Early Thoughts on House Races
It's way too early to get too in-depth on the 435 U.S. House races taking place next year, but I thought I'd give a brief list of seats that I consider either "moderately vulnerable" or "in serious danger" of changing party hands in 2008. To arrive at these conclusions, I am going under the assumption that the Democratic Presidential candidate will be Hillary Clinton, a scenario in which I believe more seats will become vulnerable than if John Edwards or Bill Richardson were able to pull off a surprise Lazarus-like victory. As I said, this is a very rudimentary outline, and at the end of the day, may prove to be far from prophetic.
Moderately Vulnerable Democratic Seats
AZ-08 (Giffords)
C0-03 (J. Salazar)
CT-02 (Courtney)
FL-22 (Klein)
GA-12 (Barrow)
IL-08 (Bean)
IN-02 (Donnelly)
IN-08 (Ellsworth)
IN-09 (Hill)
IA-03 (Boswell)
KY-03 (Yarmuth)
LA-03 (Melancon)
ME-01 (Allen--running for Senate)
MN-01 (Walz)
NH-01 (Shea-Porter)
NY-19 (Hall)
NC-11 (Shuler)
OH-18 (Space)
OR-04 (DeFazio....if he runs for the Senate)
SC-05 (Spratt)
WV-01 (Mollohan)
WI-08 (Kagen)
Democratic Seats In Serious Danger
AZ-05 (Mitchell)
CA-11 (McNerney)
FL-16 (Mahoney)
GA-08 (Marshall)
KS-02 (Boyda)
PA-04 (Altmire)
PA-10 (Carney)
TX-17 (Edwards)
TX-22 (Lampson)
Moderately Vulnerable Republican Seats
CA-04 (Doolittle)
CA-26 (Dreier)
CO-04 (Musgrave)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
IL-11 (Weller--retiring)
IL-18 (LaHood--retiring)
MD-01 (Gilchrest.....strong primary challenge could unseat incumbent)
MI-09 (Knollenberg)
MN-06 (Bachmann)
NV-03 (Porter)
NJ-07 (Ferguson)
NY-25 (Walsh)
NY-26 (Reynolds)
NY-29 (Kuhl)
NC-08 (Hayes)
OH-01 (Chabot)
OH-02 (Schmidt)
OH-16 (Regula...if he retires)
PA-06 (Gerlach)
VA-02 (Drake)
VA-11 (Davis...if he runs for Senate)
WA-08 (Reichert)
WY-AL (Cubin)
Republican Seats in Serious Danger
CT-04 (Shays)
MN-03 (Ramstad--retiring)
NM-01 (Wilson)
OH-15 (Pryce--retiring)
I haven't been following House races too closely thus far. Have I missed anything significant with this list?
Moderately Vulnerable Democratic Seats
AZ-08 (Giffords)
C0-03 (J. Salazar)
CT-02 (Courtney)
FL-22 (Klein)
GA-12 (Barrow)
IL-08 (Bean)
IN-02 (Donnelly)
IN-08 (Ellsworth)
IN-09 (Hill)
IA-03 (Boswell)
KY-03 (Yarmuth)
LA-03 (Melancon)
ME-01 (Allen--running for Senate)
MN-01 (Walz)
NH-01 (Shea-Porter)
NY-19 (Hall)
NC-11 (Shuler)
OH-18 (Space)
OR-04 (DeFazio....if he runs for the Senate)
SC-05 (Spratt)
WV-01 (Mollohan)
WI-08 (Kagen)
Democratic Seats In Serious Danger
AZ-05 (Mitchell)
CA-11 (McNerney)
FL-16 (Mahoney)
GA-08 (Marshall)
KS-02 (Boyda)
PA-04 (Altmire)
PA-10 (Carney)
TX-17 (Edwards)
TX-22 (Lampson)
Moderately Vulnerable Republican Seats
CA-04 (Doolittle)
CA-26 (Dreier)
CO-04 (Musgrave)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
IL-11 (Weller--retiring)
IL-18 (LaHood--retiring)
MD-01 (Gilchrest.....strong primary challenge could unseat incumbent)
MI-09 (Knollenberg)
MN-06 (Bachmann)
NV-03 (Porter)
NJ-07 (Ferguson)
NY-25 (Walsh)
NY-26 (Reynolds)
NY-29 (Kuhl)
NC-08 (Hayes)
OH-01 (Chabot)
OH-02 (Schmidt)
OH-16 (Regula...if he retires)
PA-06 (Gerlach)
VA-02 (Drake)
VA-11 (Davis...if he runs for Senate)
WA-08 (Reichert)
WY-AL (Cubin)
Republican Seats in Serious Danger
CT-04 (Shays)
MN-03 (Ramstad--retiring)
NM-01 (Wilson)
OH-15 (Pryce--retiring)
I haven't been following House races too closely thus far. Have I missed anything significant with this list?
posted by Mark at 4:51 PM
21 Comments:
Speaking of the House, some good news. Although the House voted to expand SCHIP, it is not enough to override Shrub's veto.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_go_co/children_s_health
sara, your link isn't working for me. I can't find any evidence that they voted on this bill today. Are you sure you weren't looking at the previous House vote on SCHIP last month? If so, they're voting on it again this week.
The link worked for me. I'll put it right here just in case.
House votes to expand insurance for kids
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House voted Tuesday to expand health insurance for children, but the Democratic-led victory may prove short-lived because the margin was too small to override President Bush's promised veto.
Embarking on a health care debate likely to animate the 2008 elections, the House voted 265-159 to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, by $35 billion over five years. Bush says he will veto the bill due to its cost, its reliance on a tobacco tax increase and its potential for replacing private insurance with government grants.
SCHIP is a state-federal program that provides coverage for 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty level but have trouble affording private health insurance. The proposed expansion, backed by most governors and many health-advocacy groups, would add 4 million children to the rolls.
The bill drew support from 45 House Republicans, many of them moderates who do not want to be depicted as indifferent to low-income children's health needs when they seek re-election next year. But 151 Republicans sided with Bush, a move that Democrats see as a political blunder.
It hardly matters that the expansion would be expensive or a step toward socialized health care, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said during the House debate. When lawmakers go home, he said, "the question is, Were you with the kids or were you not?"
To overturn a presidential veto, both chambers of Congress must produce two-thirds majorities. The 265 yes votes in the House are two dozen fewer than Democrats would need to override Bush's veto, and House leaders expect few members to switch positions.
The Senate appears poised to pass the SCHIP expansion by a large margin later this week, but a Senate bid to override a veto would be pointless if the House override effort falls short.
Despite the expected veto, many congressional Democrats welcomed the SCHIP debate as a way to open a second political front — in addition to Iraq — on which they feel Bush and his allies are out of step with voters. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said the president willingly pours billions of dollars into the war but resists a significant expansion of a health program for modest-income children.
"It's no surprise the president finds himself isolated," Emanuel said at a Democratic event that included a Maryland mother who relied on SCHIP coverage when two of her children were badly injured in a car wreck.
Some Republicans agreed that the debate over a greater government role in health care will resonate far beyond Capitol Hill this week.
"This vote is huge for the next president, regardless of who it is," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said in an interview during the floor debate. "I don't think anybody underestimates the philosophical importance."
Eight Democrats opposed the bill. Some, from tobacco-growing districts, object to raising the federal cigarette tax to $1 a pack, a 61-cent increase. Some Hispanic members complained that the bill would make legal immigrant children wait five years to qualify for SCHIP, but voted for it anyway.
A Republican-controlled Congress and President Clinton created SCHIP in 1997 to provide health coverage for families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not high enough to pay for private coverage. Under the expansion proposal, states could seek federal waivers to steer funds to some families earning at least triple the official poverty-level income, provided the states showed progress enrolling the main target: children in families earning up to double the poverty rate. That would be $34,340 for a family of three, or $41,300 for a family of four.
The Bush administration says the legislation could qualify some New York families of four making about $83,000 a year, or four times the poverty level. Such a scenario is unlikely, the bill's proponents say, because it would require waivers the administration has rejected.
Bush proposes a smaller increase in SCHIP — $5 billion over five years — although some Republican lawmakers say he might agree to a larger increase later.
In a statement of administration policy Tuesday, the White House said the bill "goes too far toward federalizing health care." Republicans said a veto was certain. In his nearly seven years in office, Bush has vetoed three bills. One would have withdrawn troops from Iraq, and two would have expanded federal research involving embryonic stem cells.
After the vote, White House press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement saying: "Unfortunately, the House of Representatives today passed SCHIP legislation that pushes many children who now have private coverage into a government-run system, part of the Democrats' incremental plan toward government-run health care for all Americans."
SCHIP is set to expire Sunday. To avert that, congressional Democrats plan to extend it temporarily with a larger spending bill to keep the government running when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The strategy would prevent Democrats from being blamed for letting the health program lapse by not reaching an accord with Bush, lawmakers said.
House Republican leaders berated Democrats for including several targeted spending items, known as "earmarks," in the 299-page SCHIP bill, which was not available for public review until Monday night. Democrats had declared the bill earmark-free. But Republicans found language directing funds to programs in Tennessee, California and Michigan.
After the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she was disappointed that Bush "has issued a veto threat against a bill that has so much bipartisan, indeed nonpartisan, support."
Sara, I just found it a couple of minutes ago. Thanks for the heads-up. Hopefully, this buries this legislation for the time being. If there was a responsible funding mechanism, I'd support it. But there wasn't....so I don't.
Same here.
And on the House races, I have my list of potentially competitive districts, under the assumption of a generic Democrat vs. Republican race for now, though I will make lists based on the possible presidential match-ups. (I also have the Presidential race set up for generic D vs. generic R, and will set up different maps for all the possible match-ups there.) My list is longer since the districts on my list I decided could be competitive I decided on by Cook PVI, the percentage of the vote the incumbent received in 2006, and in some cases, a primary challenge. Of course my list is subject to change as time goes on.
http://californianintexas.blogspot.com/2006/01/election-2008-outlook-house.html
Im not sure I agree with all of the ones in serious danger. If Chet Edwards could survive the Republican avalanche in 2002 with then highly popular George W. Bush at the top of ballot, I don't think Republicans are going to get that seat until he retires.
With AZ-05, Harry Mitchell has the advantage of being a very skilled politician and being in a district with a rapidly growing Hispanic population. It also helps him that Republicans cant seem to find a top tier candidate to run against him.
PA-04 is historically a very Democratic district, which is revealed in the Democrats 51%-35% registration advantage. I think Altmire may actually be helped if Hart runs again, because she will not be seen as an agent of change in an environment when voters badly want change.
I also don't think they are going to come close to getting Mollahan in WV-01. They ran the strongest Republican they could have in 2006 and he still won by a 2 to 1 margin.
For the Republicans, I am surprised you don't have IL-10 on here. Mark Kirk is on borrowed time in this rapidly Dem trending district. John Kerry won here by six points in 2004 and any Democrat will probably win here by eight to twelve points in 2008.
Here is my revised list:
Moderately Vulnerable Democratic Seats
AZ-05 (Mitchell)
AZ-08 (Giffords)
GA-12 (Barrow)
IL-08 (Bean)
IN-02 (Donnelly)
IN-08 (Ellsworth)
IN-09 (Hill)
IA-03 (Boswell)
KS-03(Moore)
KY-03 (Yarmuth)
ME-01 (Allen--running for Senate)
MN-01 (Walz)
NH-01 (Shea-Porter)
NY-19 (Hall)
NY-20 (Gillibrand)
NC-11 (Shuler)
OH-18 (Space)
PA-04 (Altmire)
TX-17 (Edwards)
WI-08 (Kagen)
Democratic Seats In Serious Danger
CA-11 (McNerney)
FL-16 (Mahoney)
GA-08 (Marshall)
KS-02 (Boyda)
MA-05(Meehan-vacating to become College head)-this should not even be close.
PA-10 (Carney)
TX-22 (Lampson)
WI-08 (Kagen)
Moderately Vulnerable Republican Seats
CA-04 (Doolittle)
CA-26 (Dreier)
CO-04 (Musgrave)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
IL-14(Hastert—retiring)
IL-18 (LaHood--retiring)
MI-07(Wahlberg)
MI-09 (Knollenberg)
MN-06 (Bachmann)
NJ-03 (Saxton)
NJ-07 (Ferguson)
NY-25 (Walsh)
NY-26 (Reynolds)
NY-29 (Kuhl)
NC-08 (Hayes)
OH-01 (Chabot)
OH-02 (Schmidt)
OH-16 (Regula...if he retires)
PA-06 (Gerlach)
VA-02 (Drake)
VA-10 (Wolf)
WA-08 (Reichert)
WY-AL (Cubin)
Republican Seats in Serious Danger
CT-04 (Shays)
IL-11 (Weller--retiring)
MN-03 (Ramstad--retiring)
NM-01 (Wilson)
NV-03 (Porter)
OH-15 (Pryce--retiring)
VA-11 (Davis...if he runs for Senate)
I took Ron Klein(FL-22) off here. There is no way anybody will come close to beating him in this heavily Jewish and Dem trending district.
I also took off Melancon(LA-03) and Salazar(CO-03). After Salazar's 62%-37% win in 2006 and Melancon's 55%-40% win over a highly touted state Senator, I doubt these guys will even be targetted.
mr. phips, I forgot a few on my list, and Mark Kirk in IL-10 was definitely one of them. I'll put him on the "moderately vulnerable Republican seats" list. Keep in mind, however, that the all-Democratic Legislature in Illinois right now is absolute trainwreck, meaning I'm not convinced these suburban voters (most moderate Republicans just a few short years ago) will continue to trend to the Democrats' direction after witnessing the comedy of errors that Democratic government has brought them at the state level.
On the "Republican seats in serious danger" list, I forgot all about AZ-01, where Rick Renzi is retiring. That one should be close.
With higher turnout and Hillary likely to be on the top of the ballot this year, Chet Edwards is likely to have another Herculean 2004-esque struggle. Charlie Melancon isn't out of the woods for the same reason. It's possible that otherwise-entrenched Southern Dems like Gene Taylor and Bud Cramer could also be in trouble if Hillary's at the top of the ticket, but I'm not gonna put either of them on the endangered list just yet.
Mark, if the GOP couldn't get Gene Taylor and Bud Cramer in 1994, they are going to have to wait until they retire to get those seats. Anyway, I don't know if Hillary will be as big of a drag as everyone says. If she is, she probably can't win the election.
I agree with Mr. Phips. Edwards is a skilled politician who managed to survive fellow native son Shrub's landslide in the district in 2004. I don't think the district (or the whole state for that matter) will go as strongly for Rudy McRomney as it did for its "native" son, though it will still go comfortably GOP. In addition, rural voters are much more likely to split-ticket than suburban voters. I am much more concerned about Lampson than Edwards.
Sara, I am way more concerned about Lampson. Although the district is slowly getting less Republican due to the growing Hispanic and Asian populations, Lampson will still have hands full holding onto that district. However, I give him a better chance of survival than Tim Mahoney in FL-16. I agree that that Giuliani wont carry the district by the 70%-30% Bush did. It will probably be more like 64%-35%, which can only help Edwards.
Keep in mind that Chet Edwards had a horrible opponent in 2004.....Arlene Wohlgenmuth or something like that. She was deemed too far right even for Crawford, Texas. Chet is a skillful politician, but all he needs is one strong opponent and his career is finished in that district. I will probably go into every election cycle predicting no better than 50-50 odds for Edwards survival.
Particularly if Hillary becomes the face of the national Democratic Party, I don't think we've seen the last of the South's realignment to the GOP, meaning that either in 2008 or 2010 (the latter if she somehow gets elected President), even the Bud Cramers, Gene Taylors, John Spratts and Lincoln Davises will cease to be electable. Even if Hillary goes away, the trendline for a crimson-red Republican South seems pretty inevitable, particularly now with immigration rising quickly as a major wedge issue in which the Democratic position will find the least support in the South.
mr. phips, Mahoney's district isn't nearly as conservative as Lampson's. Is there a reason why you think Mahoney's more vulnerable? I'd be surprised to see either one re-elected. For whatever reason, I'm a little more optimistic about Carney's prospects in PA-10, but am no better than 50/50 with Altmire. PA-04 is a historically Democratic district, but the demographics of the Pittsburgh area have changed alot in the last 20 years. Far fewer union steelworkers....and far more white-collar anti-tax yuppies...and by and large, this demographic has migrated to the northern suburbs where much of PA-04 is located.
Is Meehan's seat really considered endangered? I struggle to see how Massachusetts elects a Republican to Congress in 2008, but I suppose the right "moderate" candidate could get the job done.
Mark, I think Mahoney's seat is more vulnerable because Mahoney is a much weaker politician than Lampson is. Lampson will do everything he has to in order to get reelected. Even that may not be enough, but I know for a fact that he is working his butt off in that district. Mahoney seems like a very lazy Congressman who really doesn't know what he is doing.
I think Altmire should be able to solidify himself in PA-04. His pro-life and pro-gun, but economically liberal views seem to fit well with PA-04. I think Altmire has a better chance than Carney, but now I see Carney as a slight favorite in PA-10, mainly because it has much of Dem trending Lackawanna county in it.
Meehan's seat is up in a Special Election on October 16th. This is a district that his very heavily Democratic(John Kerry won it by like 17 points), but the Democratic candidate only has a ten point lead over the Republican running. I would imagine that the Democrat(Tsongas) is helping herself by linking the Republican to Bush and John Boehner and their opposition to S-CHIP. Keep a close eye on that race. If Tsongas doesn't win it, it shows that there is a wave developing against the Democrats, which makes little sense, since we have an unpopular Republican President in the White House.
I heard somewhere that Mahoney said that Congress wasn't the thing he wanted to do or something, which I think was a stupid move, since this district is becoming more winnable for us and Mahoney seems to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I still think Edwards isn't very vulnerable, as he easily defeated the highly touted Van Taylor by a wide margin. Truth be told, it was a very sour atmosphere for Republicans, but even if it wasn't Edwards would have still won. Rural voters are much more likely to split-ticket and are easier to shift than suburban voters. (This is why we think that Kentucky and Oklahoma will have significant shifts leftward in 2008 even if they still go GOP.) Look at the Dakotas, which voted overwhelmingly for Bush but also kept electing and reelecting their mostly-Democratic Congressional delegation (and Thune only narrowly beat Daschle).
Sara, I said, that this "isnt the greatest job I ever had". Its funny that we heard about this, since Steve LaTourette of OH-14 said the same thing after being elected in 1994 and we heard nothing then. Some "liberal media, huh?
Oh, yeah.
And I didn't hear about LaTourette saying the same thing until just now right here! lol
Yeah. Some "lib'rul media", as most people say around here.
Mark, there is a better chance of you not thinking the worst then Gene Taylor being defeated.
Tinklenberg is taking on Bachmann again.
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=873
Tinklenburg should at least make MN-06 competitive.
I would agree with James on Taylor. The only way he leaves the House is in a pine box.
I also don't think Bud Cramer will ever be in much danger. His district is still heavily Democratic at the local level and would not be surprised to even see a Democratic Presidential candidate get 45% or more there in 2008.
Damn, what's with all these deaths in Congress lately? 5 of the 6 vacancies we've had were due to the deaths of the incumbents, and 4 were due to cancer! Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) joins that list with Charlie Norwood (R-GA 10), Craig Thomas (R-WY), and Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA-37 and I watched the crazy primary here). There was also Paul Gillmor (R-OH-05) who died from trauma because of a fall down the stairs. And then there's Marty Meehan's (D-MA-05) resignation to become College Head.
I guess we don't need any more proof that government work is a stressful job, and we are aging and basically poisoning ourselves with carcinogens!
Post a Comment
<< Home