lost 8 state level races in the last 4 elections in Morgan Co.
Republicans have only lost 4 County level races in the last 4 elections in Morgan Co.
Lucy Baxley lost to Bill Armistead 52% to 48%
If this 55-45 is correct, I’ll thake those numbers any time.
waydownhere, I suspect that a political director of a major interest group uses something more sophisticated than simply the # Obama got vs. McCain. In fact, all in all, federal races are not good guides to state races in Alabama. If Mr. Pudner would like to tip his hand to how he arrived at the figures, I’d be glad to publish them.
JD, I didn’t really follow what you were saying. If you were saying that Arthur Orr’s district is Republican, I think that’s what Pudner indicated with a 10 point differential between R’s and D’s. If you are saying something else, then I didn’t understand it.
I have to assume these percentages are from the last state senate elections. Those would be the most accurate assuming that there haven’t been major demographic shifts in the districts.
NO WAY Phil Poole’s district is lean GOP. Source?
William, if you think about it, it doesn’t make much sense to say that the #’s are based on the last state senate elections. If so, you couldn’t say that any state senator held office in a district that leaned toward the opposite party. Every district would be listed as leaning toward the party of the incumbent.
While folks may agree or disagree with the results, I think we may assume that some pretty good thought and attention was given to them.
Jura Nostra, the #’s come from John Pudner, the Director of External Affairs for the Alabama Farmers Federation.
Agree with your logic, Danny, but I have seen numbers in the past that have taken the state senators numbers out of the formula to see which senators are favorites of their constituencies regardless of R or D leanings. I don’t know what numbers these are. Regardless, they are interesting.
Danny, they way you would come to a good number for where a district falls on the spectrum (in regards to state races) is to average the results of COMPETITIVE state races (Legislature up to Governor) excluding minor party candidates. The reason I asked how these numbers where arrived at is because I know how it is typically done and these numbers dont look correct to me.
The problem is that when someone does this as a weekend warrior, the word competitive is interpreted differently, and the races that one uses may cause flucuations.
While I appreciate Mr. Pudner’s contribution and work to come up with the numbers that are used here, I think that it is imporant for Mr. Pudner to give a quick explanation of his method. The organization that he works for has a political bias, and just because those numbers where sent out to press and supporters after their victory, doesnt make them correct.
waydownhere, Pudner is certainly more than a weekend warrior in this arena. I do appreciate him allowing the Parlor to reprint this info, but given that this kind of info (and his success in using it) is tied into his livelihood, I don’t expect we’ll view much of its inner workings.
I cannot and do not say that that these #’s are definitively correct. I tell you their source and you may use your own judgment. (Even in the post I point out that the SD-22 # is at odds with what has been stated publicly here and elsewhere.)
Caveat lector. :)
Perhaps it is akin to one of the computerized college football team rankings, in that it may be considered useful/accurate by some but sure to provoke debate in others.
If you would like to share your experience on matters like these with the rest of us and run your own set of #’s for us, I would be most interested to see your results.
I cannot run any numbers that I would have any confidence in. My point is that most political professionals contract out to get numbers like this. For instance, Democrats pay the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC) to run numbers like this. The DNC doesnt run their own numbers because it is too complicated and you need to be a statistician to be able to come with the proper wieghting and calculations and you need to have a significant amount of information on political history and voting rules. I do think that Pudner has all the right in the world to run his own numbers and have confidence in them, but my point is that I dont have confindence in them (and frankly no one else should) unless we have some/any insight into how they where created.
For instance, Charlie Cook explains (a little) how he comes to his Cook ratings for Congressional districts. While they numbers are not perfectly accurate, you can be sure that they weigh about 1 or 2 points in the Republican direction typically.
Also, I think it is important to point out the messager is a group with a clear political agenda. While I do not think the agenda is likely represented in these numbers, I beleive that it is represented in the email.