Google Ads


Site Stats

NRCC Puts 70 Dems on Notice

by: James L.

Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 10:42 PM EDT


The NRCC made a splash earlier today by releasing a target list of 70 Dem-held House districts that they hope to put into play next year. Let's take a closer look at all 70 -- including their PVIs, the closeness of each race in 2008, and whether or not the GOP has recruited a "legitimate" challenger this time (this is a bit of a subjective assessment, but we'll get to that later):

District Incumbent PVI 2008
Margin		 Legit
Challenger?		 District Incumbent PVI 2008
Margin		 Legit
Challenger?
AL-02 Bright R+16 1% Y NM-01 Heinrich D+5 12% Y
AL-05 Griffith R+12 4% Y NM-02 Teague R+6 12% Y
AR-01 Berry R+8 100% N NV-03 Titus D+2 5% N
AR-02 Snyder R+5 53% N NY-01 Bishop R+0 16% N
AR-04 Ross R+7 72% N NY-13 McMahon R+4 28% N
AZ-01 Kirkpatrick R+6 17% N NY-19 Hall R+3 18% Y
AZ-05 Mitchell R+5 9% Y NY-20 Murphy R+2 24% N
CA-11 McNerney R+1 10% Y NY-24 Arcuri R+2 4% N
CA-47 Sanchez D+4 44% Y NY-25 Maffei D+3 13% N
CO-04 Markey R+6 12% Y NY-29 Massa R+5 2% Y
CT-04 Himes D+5 4% N OH-01 Driehaus D+1 5% Y
FL-08 Grayson R+2 4% N OH-15 Kilroy D+1 1% Y
FL-22 Klein D+1 10% Y OH-16 Boccieri R+4 10% N
FL-24 Kosmas R+4 16% Y OH-18 Space R+7 20% N
GA-12 Barrow D+1 32% Y OK-02 Boren R+14 41% N
HI-01 (Open) D+11 58% Y OR-01 Wu D+8 54% N
IA-03 Boswell D+1 14% N OR-04 DeFazio D+2 69% Y
ID-01 Minnick R+18 1% Y OR-05 Schrader D+1 16% N
IL-11 Halvorson R+1 24% Y PA-03 Dahlkemper R+3 2% N
IL-14 Foster R+1 15% Y PA-04 Altmire R+6 12% N
IN-08 Ellsworth R+8 30% N PA-07 (Open) D+3 20% N
IN-09 Hill R+6 20% N PA-10 Carney R+8 12% N
KS-03 Moore R+3 16% N PA-11 Kanjorski D+4 3% N
KY-06 Chandler R+9 30% N PA-12 Murtha R+1 16% N
LA-03 Melancon R+12 100% Y SD-AL Herseth R+9 35% N
MD-01 Kratovil R+13 1% Y TX-17 Edwards R+20 7% N
MI-07 Schauer R+2 2% Y UT-02 Matheson R+15 28% N
MI-09 Peters D+2 9% Y VA-02 Nye R+5 5% N
MO-04 Skelton R+14 32% N VA-05 Perriello R+5 <1% N
MS-01 Childers R+14 10% Y VA-09 Boucher R+11 100% N
NC-08 Kissell R+2 10% N VA-11 Connolly D+2 12% Y
ND-AL Pomeroy R+10 24% N WI-03 Kind D+4 29% Y
NH-01 Shea-Porter R+0 6% Y WI-07 Obey D+3 22% N
NH-02 (Open) D+3 15% N WI-08 Kagen R+2 8% N
NJ-03 Adler R+1 4% N WV-01 Mollohan R+9 100% N

That's a big fat, honkin' list of incumbents, including several that haven't seen a competitive race in years -- or ever (Boren, Skelton, the Arkansas delegation, Matheson, Pomeroy, Kind, and Boucher, to name just a few). Many of these races probably won't produce competitive contests, but there's absolutely no downside for the NRCC to be putting these incumbents on notice -- not only will the targets being painted on these members' backs have the potential to affect legislative votes, it helps to promote the idea that the NRCC is preparing for a big wave in their favor in 2010. (One thing's for sure, if we have to worry about David Effin' Wu next year, we'll be preparing for life in the minority again.)

Now, what makes a challenger "legitimate", you ask? That's a good question. I define legitimacy as something that must be earned -- whether it's through an electoral track record or a demonstrated ability to fundraise (or self-fund), or some combination of both. In other words, just because the NRCC has met with some random businessman and asked him to challenge his local congressman, it doesn't mean that the challenger has established himself as legitimate until he's coughed up a quarterly filing with the FEC. Let me put it this way: for every Richard Hanna (the guy who nearly beat Mike Arcuri last year), there are a dozen or more Luke Pucketts or Carl Mumpowers. It's just a lot harder at this point in the game to separate the wheat from the chaff, so our methodology is not to list a challenger without a record of electoral success as "legitimate" until they have demonstrated their ability to raise the dough. (And no, raising phat loads of cash through BMW Direct, like Bill Russell does in PA-12 does not count as a legitimate means of fundraising in our book.) The NRCC would no doubt disagree pretty strongly with my chart in some places, but I already feel that I'm being overly generous by granting OR-04 candidate Sid Leiken, who has had some pretty severe fundraising difficulties, "legit" status.

So, many of these districts marked with an "N" have challengers that have yet to prove the merit and mettle of their respective candidacies. There's no doubt that many of these Ns will turn into Ys by the time the year's over, but the GOP still has a lot of work to do. The GOP also has a stock of credible candidates considering bids in many of these "unchallenged" districts (FL-08, LA-03, and VA-05, in particular), so some of these holes will be easier to fill than others.

Also interesting is who is not listed on such an expansive list as this -- guys whom the NRCC spent a lot of time targeting last cycle like Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Jim Marshall (GA-08) and Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) stand out as conspicuous absences, especially considering the number of extreme longshots thrown into the mix.
James L. :: NRCC Puts 70 Dems on Notice
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NRCC Puts 70 Dems on Notice | 66 comments
I know the ones whove compiled the list
Know alot more than I do...but the list is still quite puzzling. I just dont understand how names like Obey, Skelton and Herseth-Sandlin (unless Rounds runs but if he didnt even run for Senate....) can be on there but not names like James said.  
Well
The outgoing Secretary of State of SD has said that he's thinking about running for the House. Perhaps that was back when it was unclear whether Herseth was going to vacate her seat, so who knows where he stands today.
[ Parent ]
A big part of their strategy
Seems to be targeting people who they're quite unlikely to pick off, but might be able push into retirement if it's clear that the NRCC is going to stop overlooking them from now on. Skeleton, Bouchar, Mollohan, and the Arkansas trio seem the most obvious targets of that approach.

But seriously, David Wu? I know Oregon has a much higher Republican basement than most people give it credit for, but get real, Repubs.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

Griffith
I would keep an eye on him, but Bright is a better target than he is. Parker Griffith will hold that seat for a while. Especially since one of the Republicans running against him got bankrupted when Mike Huckabee showed up for a fundraiser that was a flop. Who knew you had to pay Huckabee $40,000 to help raise some money for you.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
I misspelled SKELTON's name AGAIN
I promise, I'm not trying to make a crass joke about his age here, folks.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.
[ Parent ]
No way to push Mollohan (WV-01) into retirement
They have to find a challenger first, and there's no Republican on the horizon for that. The W.Va. Republican party is so weak, they couldn't even field token opposition against him in a presidential year (2008).

The only reason I can think of for Mollohan (WV-01) to be on the list is because of the long-standing low-level rumors of corruption. There's no smoking gun, but there was an open Bush-ear probe and (IIRC) CREW usu. names him a top 10-most corrupt Congressperson.

Putting him on the list is a "freebie" if scandal erupts--but only if he actually has an opponent... I haven't seen any "there" there... either as an actual corruption case or any electoral vulnerability.

[ Parent ]
They can only pull this off
if they get a nationally appealing message. I do expect them to pick up some seats, but running as the white southern party isn't going to get them a majority again.

The other alternative, BTW
is that Dems not show up in '10. Message to Congressional Democrats: start passing the agenda you were elected on, or you're going to have a discouraged base.
[ Parent ]
Define "some".

[ Parent ]
fewer than 10

[ Parent ]
I could live with fewer than 10.

[ Parent ]
I'd be very pleased
with a Republican net gain of fewer than ten, given that we are likely to be either in a weak recovery or a double-dip recession next year.
[ Parent ]
Particularly if those loses
Are coupled with pickups in Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana and Pennsylvania - losing conservative Dems but picking up some more reliable liberals.
[ Parent ]
Agreed
While I am pragmatic on the Dems' chances in Kirk and Gerlach's districts (due to the GOP bench) they certainly have the upper hand there and should start off as the initial favorite. And Cao doesnt stand a chance. He should just not run for re-election and just bide his time until 2014 to take on Landrieu. I really think, politically, he has nothing to gain by running for re-election.
[ Parent ]
And Im sure
Gov. Jindal can find him something in his Administration to bide his time.
[ Parent ]
OR
He could run in 2011. He could challenge Landriue for Lt. Gov (not likely, I bet most of the establishment backs Kershaw)
He could run for AG. Or he could run for a rematch in 2012 if they draw a better district.  
[ Parent ]
I don't think they can draw him a better district short of cracking LA-02
which is probably the biggest no-no in racial politics.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
Not much else they can do
There are no other heavily liberal AA areas to add to the district. The 2nd and 3rd are where most of the population loss came from, and those are the two that will be most affected. LA-02 will pick up pieces of 3 and maybe 1 most likely.  
[ Parent ]
Some LA-03 Updates
http://www.dailycomet.com/arti...
Scott Angelle (D) to run as Republican?
Yet Angelle, the former St. Martin parish president, may not run as a Democrat if you believe the rumors stirring around Acadiana.
"Several longtime friends have suggested it over the years and again more recently," Angelle replied. "It is something that I would consider, like (former President) Ronald Reagan, (former Gov.) Mike Foster and (former U.S. Congressman) Billy Tauzin."

And Nickie Monica WILL run
State Rep. Nickie Monica, R-LaPlace, said he's in

Thanks
I had heard about Angelle for a while, but didn't realize that Nickie made it definitive. I'll update accordingly.
[ Parent ]
He hasnt anounced
But, he's like Sestak. He has been telling the local media and donors that he is definitely gonna run
[ Parent ]
The missing
Just based on 2008, at least a dozen slitghtly vulnerable incumbents are not on the list.  Each scored under 60%and a few seem obvious.

Chellie Pingree represents a Democratic district (ME-1) but won by an unimpressive 55-45 in an open seat race.  This is probably the last shot Republicans have at her until retirement.  Chellie's daughter is IIRC President of the Maine state senate.  Could be a family dynasty in the making.

Chris Murphy in CT-5 won by a 59-39 margin.  Not likely.

Patrick Murphy in PA-8 won by a lackluster 57-42 and has obvious statewide or national ambitions.  This is one of the more surprising omissions.  On a list this large, he should be listed.

Dennis Kucinich from OH-10 is not going to be ousted by a Republican despite a 57-39 margin.  He's the kind of Democrat Republicans like to make a run at, though.

Jim Marshall (see above)

John Yarmuth KY-3 obviously Chandler was listed for the PVI but Yarmuth was 59-41 in his second match against Anne Northrup.

Lincoln Davis (TN-4) won 59-38 against a well funded opponent.

Ciro Rodriguez (see above)

Solomon Ortiz, TX-27 (58-39)

Gabrielle Griffiths, AZ-8 (55-43). Tim Bee took a major shot in 2008 and lost.

Ben Ray Lujan (NM-3, 57-30)  Good omission.

Pat Murphy's numbers
Were not lackluster. He out-performed Obama, and he faced a pretty serious challenger with real money.
[ Parent ]
Susan Collins
Didnt Susan Collins have to be talked into running again in 2008? If that was the case I can definitely see her retiring in 2014. Rep. Pingree could very well run then.

I do think the GOP should at least try and contest this seat in 2010. Sure its pretty Democratic but it still is historically Republican and I am sure has alot of moderate/liberal Republican officeholders. A Snowe/Collins (but especially Snowe) style Republican could give her a real race in a more neutral year.

I dont want people to laugh at me here...but if the GOP wants to be overly ambitious they might should include Welch's VT-AL seat. But only a maybe. If he is already popular there then dont include it. And i have a feeling he is since he was unopposed. But maybe that was just a case of the GOP feeling very pessimistic given the national environment and Obama at the top of the ticket. But if hes still unknown (and thus not popular) then they should include it if theyre gonna be very ambitious. AL-districts are different than 'regular' CDs, at least in open races. As voters tend to look less at the party ID and more at the candidates. As we saw in 2006 when the open VT-AL race was one of the GOP's best pick-up opportunities. And indeed only lost by around 7, I believe. It could be an interesting race if the GOP nominee is a moderate/liberal, pro-same sex marriage Republican. One of the Republicans to vote for it in the state legislature.  

[ Parent ]
Its not like we dont have 2 great candidates
We do have 2 extremely popular statwide elected officials: Gov.Douglas and Lt. Gov. Dubie.
[ Parent ]
Point taken
but do you think either one would have a decent shot at U.S. Representative?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Yes
Look at how popular both are. I think they would both have a decent shot and move the race to a toss-up
[ Parent ]
Popular? IIRC Douglas got re-elected by slightly over 50
and only mainly because the Dem and an indie split the protest vote.

IIRC he's been teetering on the edge of getting less than a majority, and getting the election thrown into the statehouse or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
I'm skeptical
because Vermont is so liberal nowadays. We'll both be watching, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that they had no candidate and even nominated Welch


party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
NM-3
Yeah NM-3 is probably a good omission. Sure Bush lost by less than 10 both times (by around 9% both times) but McCain got killed by like 23%. And I have a feeling that 43-45% Bush showing is the tops for a Republican in that district unless you have a very popular Republican running. As its a liberal district.
[ Parent ]
I also think
Another reason for some of the names on this list is to try and encourage strong Republicans to run as well, signaling they may get national support in 2010 if they do.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.
I hope
they pour money into a long of these rediculous long shot target and thus end of up putting less money into other races that they have a chance to win
some of these targets seem a bit rediculous considering they never had a chance at them in good years for republicans.
Well
There was a time, long ago now, when Republicans did very well in very Democratic and even liberal districts. Rep. Green in NY and Rep. Horn in CA being two classic examples. But those days have long since passed. But even in the 90s they did well in those kind of districts, just like how Dems can do well, today, in very Republican/very conservative districts. But if the GOP wants to win in those kind of districts again they will have to moderate their platform and image. Or else even 'good years' for them wont really help. They certainly can do it, as anything is possible in politics. But i doubt they will anytime soon.
[ Parent ]
IN-02
The NRCC didn't make all that much of an effort against Donnelly in 2008; they either couldn't or wouldn't prop Puckett up.  

If they did, boy did it not show.

I wouldn't say that
Yes, they weren't stupid enough to spend a dime on Puckett, but they did end up wasting a lot of time trying to recruit a top-tier challenger to run against him.
[ Parent ]
Might you say slightly ambitious
Strike Ross, Himes, Ellsworth, Chandler, Peters, Skelton, Pomeroy, Mollohan, Obey, Kind, Boucher, Matheson, Herseth, Schrader, DeFazio, Wu, Boren, Maffei, McMahon and Heinrich. You can make a case for the rest but most only at a stretch. The 1994-redux worry-warts are forgetting most of those House loses were open seats and largely in the South. Not the case this time. Best case scenario I see is maybe them netting twenty but still high single digits most likely.
The facts about the 1994 US house elections
I'm not picking on my friend Conspiracy, but I've heard this tossed out before concerning the 1994 House elections, and I want to go on record with stating the facts.

In 1994, 34 of the GOP pickups were a result of a Republican defeating an incumbent Democrat.  In addition, only 17 Southern seats were pickups for the GOP in 1994.  The GOP defeated 5 Democrat incumbents in Washington alone.  Other states where Democrats lost multiple seats were California (3 seats), Arizona (2), Illinois (2), Indiana (3), Kansas (2), New Jersey (2), and Ohio (4).

In essence, the 1994 US House losses was not a "Southern Deal", but instead a Nationwide phenomena.  Some of the seats picked up were from retirements, but a majority were not.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
Ok
I exaggerated a little but take out those 17 Southern seats and you still have the Dems in control. And the others were in some pretty conservative places. I mean even Illinois and New Jersey have moved since then. I remember reading a very detailed study that was very persuasive but for the life of me I can't remember the author. I will search and get back to you on that.
[ Parent ]
More info for you to consider
I include VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, KY, AR, LA, and TX as the "South".  In 1994, these states had 131 Congressional districts total.  

131 seats represent approximately 30% of the congressional districts (131/435).  

58 seats were lost by the Democrats, and 30% of 58 is approximately 17 seats.  So, on average, the Democrats lost the same percentage of seats as they did in the nation as a whole.

Also consider that the Dems had an 80-51 seat edge in the South before the election of 1994, or 61% (Dems controlled approximately 59% nationwide).  After losing the 17 seats, the GOP had a Southern edge of 68-63, or a 52% edge (the GOP had a 53% edge nationwide).

My conclusion is that the South didn't deviate from the National trend in the 1994 election.  What is significant is that the South finally had a GOP majority for the first time since Reconstruction.

The South really started losing at a faster rate after the 1994 elections.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
But, oh, how the GOP had changed since Reconstruction (n/t)

[ Parent ]
Also they won 58 Democratic seats in total
Dems picked up four open Republican held seats so minus the 34 incumbents that is 24 open seats which was the main point I was trying to make anyway.
[ Parent ]
Look at these
Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia. Those are very conservative places even today. More so in 1994. The PVI's would be interesting though they would be badly distored by 1992. Now plenty of Dem incumbents next year in conservative districts that might lose. But a hell of a lot easier holding those seats with a scandal-free candidate already doing the job than in an open seat. Currently you have the Hodes and Sestak seats open and at a push perhaps Abercrombie. Maybe Melancon makes that four. Say they win those and knock off another 34 incumbents - Pelosi would still be Speaker. And I see no scenario likely where they beat 34 incumbents again. The Dem splits the last two cycles were 22 incumbents and 8 open seats in '06 and 14-12 in '08. Still searching for that study.
[ Parent ]
1994 was a perfect storm for the GOP
Thanks Conspiracy for not taking offense to what I stated.

There were so many factors on why the Dems lost in 1994.  As you stated beforehand, one reason why this occurred was because of Democratic retirements.  We probably would have retained many of these seats if the GOP hadn't organized a national message by Gingrich and the far right.  They effectively attacked the Dems on cultural issues (gays in the military, guns, etc), taxation, and foreign policy.  Complicating matters was the fact that President Clinton pushed some major initiatives when he clearly didn't receive a mandate in 1992.

2010 will be different.  We have a President who did receive a mandate for change from the electorate.  In addition, the GOP has no leadership near the caliber of Newt Gingrich, and as a result, they have no "Contract With (ON) America".  The GOP's message is that they oppose the Democrats and President Obama in particular.  The GOP cries out that the Dems lack financial discipline, but they have proven under Bush that they lack even more financial discipline.

I don't see the Dems losing more than 10 seats (net) in 2010.  The Republicans have no message, no credibility to deal with today's issues, and no chance of regaining congress in 2010.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
No problem
You were right anyway! :)

I hope you are right about 2010 too. I think you are.

[ Parent ]
Thanks my friend
The 1994 election gave me a bad taste in my mouth...I was 23 at the time and really upset at the results.  The bad thing is that most of the nation has rebounded and then some after the 1994 elections, while the South has stayed in GOP hands ever since.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04
[ Parent ]
2010 is looking more and more like 1982 (in reverse) than 1994..
A significant loss (26) of seats while still holding the speakership, but effectively ending the power to effectively legislate.

Obama has until the NJ/VA races to get things done. After that he is impotent until 2012.  

The GOP base is going to turn out in droves. The D base will sit on it's demoralized ass.  Hopefully, the economy improves enough to get Obama re-elected in 2012 and a new lease on life.

The only way this scenario doesn't unfold is the economy gets much better, much faster, such that in 2010, the economy is humming and the losses fall to 10-15 instead.  

[ Parent ]
I was thinking of the 1978 and 1982 elections
Great point about the 1982 election, but I think the Dems had better leaders within the House than the GOP currently has.  If a true GOP house leader emerges, I would say that the 1982 comparison is dead on.

Right now, I'm thinking that we are more in line with the 1978 elections.  Before the 1978 elections, the Democrats had solid control of the House and Senate (plus the White House), and we were bound to lose some of the 292 seats we had.  However, the GOP was in such disarray after the Nixon debacle and the 1976 Presidential election, they couldn't capitalize.  The economy was also soft, and people were worried about the future.  A "dead cat" bounce occurred, with the GOP gaining 15 seats.

I think the 1978 correlation is more in line with what will happen.  Since we currently have only 257 seats (as opposed to 292 seats in 1978), our losses won't be as severe.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
1980-1988
Congressional to presidential repeat (in reverse) for 2008-2016 = not a bad deal for this side.
[ Parent ]
Possibility of large Republican gains
The GOP base is going to turn out in droves. The D base will sit on it's demoralized ass.

I think this will almost definitely happen if the economy sucks (e.g., very high unemployment) and Congress hasn't passed guaranteed national health insurance.

However, if the economy has clearly improved and Congress has passed real health insurance relief, I think that GOTV efforts among the Democratic base could be successful, and the Republicans could lose even more seats in both Houses.

In short, it's too early to predict.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
The 2010 outcome also depends on the GOP
I've yet to hear anything from the GOP except a message that they are against EVERYTHING.  The birther movement is nothing more than a potential disaster for the far right.  The teabaggers could get the base ignited, but if an objective mind delved into taxation, he or she might ask where these people were during the Bush administration, when the tax rates that are choking the middle class and awarding the rich were enacted.

I just don't understand how a middle class person would actually believe that Republicans want to help them out.  Sure, they might cut their taxes by a couple of percentage points, but they would also cut spending for important programs, such as EDUCATION.  

The GOP is disorganized...they have no leadership in the House or Senate.  Some of the more moderate members of their party are threatened if they stray from their narrow mindset.  Steele is a joke:  he's put in that position so the Republicans can say they are a big tent party, which is laughable since Steele is pretty damn conservative.

All things remaining the same (questionable economy, questionable health care reform, no GOP leadership), the Dems will not lose too many seats.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
I disagree
If the voters don't feel any reason to turn out for the Democrats, because the Democrats haven't passed decent health insurance legislation and the economy is in the toilet, the Republicans will win by default, regardless of any obvious shortcomings of that party.

Don't take my prognostications to the bank, but that's what I think.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
I was thinking about Gingrich and 1994
If Gingrich didn't come out with the garbage on the Contract with America, along with nationalizing a united message, the Democratic losses would not have been nearly as bad.  Same goes in 2006:  the Democrats started coming on board with a 50 state strategy, and with that we were able to regain Congress.  The same can be true in other years where a lot of seats went to the opposing party.  

You can't make up a lot of ground unless you have strong leadership.  The GOP is void of leadership at this moment.  When you have guys like Steele, McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, etc, in control of a party, the opposing side should be able to sleep fine at night.

If the Dems don't pass some decent insurance legislation, it will cost us in November 2010, but probably not as much as you might think.  What will hurt the Democrats even more is if unemployment stays at the 9-10% level for another year.  If this happens (and it might), the Democrats will lose some more seats as long as the GOP can tie the sluggish economy to the Democrats.  That's playing with fire, since the economy began to falter under Bush's watch.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

[ Parent ]
The GOP definitely needs a unified platform
And it has to be something the people will want to hear. They want a solution for health care that will help everybody, want to make sure Medicare and Medicaid arent slashed, that education programs arent slashed, etc. Sure, they should moderate on social issues but most importantly to moderate on bread and butter issues. And not just spew 'populist' rhetoric without backing it up in the platform (ala Mike Huckabee)...the voters will see right through that. Average Americans want to know, from the GOP, 'how will your economic platform help me and my family?'. And the GOP better realize that average Americans are not upper middle class and they do not have A+ health insurance plans. And they do struggle with paying for their kids' college tuition. And they do want reassurances that there will be money in Medicare and Medicaid. Oh and the Sean Hannity's of the world have got to stop saying things like, 'why should my taxes be raised?'. It does not help your cause, Hannity. Nobody cares about their taxes being raised. They make way too much money for them to care.  
[ Parent ]
yes, but
iirc the story of the 1990 and 1992 elections was that conservative Democrats picked up an unusually large number of seats due to moderate Republicans fading and the increasing Right-Left polarization working initially in their favor in open seats.

So, in 1994 Democrats in Congress were highly overextended relative to their base.  And the polarization had progressed (it was the era of the rise of Limbaugh and hating on Clinton) to where it was working in favor of hardline conservative Republicans.

Currently Democrats are somewhat overextended relative to their national partisan vote split (~58% of seats vs ~53-55% of the vote).  But the disparity involved (3-5%) is small compared to those prior to 1994, which was ~58% vs mid/low forties national vote percentages (~15% difference).

[ Parent ]
McMahon is more lucky than safe.
Oddo might even be favored against him.  But he's waiting to be Borough President.

Donovan would give him a good race.  But he wants to run for New York Attorney General instead.

Lanza would be a strong competitor but he would be under immense pressure from his colleagues to stay put due to the about even split in the State Senate.

The guy who he still may face and I wouldn't count out because as hard as it is to believe people still like him despite the scandal (and the fact he was as useless as a bar stool during his term in office)... Fosella has shown more than a few signs he wants to run to get his seat back.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
HI-01????
They are targeting a district that gave a liberal Democrat (Abercrombie) easy victories for years?  Abercrombie, per VoteView was the 45th most liberal person in the 110th House; in 2008, he got 77% of the vote.

Huh?

They have a decent candidate
Raising big bucks. Very unlikely loss though.
[ Parent ]
Griffith
Definitely does not have a serious opponent yet.  
Yes he does.
Mo Brooks.

Remains to be seen if he can piece the $ together, but in some ways he is stronger than Griffith's 2008 opponent.

[ Parent ]
Isn't Mo Brooks black?
Even if he's a Republican I don't see this district electing a black representative. We saw what happened with that Huntsville state senate seat we lost (black women vs. white man) and I don't see any reason why this race would be any different. Northern Alabama just is not racially progressive more so than Southern Alabama probably but not enough to drive some kind of black + conservative coalition (which I think is a BS coalition that never really works for black GOP candidates anyway).  
[ Parent ]
Mo Brooks is as white as they come.
http://www.co.madison.al.us/ab...

You're thinking of Lester Phillip.

[ Parent ]
Wu
With all of the confusion upthread about why the NRSC would target Wu, it could have something to do with the fact that, according to Congress.org's 2008 power rankings, Wu was 325/435, the least powerful member of the Oregon delegation (yes, even Greg Walden is more powerful, at 283, and he's not even from the majority party), and completely undistinguished in the decade he's been in Congress. From that same table, 33 Republicans elected in Wu's 1998 class or before, including Peter Roskam, were more powerful than he was in 2008, while only one non-indicted Democrat (Vic Snyder of AR-02) elected on or before 1998 was less powerful.  

Wu could be vulnerable to an even competently organized
challenge of the "pretend moderate" (Smith, Walden) variety. The problem for the NRCC is that OR-01 Republicans are a disorganized mess of clueless nouveau riche and incompetent whackjobs, none of whom have the base or organization to win. Goli Ameri back in 2004 was the best they've done to date, and Wu still pasted her by 58-38 in an otherwise fairly Republican year.

With all that said, the general NRCC strategy does seem to be "swing a baseball bat in the dark and try to break something". Compared to throwing a lot of money into districts like IN-02 that the GOP won't ever get back except in another 1994 scenario, it's probably just as effective to start throwing spitballs at some of the rustier incumbents and see if they crack. There's no way they get credible challengers for more than a couple of these seats, but being in the "discovery" phase, this is exactly the point. Once it gets down to the semifinals, this list will be a lot shorter and make a lot more sense. Unless they screw it up somehow, which with any Republican campaign committee of late is a distinct possibility.  

So this is the R version of a "50-state" strategy
Didn't we get to like 420+ D candidates for house seats last year? I'm not surprised at some of the challenges listed, as it seems to be their pared down version of our house "50 state" strategy.
This list seems to be the sort of thing I drew up with like a hundred "potentially competitive" races
last year.  Yes, that list where I even included such races as Robinson vs. Tiberi and "Coach" Carter vs. Foxx.

In other words, a wish list.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

[ Parent ]
Some of them are clearly that
Deep red seats they "should" have (see Skelton, Ross, Elsworth, Chandler, Pomeroy) and blue seats with freshmen where if they don't challenge them now they will be totally entrenched, despite mnay of them winning comfortably in 2008 (see Himes, Connolly, Peters, Schrader, Maffei and Heinrich) and very likely to be re-elected anyway.
[ Parent ]
NRCC Puts 70 Dems on Notice | 66 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox