(2) All K-12 educational funding, reforms and innovation would occur at the state or local level;

(3) Eliminate Head Start and convert the program to block grants to states to establish and expand pre-K programs within existing school districts;

(4) Automatic enrollment into pre-K programs of children in low-income households;

(5) Emphasis on English language proficiency and development of social and discipline skills in these pre-K programs;

(6) Provide for greater parental choice in schools through the establishment of charter schools, cross-district registration based upon need, privatization at the local level, and some form of school voucher program based upon family income with voucher amounts awarded on a sliding scale basis up to a ceiling of costs;

(7) Enhance teacher training through expansion of the TEACH grant program with less emphasis on educational theory and greater emphasis on classroom experience;

(8) Recruit teachers in needed subject matters through establishing a differential pay system which can built into new collective bargaining contracts;

(9) Reform teacher certification programs through liberalization to speed up the process and make it easier for qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession;

(10) Use of merit pay systems to attract good teachers to low-performing schools and continued merit pay to be based on student output;

(11) Revision of teacher pay increases based upon annual performance appraisals which should be mutually developed by both the union and administration and raises to be based on merit with a floor COLA increase and a maximum based upon a perfect evaluation;

(12) Revision of existing tenure laws by possibly extending the period to five years instead of the current three and liberalize the process for teacher removal;

(13) Enact programs and requirements that encourage greater parental involvement in the educational process and programs that encourage proper and consistent discipline within the schools at the local level;

(14) Move the School Lunch Program from the USDA and transfer it to the Department of Education with choices based on cost effectiveness;

(15) Expand federal student loan programs towards projected high-need positions with automatic repayment at some agreed upon rate of interest over a specified time period provided the recipient actually was employed in one of these high-need positions for a specific period of time;

(16) Make federal loans and grants to college students contingent upon high school academic performance, SAT scores and other objective criteria;

(17) For those who satisfy (16) above, financial need would then be determined with the federal government picking up to 92% of the college costs based on a household income sliding scale basis, although nothing would preclude students from receiving state or private aid;

(18) Reward colleges and universities through enhanced student financing provided they instituted programs that placed downward pressure on college costs (remote learning, online classes, computer tutorials and credit-by-examination);

(19) If any college receives any financing of their students or any research dollars or support from the federal government, their campus must grant access to ROTC and military recruiters;

(20) Eliminate federal testing requirements although states would be allowed to retain administration of the NEAP, although the federal government would not mandate NEAP content;

(21) Cease social promotion after third grade;

(22) Allow schools to enter into public-private partnerships with industries, businesses and unions to train via apprenticeship programs academically challenged students;

(23) Make age 18 the allowable age for dropping out from school with a 16-year-old opt out provided the student enters an apprenticeship program or is gainfully employed.

At the beginning of this series, I mentioned that educational reform is an area where Republicans excel over the throw-money-at-the-problem liberal mindset of Obama and Democrats. Many of these proposals reduce the cost of education and streamline te process. I also mentioned it touches on other areas. Take the example of winning or making inroads with the Hispanic and other minority populations. The Pew Hispanic Center notes that after jobs and the economy in general, education- not immigration reform- ranks high in their priorities. What family with children- Hispanic, black, Asian or white- does not want a quality education for their children? The fact is that the current model is failing in way too many cases. And in many of those cases the problem is most acute in minority dominated school districts. As has been demonstrated, the liberal solution has been an ineffective, costly endeavor.

Look also at health care reform. Many conservatives reflexively cringe when the French system is mentioned. However, they do have a good idea now and then. For example, the government pays 100% of the cost of their medical education provided they “pledge” contractually to practice in publicly run facilities for a specific period of time. In exchange, they get a guaranteed yearly income of about $55,000. This may sound unusually low for a doctor, but they also pay no payroll taxes for the that period of employment. After they satisfy their obligation, they are free to practice privately. This system has the desired effect of (1) increasing the number of primary care physicians, (2) getting doctors to needed geographical areas, and (3) restraining health care costs.

The bottom line is that the federal government has shown itself to be a bad steward of our children’s education. For the vast majority of our nation’s history, that task laid with state and local governments, not the federal government. Like in so many other areas, once the federal government became involved, no matter how good their intentions, they fouled up the system. Years and years of increased federal spending has produced very little and while other countries have advanced and surpassed American students, we insist on maintaining the current system while Obama doubles down on a failed system. Like most things, true innovation and reform occurs at the local level. Federally-mandated one size fits all solutions are NO solutions at all. What may work in New Jersey may not necessarily work in Alabama, yet Obama and company fail to realize these facts. We can ill-afford wasteful government spending on education given our current fiscal situation no matter how rose-colored Obama sees it. If we truly want to shrink the income gap, we will seek true educational reform efforts enacted at the local level that are cost-effective and specific to the area. The federal government can help at the level of higher education through quid-pro-quo arrangements with potential, qualified high school graduates. Of course, if the government is to effectively act like a bank for higher educational costs, they must use risk-aversive criteria to ensure repayment of loans. The stakes are high, but so is the potential pay-off. And true educational reform is the one area where Republicans have a clear, articulated advantage over Democrats that cuts across ethnic or socioeconomic lines.

Related to the subject of school choice is the controversial voucher issue. Say this word to any public school teacher and they will go ballistic. I find it ironic since these same teachers will generally also bitch about the size of their classes. Assuming a school district spends $11,000 per pupil, I do not understand why a voucher, based upon economic need, up to that amount for private education is not cost-effective. If anything, it is a sum-zero proposition at worst and a potential cost saver to the public school district at best. Naturally, the NEA and their liberal allies will claim that money is being diverted from public to private and/or parochial schools, but then their solution is just more money all the time anyway.

When picking apart some programs, there is one area that almost guarantees student success at school and that is parental involvement. Studies have shown that the children of parents who are actively involved in their child’s education- be it keeping in contact with teachers, PTA involvement, etc.- perform better in school. It is important that parents remain involved in their child’s education beyond the mandatory signing of the first report card or the occasional help with homework.

Third, in order to increase student performance, schools must attract qualified teachers. Here, the hypocrisy of the NEA is striking. One way to attract teachers is through merit pay, yet the NEA is against this concept claiming (1) it does not work and (2) it disrupts teacher unity. First, the purpose of the teaching profession is to teach, not to strengthen the ranks of the NEA. Second, while they claim that merit pay does not work, they nevertheless call for effective across the board merit pay increases by virtue of the title of “teacher.” In New Jersey, the NJEA has a stated policy that the starting salary of a teacher be $50,000 a year. That is $50,000 for stepping out of college and having a teaching certificate with absolutely no classroom experience. That is ludicrous. If they are going to make the argument that merit pay is ineffective, then they will have to make the argument that pay in general is ineffective in increasing student performance.

In a general sense, this latter view actually has some basis in fact. I compared student performance between the ten highest states in terms of average teacher pay against those of the ten lowest average teacher pay. In terms of student performance, in only one area- SAT reading scores- did the high states outperform the low states by a significant degree. In fact, among the 10 lowest paid states, the graduation rate was actually higher. When looking at the ten states with the greatest increases in teacher pay over the past decade against those with the lowest rate of pay increases, the same results were demonstrated.

As regards merit pay, some studies have shown that those programs based on individual, rather than school-wide or no programs, have better results with student performance. Also, some studies have demonstrated that merit pay systems are generally short-lived. But isn’t even a short-lived improvement better than no improvement at all? Some states have become innovative here by rearranging the chairs. At one time, this country used the ill-advised method of busing children involuntarily in order to achieve equality in education. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use a financial carrot to “bus” good teachers to underperforming schools within a district?

Related to this issue is pay differentials based upon needs of a school district. Since school districts are generally short on qualified math, science, special education and ESL teachers, wouldn’t it make sense to pay them more from the outset to lure them to the profession rather than paying them the same as the gym or art teacher? Nothing against physical education or art, but when less than half of our math teachers have a major or minor in math, I would say we have a problem here. The reason is that the teaching profession, as it stands now thanks to the NEA, cannot attract the math majors because they cannot compete with the private sector. Hence, after the expiration of existing collective bargaining agreements, differential pay systems need to be instituted that reward (1) those in high-need areas, (2) those who transfer to low performing schools, and (3) those teachers designated as highly effective. Currently raises are across-the-board, which goes against the grain of most pay increase systems. Instead of guaranteed 4% annual raises, make that the ceiling with increases based upon performance reviews. Teachers will argue against this because they claim there are too many variables. However, as Tim Pawlenty proved in Minnesota and Jeb Bush in Florida, if the local union is involved in the process of developing that appraisal, they are more accepting. What Pawlenty proved is that this innovation actually works.

And speaking of attracting qualified people to the teaching profession, the NEA has constructed barriers to entry that are tantamount to restrictions. Specifically, teacher certification programs need to be reformed that stress less theory and more classroom experience. One idea is called “alternate route certification” where people with a college degree, but not a teaching certificate, can get that endorsement. However, in my home state of New Jersey, for example, before one can even get to that point, they first have to take “X” amount of college course credits in educational theory and such. I am all for making sure that just any Tom, Dick and Harry are not teaching our children, but many of these certification programs have nothing to do with classroom experience. Furthermore, private schools and parochial schools, which generally show better student performance, often use people with no certifications and they do just fine. In fact, Robert Rubin at the Brookings Institute (he is no conservative) stated that teacher certification has absolutely nothing to do with teacher effectiveness. In the Hamilton Project, he demonstrated that if 25% of the lowest performing teachers in the Los Angeles district were to be replaced by people with no certification, student test scores would increase an average of 14 points by graduation.

Like Florida, all states should adopt the policy of ceasing social promotion of students after the third grade. This is the practice of simply passing along students to the next grade not based upon their academic performance, but for social reasons, mainly their age. It should be noted that at this age- age 8- children should have developed the necessary skills to help insure future academic success. If not, it is a disservice to those students who do perform to mix the under-performers with the performers.

Finally, teacher tenure laws need to be changed. This philosophy started in higher education to facilitate academic freedom and protect professors who engaged in politically unpopular lines of research. How mush academic freedom is there in the K-12 curriculum? For the past 50 years, colleges have been reforming tenure by using adjunct or part time professors. Why? Because colleges realized that stringent tenure rules failed to address staffing inflexibility, decreased teacher efficiencies and worker motivation. That is, once one received tenure, performance dropped. I am all for job security, but when it takes more than $750,000 in legal fees to remove a poor performing teacher, the decision of the district takes no brains- it is cheaper to keep that teacher. In 2002, the Los Angeles School Board attempted to remove 400 of 35,000 teachers. In the end, they managed to remove only THREE (and two of those removals were overturned on appeal). In New York City, with over 72,000 teachers, only three were removed in a 2-year period. Assuming it costs an average of $400,000 to remove a low performing teacher who happens to have tenure and assuming 10% of the nation’s 450,000 teachers are not that great, it would cost $1.8 billion to remove 45,000 teachers nationally- a cost prohibitively expensive to most school districts. This is probably why private schools- which generally frown upon tenure rules- perform better because the teacher, if they wish to keep their job, is motivated to continue a high level of performance.

I will summarize the this all in part 3.

Educational reform touches upon so many other areas of national concern from the declining manufacturing base to national security to immigration reform to increasing the tax rolls, decreasing unemployment, job creation, innovation, health care reform, and most importantly, shrinking the divide in income inequality between the haves and the have nots. Talk to any economist or any analyst and they will tell you that the key to shrinking that disparity is education. It is the one single major factor that determines whether a person makes more money in their lifetime and can support themselves and their families. Everyone from Paul Krugman to Alan Greenspan will agree with this assessment. In fact, in his book “The Age of Turbulence,” Alan Greenspan warns that the growing income gap in the United States will lay the seeds for populist movements pitting one class against another and threatening a free market economy. He cited examples from around the world, especially Latin America where this occurred and asserted the United States was not immune from these tendencies. It is a shame that our current “President” is using this to his his political advantage.

But where the GOP has the advantage in this area is with real, meaningful, cost-effective and, in some instances, no-cost solutions. The most conservative of readers will no doubt call for the abolition of the Department of Education, but I believe that would be fruitless and fool-hearty. There is a role for a federal Department of Education. However, that role is not in K-12 education. For the vast majority of this country’s history, K-12 education was the sole province of state and local governments. It was not until 1965 that the federal government became involved. The result has been student performance stagnation at best, or declines at worst.

The Department of Education was created by the Carter Administration as a pay back to the NEA. Over the years it has grown to a bloated, ineffective and wasteful federal department that dictates a one-size-fits-all policy from Washington ignorant of local realities. It has thrown money at problems in education with dubious results. And both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of funding this agency. The past solution offered by Democrats or Republicans has been the same liberal mantra- more money will solve the problem. A realization that this action has failed is to face reality.

Hence, the first part of the reform movement starts not with the elimination of the Department, but redefining its mission and its purpose. Essentially, all K-12 educational programs would revert to the local and state governments. Despite the vast amounts of money expended by the federal department on education, only about 9% of any school’s budget is funded by the federal government. The nuts and bolts- school construction, maintenance, teacher pay, etc.- is funded locally or at the state level. Obama’s solution has been diametrically opposed to this where he earmarks money for school construction or teacher pay. Of course, that stems from the liberal belief that money solves the problem when a greater case can be made that more federal money comes with more strings attached and those strings have stifled innovative reforms.

Instead, the “new” Department of Education would be involved in only a few programs. First, Head Start would be effectively eliminated and federal money would flow to states on a block grant basis in order to establish or expand pre-K programs. Even then, these programs would be targeted at students from low-income families with automatic enrollment and voluntary enrollment for all others. Secondly, the pre-K programs would be primarily geared towards English language proficiency and basic academic skills to prepare students for regular schooling by inculcating proper discipline and habits. Again, the state and local entities would decide the parameters of these programs.

Second, since all funding for K-12 education at the federal government would cease saving about $47 billion annually, half of that money would revert to higher education financing with the other half going towards deficit and debt reduction efforts. State and local governments would be allowed to enact personnel and curriculum reforms that best suit their local needs.

Third, the new Department would be responsible for higher education funding through grants, scholarships, and loans. They would administer the TEACH grant program that has attracted many qualified people to the teaching profession. This program grants recipients money if they “promise” contractually to teach in high need disciplines in “at need” schools. Failure to abide by the contract reverts the grant to a loan. This type of quid-pro-quo relationship between government financing of higher education and directing people to high need positions should be expanded. What is the best federal government education program in that it pays for the bulk of a person’s college costs while demanding service in an “at need” position? It is the ROTC program. In effect, the new Department, in cooperation with the BLS, would administer similar type of programs to pay college costs for those entering fields where the BLS predicts shortages in the future.

Fourth, having taught in the public school system, I can safely attest to the efficacy of the school lunch program. I also believe that the new Department should administer this program, not the USDA and that it should be funded 100% by the federal government.

Fifth, because the new Department would basically be concerned with higher education, funding for student grants, loans and scholarships could be used to encourage programs that put downward pressure on college costs. This includes programs like remote learning, on-line tutorials, and credit-by-exam. That is, colleges that show greater efforts to lower costs to students (and the government) would be rewarded.

Sixth, there is nothing with the federal government funding higher education for students through the many programs they offer- scholarships, grants, loans, etc. Some argue that the government should not be in the business of being a bank for higher education college costs. I disagree. However, like a bank, the government needs to expend their money using risk-aversive mechanisms. For example, they should not loan or grant money to people who will likely have problems or not succeed at the college level academically. We should be funding the costs of our best and brightest students regardless of color or creed or national origin. The key is the “best and brightest,” not just everyone who comes down the pike. Of course, nothing would preclude states, private banks, college endowments or any other source from helping to fund higher education costs.

In part 2 of this diary entry, I will discuss no-cost, or low-cost solutions to educational reform at the local and state level. However, as far as the federal government goes, getting them out of K-12 education should be the message. Years of funding and intrusion into an area where states were doing quite well until that federal intervention began has achieved very little in terms of student performance. In fact, it has hurt output as evidenced as declining test scores, declining graduation rates, and less parental involvement in the process. It has placed additional strains on schools to adhere to government mandates and dictates where less and less money goes towards the classroom and more and more goes to the bureaucracy demanded for compliance. It has created a classroom philosophy of “teaching to the test” that has lowered standards. The sooner the federal government gets out of K-12 education, the quicker necessary reforms can be enacted.

A lot of confusion enters the discussion since a lot of these current districts are renumbered in the process. Perhaps the best analysis is to go district by district and look at each in turn. The 1st is basically unchanged, heavily Republican and Jeff Miller will win. The 2nd is also largely unchanged, Republican and Southerland will win. The new 3rd is the old 6th and Cliff Stearns should win here and likewise in the Republican 4th which remains unchanged as Alan Crenshaw should win. The new 5th is the old 3rd and Corrine Brown is the Democratic representative. However, it does take in some additional Republican territory and a strong GOP candidate may give her a challenge.

The new 6th is the old 7th and currently vacant, although it is nominally Republican. Once candidates emerge, expect a GOP victory. The new 7th retains more than half its old territory, but adds more than half of the old 24th. Hence, it sets up a GOP primary between incumbents John Mica and Sandy Adams with the winner likely going back to Congress and the loser going home. The new 8th is mainly the old 5th and strongly Republican. Expect Bob Posey to win here. Meanwhile, the new 9th takes in large parts of the old 8th and 15th and takes on a Democratic character. Expect the Democrats to pick up this seat as former congressman Alan Grayson will likely return. The 10th is the old 8th and another term for Republican Daniel Webster.

The new 11th is significant parts of the old 5th and 6th, both represented by Republicans. Hence, it will remain Republican. The 12th takes in parts of the old 5th and 9th, again both represented by Republicans. However, it takes in enough swing territory of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. However, with Bilirakis running here and the district’s familiarity with him, I expect a GOP victory. The 13th is the old 10th and is a pure swing district, but should also stay in the Republican column. The 14th is the old 11th and nominally Democratic as incumbent Mary Castor will likey win for that party. And the new 15th is basically the old 12th and 9th and should be a GOP victory.

The 16th is the old 13th held by Vern Buchanan and although slightly more Democratic, should be won by Buchanan. The 17th takes in large parts of the old old 12th and 16th which had the potential to set up a Ross-Rooney primary match up. However, Ross opted for the 15th leaving Rooney the likely winner in 2012. The new 18th takes in parts of the old 16th and 22nd- again, both held by Republicans, one of them being Alan West who will run in this district instead of the 22nd. Although the GOP can count on Martin County, West will have to make serious inroads in St. Lucie County, but cannot count on the parts of Palm Beach County that remain in the new district. Thus far, the Democrats have no candidate, but one can suspect that West’s days in Congress are numbered. The new 19th is the old 14th and should be won by a Republican again (formerly held by Connie Mack who is running for Senate). The 20th is the old 23rd and should be retained by Hastings, a Democrat.

The old 19th is now numbered the 21st and Ted Deutch will win again. The new 22nd certainly retains a large portion of its former territory, but loses enough of the Republican enclaves to send Alan West to the 18th. Expect a Democrat to win here. Meanwhile, the new 23rd is basically the old 20th held by my favorite Democratic moon bat- Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who is not going anywhere. The 24th is the old 17th and safely Democratic while the 25th is an amalgamation of the old 21st and 25th, Hispanic and GOP-leaning and likely victory.

Half of the old 25th is now part of the 26th, Hispanic and certainly more Democratic-leaning than in the past. Hence, GOP incumbent David Rivera will have a difficult time retaining this seat and one should not be surprised if a Democrat wins, as I predict. Finally, the 27th is parts of the old 18th and 21st, both currently held by Republicans. Although popular Iliana Ros-Lehtinen will run again, should the Democrats field a strong, Hispanic candidate, the newly designed district is even more Democratic than the 26th. However, until a candidate is named, we will leave this district in the GOP column.

The current delegation favors the GOP 19-6. Only Corrine Brown could be considered vulnerable this year. Hence, five of the six Democratic incumbents will definitely win. Of the 19 incumbent Republicans, I am predicting that two will definitely lose- Alan West and either John Mica or Sandy Adams, most likely Adams. That leaves seven Republican incumbents vulnerable this year. That sets up a recipe for disaster. It also underscores the importance of the presidential race as coat tails WILL play a role in this state. Of those seven Republican incumbents, I would count Webster, Bilirakis, Ross and Diaz-Balart as likely winners. That would make the count, asssuming Brown prevails (a big assumption), that would make the count 14-6 for the GOP. Expect Grayson to pick up a seat; hence 14-7 now. In the 13th, I am expecting a Democratic pick up: 14-8. The 22nd will flip: 14-9 I think because of voter familiarity, both Rivera and Diaz-Balart will win: 16-9. A Republican will take the vacant 6th: 17-9. Meanwhile, a Democrat will likely take the other slot: 17-10. This represents a two seat loss for the Republicans plus a 4 seat pick up for the Democrats for a net Democratic gain of 6 House seats out of Florida in 2012.

With Obama’s approval ratings in Florida at 45% (they were at 47% before the latest poll), the GOP’s chances have improved. If Santorum or Gingrich is the Republican nominee, the state belongs to Obama. In short, it would appear that only Romney stands a chance of defeating Obama in Florida (latest poll has him trailing Obama by one point 45-44%). If Obama was two points higher in his state approval rating, I would give him this state with no doubts. However, the fact that he has dropped gives me serious pause. I am going to err, for now, on the side of incumbency having its advantages and give their 29 electoral votes to Obama with a big FOR NOW.

However, I also believe it will be a mixed bag of success here as Connie Mack will defeat Bill Nelson.

Finally tally:
Obama wins the Presidency 290 to 248 electoral votes;
A net gain of 3 Governors;
A net gain of 5 Senate seats as the GOP takes the Senate;
A net loss of 9 House seats as the GOP retains the House.

In essence, Florida is like having to appeal to five states and five distinct constituencies in one. There is the panhandle region that has more in common with the Deep South rather than the sunny Florida depicted in tourism offices. There is the northeast corner dominated by Jacksonville and a large black population. The Gulf Coast is dominated by midwestern retirees who tend to be conservative, more so than their northeastern counterparts on the east coast of Florida. Then there is the Miami metropolitan area with their heavy Hispanic and Jewish populations and that large swath of independent territory known as the I-4 corridor.

A lot of attention will be paid to Florida by both parties this year. One can expect plenty of visits by both candidates, especially the growing Orlando area, the epicenter of the I-4 corridor region.

Other than perhaps Nevada or California, Florida is also ground zero for the negative economic effects of the collapse of the housing bubble as home prices have not appreciably rebounded and unemployment remains high. Under former governor, Jeb Bush, great strides were at least attempted to improve education in the state. Some were successful, while in others, the jury is still out. Several efforts have been replicated on the national level by, ironically, the Obama Administration. For a state reliant on tourism, the recession has taken its toll. Unfortunately, it is Rick Scott who is bearing the brunt of criticism for the state’s recent failures. As a result, his approval ratings are abysmally low and it has hurt the GOP brand in the state. If they remain this low until 2014, he should just pull a Perdue and bail out. As a result, one would suspect that the national GOP is calling for Scott to stay away from endorsements this year as they may very well prove toxic to any prospective GOP candidate.

As far as the presidential election goes, Obama barely won the state in 2008. One would expect those numbers to slip at least slightly in 2012. Whether they slip enough to translate into a GOP victory will depend upon the Republican message and whether it resonates with Florida voters. Obama’s approval ratings in Florida roughly mirror those at the national level as far as trend goes, but they are actually slightly above the national level. This should give the Obama team hope to keep Florida in their column. Perceptions among the elctorate as November nears will most likely determine how this state goes in 2012. If the rate of foreclosures or unemployment drops, then Obama’s chances will improve and he stands a better chance.

Obviously, voter turnout will be of paramount importance in the race. One of the problems, so we are told, is that if Romney is the nominee, he will have difficulty with energizing the conservative base. But, that may present a problem in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. Florida is not necessarily like those states. In fact, exit polls from the most recent Florida primary show that Romney won just about every demographic among the GOP electorate, some quite handily. He even won the born again/evangelical vote. While it is true that Romney essentially carpet-bombed the Gingrich campaign with generally negative advertisements in the state, it is also true that the voters took an equally negative view of this tactic. But, in a general election campaign against Obama, it could be the tactic that does energize the conservative voters in the state and increases turnout. There will no doubt be an appeal to the growing Hispanic population of the state- perhaps an Obama immigration reform proposal October surprise type thing. But, remember that the Florida Hispanic population is highly Cuban and they trend towards the GOP, although the second and third generation Cubans not so much. What could pull some votes towards the GOP even more would be having Marco Rubio on the ballot as his running mate. Personally, I would love to see a Rubio-Biden debate. In fact, I will go on a limb and predict that Rubio will be the man to run with Romney, or whoever the GOP nominee is in 2012 given the importance of Florida. Realizing that “favorite son” status does not necessarily seal the deal, given the closeness of the race in the Sunshine State, it would send a very strong signal to the growing Hispanic electorate here and elsewhere that the GOP is not exclusive of Hispanics and that not all Hispanics are liberal. Personally, I see no downside to a Rubio candidacy (other than possibly the experience factor being highlighted) besides the Senate losing a good conservative, Hispanic voice. Having Rubio on the ballot would be as groundbreaking as Geraldine Ferraro’s candidacy was decades ago.

The incumbent Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson, is seeking reelection. There are currently eight declared Republican candidates in the running, three of whom are highly credible. There were five until recently. Mike Haridopolos, president of the state senate, withdrew along with businessman Craig Miller who opted for a House seat campaign this year. There are also some names of interest that may yet enter the race. Rich Baker, the former mayor of St. Petersburg, Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll (who has deftly and successfully distanced herself from Rick Scott) and US representative Daniel Webster are still possible candidates.

Besides the money rolling into the state, so are the endorsements for the three most credible candidates that basically reflect the struggle for control of the GOP- the establishment versus the Tea Party/outsider people. Adam Hasner, the former majority leader of the state house, has received the backing of such conservative luminaries as Mark Levin, Fox analyst Monica Crowley, former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell, FreedomWorks, and Erick Erickson of this website. George Lemieux has received the endorsements from several state legislators and ex-Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. He would be the choice of the GOP mainstream establishment. And congressman Connie Mack IV has the backing of Haridopolos, Jeff Miller and Sean Hannity. As it stands now, obviously Lemieux has the most statewide name recognition having served in the Senate before. However, the problem with this assertion is his association with former Governor Charlie Crist whose name is mud among Republicans nationally and more so in Florida.

Until Mack entered the race, Lemieux was, despite that association with Crist, leading in the early polls. However, once Mack entered the race, he assumed the frontrunner status. The latest poll by PPP shows Mack with 36% of the vote and Lemieux with only 6%. Similar results were shown in polls by the Miami Herald, Mason-Dixon, and Quinnipiac polling in January of this year.

It makes sense if we view Hasner as the face of the insurgents and Lemieux as the face of the establishment. Mack represents the safe middle ground that can appeal to both groups. A review of his votes in the House show that he falls pretty much in the middle of the conservative pack. While voting against abortion funding, he also voted for stem cell research. He has called for a strong military, yet has been a vocal critic of certain aspects of the PATRIOT Act. In other words, Mack, when the chips are down, may express concerns that smack of moderation or libertarianism, but generally votes conservative. It is not a case of having it both ways, but it does position him to appeal to a broader electorate. The heavy conservative vote in the northern part of the state, especially the panhandle, is not voting for Nelson. Period! It is the voters in the I-4 corridor and elsewhere that are key to victory.

However, it became a two-man race when Hasner decided to withdraw his name and opt for a run for the U.S. House in Alan West’s old district. As a result, Mack probably has a more clear-cut road to taking on Nelson. Mack will likely highlight that association between Lemieux and Crist as a strategy and is credentials among the more conservative Florida voters are already established.

Next: Florida, part 2

Next: Florida, part 2

In the House races, things become interesting because of the addition of a district this year. The new district is numbered the 9th and is located in the northeastern part of the state. The current House delegation favors the GOP 8-5.

Three of the incumbent Democrats are safe in their newly drawn districts. John Lewis in the 5th, which comprises urban Atlanta, will face only a primary challenge from Fulton County Judge Michael Johnson. Hank Johnson’s 4th District, which includes the eastern part of Atlanta, became slightly less Democratic, but is safe. David Scott in the 13th falls into the same category. The 2nd District, held by Sanford Bishop, won with 51% of the vote in 2010 against Rick Allen and 2012 is shaping up as a rematch. This is a minority district in the southwestern corner of Georgia. However, it is expected Bishop will fare better in 2012 as the district picked up Macon. Still, the race bears some watching and could be indicative of the political winds in Georgia this cycle.

For Republicans, of their eight current seats, all appear safe. No major changes were made to the 3rd or 7th Districts. In the 1st District, Jack Kingston has at one time or another represented every part of his new territory. He added a Democratic stronghold in Savannah- a direct blow to the 12th- but he won with 72% of the vote in 2010 leaving him a comfortable margin of error. Tom Price in the 6th will have a considerably different looking district this time out. He added the northern parts of Cobb, Fulton and DeKalb counties while losing Cherokee County. In 2010, he ran unopposed and although he may draw a challenger this year, he is safe. The 8th District stretches from the Florida border to Monroe County. Considered somewhat vulnerable, Austin Scott probably gained the most in redistricting. He lost Democratic territory, including Macon, to the 2nd District and gained some solid GOP territory in the exchange. Although he may face former representative Jim Marshall in a general election, the area has been definitely drawn to Scott’s benefit and he should improve on his 53% of the vote from 2010.

Paul Gingrey sees a possible electoral and financial gain by having the wealthy northern part of Atlanta drawn into his district- the 11th. Meanwhile, Paul Broun in the 10th gains new territory to conquer. Whenever this happens, there is always the possibility of a primary challenge popping up, but there are none thus far. Regardless, Broun is known for his grassroots organization that already has tentacles in these new areas. And in the 14th, Tom Graves, which is the northwest corner of the state, faces only a primary challenge. That wil come from both Steve Tarvin and Jerry Shearin both who admit it will be difficult to beat Graves or even run to the right of his conservative voting record. Graves received a boost when Bob Barr- a former representative and 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate- announced he would remain at his law firm rather than mount a primary challenge. In conclusion, we can safely say that all current Republican incumbents will win reelection, leaving only the new 9th District and the 12th, currently held by Democrat John Barrow.

The new district- labeled the 9th- is located in the growing and somewhat conservative northeast corner of the state. It is generally believed that a Republican will win this seat. The only question is who? In effect, this race will be a microcosm of the national debate in the GOP- the establishment versus the Tea Party/outsiders.

On the Tea party side is talk show host Martha Zoller. She has thus far gained the support and endorsement of Herman Cain and Redstate’s own Erick Erickson. On the establishment side is state representative Doug Collins. Although Governor Nathan Deal has not officially endorsed anyone in this race, his finger prints are all over the race. Several operatives from Deal’s campaign are now working for Collins. Collins was a major floor leader in the legislature for the Deal agenda. Nathan Deal pushed for the creation of the district in this part of the state, tacit approval of a Collins candidacy. And Collins was one of the most vocal boosters of the seat in this area.

If ever a Democratic incumbent had a target on his back it would be John Barrow in the 12th District. In redistricting, he lost his home base of Savannah while gaining the heavy Republican suburbs of Augusta. Barrow is a leader of the Blue Dog Democrats in the House and has shown some independence from the Democratic leadership of Pelosi. However, a sober analysis of his voting record indicates that he voted with the Democratic Party 91% of the time. What sets him apart, however, is his votes on some marquee issues- the vote against TARP, Obamacare and cap-and-trade. Under ordinary circumstances, this would be enough to keep him in office. But his likely GOP opponent- state representative Lee Anderson- will remind voters of two key votes by Barrow- his support of the Obama stimulus and his vote against repeal of Obamacare.

One cannot count out Barrow. He has been on the short end of the stick in redistricting in the past and survived. He is considered a tireless campaigner and is politically savvy. He is already trying to spin those votes Anderson will highlight to his advantage. For example, with the stimulus he is saying that the amount spent was not a problem given the circumstances at the time, but there was a definite problem with HOW those funds were spent. With Obamacare, he says that the law is here to stay, that the repeal attempts were window dressing, and that the law should and can be improved without outright repeal.

The worst case scenario in Georgia is for Barrow to win and Obama to claim their 16 electoral votes. A better scenario would be for Barrow to win while Obama loses the 16 electoral votes. The best case scenario would be for the GOP to take the 16 electoral votes, the new 9th District, and for Barrow to lose. I am taking the middle ground and saying the GOP picks up a seat in the House (the 9th) and Obama loses the state.

Running totals thus far:
Obama 261 votes to 247 for the GOP;
Net gain 3 Governors;
Net gain 4 Senate seats;
Net loss 3 House seats.

Next: Florida, part 1

And to say that race does not play a role in the state is to deny reality. While not as overt as in the Thurmond years, a look at voting results demonstrate the extreme racial polarization in the state. In 2008, Obama won 96% of the black vote while McCain took 73% of the white vote. Four years previous, Bush took 78% of the white vote. In the GOP primary, 95% of those casting ballots are white while whites make up only 67% of the state’s population. While some in the liberal press have portrayed legitimate differences between the parties as being racially motivated, the differences go deeper. Many see programs that only benefit minorities- education and job training. The rightward shift of older voters see Democratic programs that are of no benefit to them directly. Interviews with the rank and file black citizens reveals that they perceive the GOP in South Carolina as racist. The shadow of Thurmond stretches long over politics there. This state will not be critical to Obama’s chances in 2012 and he knows it. That might explain his war on the state such as unleashing the NRLB against the Boeing plant in South Carolina. It also explains why Holder’s DOJ is taking the state to task over voter ID laws. Obama realizes he can count on 95% of the black vote. Our first “post-racial” President is not above racial politics. These efforts are nothing more than an effort to “punish” the white voters of South Carolina.

And Obama and Holder have done a great job in further polarizing racial politics in the state. They have portrayed the voter ID law as an attempt to disenfranchise blacks in the state who, they assume, lack the ability to get a state-issued ID. That is, the first black President and his black Attorney General believe that blacks are just plain stupid and lack the ability to get an ID. They have also portrayed the GOP as being particularly hard on Obama only because of his skin color. To them, it has nothing to do with his policies.

However, Democrats engage in this racial politics at their own peril as the 2010 census bears out. South Carolina’s population increased to the point where they gain a House seat in 2013. Additionally, most of the population gain occurred not in Democratic areas, but more white and conservative areas.

In the 1st District, Tim Scott, a Republican who happens to be black, seeks to defend the seat he won in 2010. Based along the state’s southern coast, it includes large portions of Charleston and Beaufort counties, including Hilton Head. It remains favorable to Republicans. If anything, Joe Wilson’s 2nd District became more Republican as it takes in heavy GOP territory in Aiken and Lexington counties. Another Republican, Jeff Duncan, represents the 3rd located in the northwest corner of the state along the Georgia border and is heavily GOP leaning. In 2010, freshman Republican Trey Gowdy won the 4th District with 64% of the vote. Located along the border with North Carolina, it mirrors the neighboring 3rd District. It is believed Jim Tobias will challenge Gowdy.

Yet another Republican freshman, Mick Mulvaney, unfortunately may have taken the brunt of any damage to the GOP in South Carolina in what can best be described as a trade off for the creation of the new district favorable to the GOP to the east. Specifically, portions of the more Democratic Fairfield and Lee counties were added to the 5th. This may make Mulvaney vulnerable to a primary challenge or a strong, centrist Democratic opponent.

The minority dominated 6th District is a gift to incumbent Jim Clyburn, the lone Democrat in the House delegation. It is possible a strong black Republican candidate would make this race more interesting, but Clyburn is a mainstay in this district and should win.

The new 7th District is centered around Myrtle Beach and encompasses most of the state’s northern coastal region. At least ten Republicans have stepped forward in what may be one of the most crowded fields in the country. Best known among them are Andre Bauer (ex-Lt. Governor, ex-state senator and one time challenger to Haley). Horry County politicians should dominate here as both Chad Prosser and Tom Rice have also announced their intentions to run. For the Democrats, state representative Ted Vick looks like the strongest Democratic candidate.

This rendition of the congressional map almost did not come about. Looming over the ultimate decision was DOJ approval of the map under the VRA. Originally, there was a competing plan to create a new district based in Beaufort County to the south that would have allowed state senator Tom Davis to run for the new seat. Instead, Davis eventually backed the Horry County-centered district fearing that courts would intervene and draw new lines and jeopardize other Republican gains this year. In short, Davis took one for the team and eventually backed down in his demands. And even though the GOP field is crowded, there is the belief that state representative Alan Clemmons, considered the best candidate in this new district, will eventually enter the race.

With approval ratings in the low 40s and no conceivable upside, the GOP candidate will win the state’s nine electoral votes. Put another way, the Obama Administration has so pissed off the people of South Carolina that it is likely his approval ratings will DROP rather than rise as November nears. I expect the GOP nominee to improve upon McCain’s 54% showing from 2008. Likewise, the GOP will gain a seat in the House out of South Carolina this year. There are too many qualified, strong Republicans in the new district, indicative of its GOP leaning status. The only thing would be for Vick to present himself as a DINO and Republicans killing themselves in a fight for the nomination. Being South Carolina, anything could happen.

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 261 electoral votes to 232 for the GOP;
Net gain of 3 Governors;
Net gain of 4 Senate seats;
Net loss of 4 House seats.

Next: Georgia

There will also be a Governor’s race this year that is tied to redistricting efforts in the state. A little on that in a few moments. However, things changed very quickly in the dynamics of this race when incumbent Democrat Bev Perdue decided not to seek another term after reading the political tea leaves. Given the state’s fiscal situation and unemployment rate which worsened under her tenure, she would likely face certain defeat. Deciding to save what was once a promising political future, she opted out. Lining up for the Democrats so far are Lt. Governor Walter Dalton and state representative Bill Faison. However, those names are sort of the B-list of candidates. Other names being bandied about are Bill Etheridge, Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler. Etheridge has been the most cagey in responding to his political aspirations- one day thinking about a run for Governor, the next thinking of taking on Renee Elmers again in the House race. This is where redistricting figures into the whole picture as the legislature made it decidedly more difficult for Democratic incumbents to win reelection in their districts with certain exceptions. That was the main reason Brad Miller decided to retire rather than run for reelection.

For the GOP, the former mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory is the frontrunner and will likely face only token opposition in the primary. They would come into the general election well-rested and funded. Preliminary hypothetical polling indicates that McCrory would defeat any likely Democratic candidate at this time. This is sort of indicative of the damage done to the Democratic brand in the state inflicted by the Perdue tenure. It is also a reason to believe that this will affect Obama at the top of the ticket. Still, anything can happen as Shuler especially has shown independence from Democratic orthodoxy in the House and the fact he took on Pelosi for the leadership role bolsters him. Regardless, at this point I am predicting a McCrory victory and unanticipated GOP pick up of a Governor’s seat.

The current House delegation is 7-6 Democratic. In redistricting, what goes around comes around. Years of Democratic gerrymandering in previous redistricting cycles produced the 7-6 split that exists to this day. But, this remains a fairly consistent conservative state and people like McIntyre, Kissel and Shuler had to adopt a centrist stance and some independence from the Democratic leadership in order to win. With the goal of shoring up incumbent Republicans, the map changed that it endangers these Democrats.

First, the safe Democrats. In the 1st, George Butterfield should win in a district that stretches from the Virginia border yo Greeneville. The other safe district would be the 12th held by Melvin Watt. This is a minority district, the infamous gerrymandered serpentine one that was left alone. He will seek a challenge from Tea Party activist Jack Brosch.

The 4th, represented by David Price, is the area west of Raleigh and includes the college towns of Durham and Chapel Hill. In fact, Price worked and fought very hard to keep Chapel Hill in his district. The interesting part is that Brad Miller was drawn into this district from his current 13th District. Rather than face a primary against Price- one he would likely lose- he decided upon the new 12th. Price will likely face George Hutchins who ran against Price in 2010 and lost.

As far as the safe Republicans, Howard Coble, described as a moderate and representing the 6th District in the central part of the state around Greensboro, announced he will run and likely win. In the 9th, far right Republican Sue Myrick will likely face a primary challenge from Tea Party activist Michael Stein. This is the southern and western suburbs of Charlotte. And Walter Jones’ 3rd District in the northern coastal area of the state is considered a safe retention. In the 5th, the district of Virginia Foxx became slightly more Democratic. This area extends from the Virginia border to the Winston-Salem area. She will probably face Treva Johnson, the former chair of the Wilkes County Democratic Party, but should win.

If any Republicans face a tougher time in 2012 than in the past, the first would be Renee Elmers who defeated Bob Etheridge in 2010. He is mulling a run against Elmers who could be considered a more centrist Republican representing the area around Raleigh. However, Etheridge is being pushed towards a gubernatorial run. Considering that Elmers won with 49% of the vote in 2010 and being a freshman, another run against Etheridge would appear tough, especially if Obama increases voter turnout here. Until a decision is announced by Etheridge, one would have to give the nod to Elmers at this point. Patrick McHenry took one for the team in the 10th District. Extending from South Carolina to the Tennessee border, the district took in a huge chunk of Democratic Buncombe County including the city of Asheville. In fact, he will probably run against the former mayor of that city, Terry Bellamy. It is believed he retained enough GOP territory to fight off a challenge, but this will be a tougher race this time out and he will not win with 71% of the vote as he did in 2010. He will also have to survive a primary battle against Ken Fortenberry.

Republicans believe they can take the 7th from Mike McIntyre. The area was made more favorable for the GOP. Located in the southeastern part of the state along the coast and extending to Fayatteville, 2010 challenger Iliaro Pantano is considering another run much to the chagrin of the North Carolina GOP. They believe that state senator David Rouzer would be a better candidate. This could become academic if McIntyre decides on a run for governor. The 8th, represented by Larry Kissel, became more favorable to the GOP. So far, the Republican field is crowded.

In the 11th, Heath Shuler recently announced he would not seek reelection which fuels speculation he will run for governor. Located in the southwestern part of the state, it lost a large part of Democratic Buncombe County. In all reality, despite his Blue Dog status, votes against most of the costly and controversial Obama programs and his stand against Nancy Pelosi, Shuler would have faced a tough battle to win another term. One can only imagine what would have happened if Shuler had prevailed in his fight against Pelosi. Most likely, this seat will be won by District Attorney Jeff Hunt, a Republican gain.

Finally, there is the 13th where Brad Miller announced he is vacating the seat. He, too, may seek the gubernatorial nod. Running from Raleigh north to the Virginia border, the new district took in more GOP territory which would have made it harder for any Democrat- including Miller- to win. That is true especially since the fairly popular ex-mayor of Raleigh, Paul Coble, announced his intention to take on Miller in the general election. Coble will, however, face a primary against perennial candidate Vernon Robinson and George Holding, best known as the prosecutor who investigated former Senator and presidential candidate (and wife cheater while she suffered from cancer, which makes Newt Gingrich look almost saintly) John Edwards.

In conclusion, and with the caveat that things could change quickly, I will assign the state’s 15 electoral votes to Obama for now. I believe McCrory has enough of a head start on any challenger and will be the next Republican Governor- an unexpected pick up. Because Obama will win by the skin of his teeth, his coat tails will have no effect down the ticket. With the elimination of Miller and Shuler, the GOP can expect at least a two seat pick up.

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 261 electoral votes to 223 for the GOP;
Net gain of 3 Governors;
Net gain of 4 Senate seats;
Net loss of 5 House seats.

Next: South Carolina