This is the fourth and last of four regional diaries that attempt to identify the highest priority 2008 elections in each of the 50 states.
Previously, I looked at the Western states here. http://www.dailykos.com/...
The South here. http://www.dailykos.com/...
And the Northeast here: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Since yesterday, this miniseries was diary rescued, due specifically to your comments as well as mine. How cool is that?
And just to make it clear, I'm in favor of a 50-state, 435-district strategy. When I say that, for example, the Doolittle and Dreier districts are California's top 2008 priority, I'm not saying we should ignore the other 17 GOP-held seats, or get complacent about defending McNerny in CA-11. We should do the best we can in all of them. I'm saying that activists in state should prioritize and consider giving the most attention to the big contest first.
So here's my take on the final 12 states, in the heartland.
THE FOUR PRAIRIE STATES: ND, SD, NE and KS have little electoral impact individually, but together they add up. They also have so much in common that it makes sense to consider them together. All four are usually considered solid red, a waste of our time to try; and yet all of them have elected Democrats statewide recently, and when the farm belt elects Democrats, they are often very liberal indeed (think McGovern, Quentin Burdick, Bob Kerrey, and Wellstone Harkin and Feingold in neighboring farm states). More importantly, prairie state Democrats out did themselves in 2006, taking the 50-state strategy seriously and doing exactly what needed to be done in a region that started out as "clearly unwinnable". A surprise win in KS-02, an honorable squeaker loss in NE-3 where Democrats never even come close. The legislatures stayed Republican, but every one of them elected more Democrats than before, and more people voted Democrat than before. On the surface, it may look like not very much changed, but a few more elections like that, and these states will become purple, and then blue. Maybe faster than you think.
In all four states, the biggest priority is for prairie Democrats to keep doing what they did in 2006, building the party from the ground up, building on the results of last year, turning 60% losses to 55%, then 52%, then ties, then wins. Maybe we'll get another surprise like Boyda, maybe not. This region will turn slowly, but it will turn, all the while teaching people in Utah and the deep South how it's done.
If you want a top race state by state, I'd say:
NORTH DAKOTA: State legislature. Pomeroy is safe, and taking on Governor Hoeven would really be tilting at windmills. It's good to be able to claim a solid blue Congressional delegation, and to give America the Ed Schultz show.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Defending the Tim Johnson senate seat. Johnson seems to be recovering nicely, but we'd be fools not to prepare.
NEBRASKA: For the first time among the 50 states, I'm undecided. All three Congressional seats are still GOP, but our 2006 candidates did as spectacularly as you could ask for without actually winning. Any or all of them deserve rematcches. And then there's the Hegel Senate seat, which could go vacant if Chuckie goes for the White House, or which would vault into prominence if Scott Kleeb, who almost won the most conservative district in the state, decides to make a statewide race of it.
KANSAS: Kansas is losind its deep red tinge and purpling nicely, and we have the Governor to thank for it. If anyone wants to make the case for a bold move to capture the Senate seat or the Wichita-based 4th CD, I'll be supportive. However, unless Governor Sebelius announces for the Senate, I suggest we first make sure Nancy Boyda in the 2nd has enough love to survive a rematch before we spread ourselves out further.
MISSOURI: There is SOOOOO much to do here, from chipping away at the legislative Gooper majority, to taking down the most vulnerable incumbent Republican Governor in the nation, to a potentially top tier race for the 6th CD. However, it seems to me the most important thing for the Show Me state to do is to give its 11 electoral votes to the Democratic nominee for President.
and please, please, don't anyone tell me Missouri is too conservative to fight for its EVs. I'll want to troll-rate you if you do that, 'cause it's the same as saying no Democrat can be elected President because we're too liberal for the whole country. We NEED Missouri. You have to go back before I was born to find someone who got elected President without winning Missouri. It's a microcosm of America. It's the ultimate bellweather state. It has urban and suburban and rural. It's part Mississippi River midwest, part south, part prairie. It's the spirit of Harry Truman and Mark Twain. It just doesn't get more middle American than Missouri. Any Presidential candidate who doesn't go to the mat for Missouri is asking for defeat. Period.
IOWA: I'm picking the fourth Congressional district. It seems to me that selling the Democratic message right there is going to do the most good upticket and for owa in general. I'm assuming that our two House Freshmen who took districts that were blue-leaning to begin with are pretty much safe, and that Senator Harkin will eat his opponent for breakfast and call for seconds.
I'm also assuming that Iowa will lose a seat in the next round of redistricting, and that Leonard Boswell will decide to retire around that time. Redistricting in Iowa is done by nonpartisan commission, so there will be no gerrymandering. The existing 1st 2nd and 5th districts, just by reason of geography, will probably have most of their existing area left intact, each one adding territory from the existing 3rd and 4th, leaving the new 3rd as a central Iowa district centered around Des Moines and counties to the north. If Latham's still around then, that district will favor him for the following decade. If we can defeat him in 2008 or 2010, his replacement will be comfortably favored and Iowa's delegation will be 3 to 1 Democrat (with the uphill fight to take King down still on the table). The existing 4th has a partisan index near zero, so it can be done.
MINNESOTA: The highest tier US Senate race in the Midwest. There are downticket races, like the 6th and 2nd CDs, but they all take a backseat to the race to defeat Coleman. I think Franken can win, and is certainly a much better choice than Skip Humphry and the other colorless, unexciting establishment candidates that have been mentioned. If you think otherwise, I ask that you say so by suggesting a better candidate and talking that candidate up, not by bashing Big Al. Bashing Franken is for Republicans to do.
WISCONSIN: Kagen needs some attention to be re-elected in the 8th, and three Republicans (especially Ryan in the 1st) need strong challengers, and the state is too light blue for the national ticket to be able to ignore the state completely. However, the highest priority is to achieve the state government trifecta. We have the Governor, and we got the State Senate last year and are within striking distance of the lower house. The payoff of getting a united state government is that the Democrats then get to demonstrate by doing, to pass progressive agendas, show that they work to benefit their lucky citizens and give Democrats in all other states something to point to, to inspire others to vote themselves a blue state. Plus, if we control redistricting, there's the chance to carve two Dem districts out of Milwaukee-Racine-Kenosha, for a 8 to 2 majority.
Illinois: So many Congressional districts to challenge! There's Shamekus down south in the 19th, whose involvement in the Foley scandal broke too late for us to do much with him--that time. There's the Champaign-Urbana based 15th, which does not deserve a Gooper. And the blue-trending Chicago suburbs of the 6th, 10th and 11th, where 2006 challengers cut their prvious losing margins in half or better. Not to mention the American dream of taking down Hastert the Unspeakable himself. It's a close call, and really, all of them need and deserve high profile races, but I'm going to say the 11th, mostly because capturing that seat will make the redistricting job easier when we have the chance to eliminate several Republicans at once. That choice will probably change once we know who the candidates are, but for now, focus on getting the biggest dog we can into the race. More appropriately, all of the races.
INDIANA: We got both houses of the state Legislature this year, and now it's time to take back the Governor's mansion. This state is different from Missouri in that Indiana is much less of a battleground in Presidential races--although I wouldn't complain if the national ticket decided to at least try here, for once. Imagine turning on the TV in November and being told right off the bat that Indiana had gone blue for the first time in decades. Even too-close-to-call would be a signal of doom for the GOP. And we have three newly won CDs to defend, and at least one--the 3rd--that lost all the attention last year due to more high profile targets elsewhere, and should be worth a look in 2008.
MICHIGAN: Like Illinois, an abundance of Congressional seats to fight for--the 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th in particular, are mentioned, and none of them made it to the big radar last year, for reasons someone else will have to explain. However, I say, winning the state legislature is the most important task, to prevent a replay of the awful, awful district maps we have to work with today. If Michigan is going to lose a seat, let it be Republican. If we control the table, we could end up losing a seat and still having more Democrats than we do now.
OHIO: Yes, it could determine who gets to be President. Yes, we have up to five GOP House seats to take, and at least one to defend. What to look at first? Easy--decertifying the Diebold machines. I mean it. It shouldn't be too hard to do. Ohio has a new Dem Governor and a new Dem Secretary of State, and presumably they're interested in keeping their jobs and helping other Democrats. But the people are going to have to demand it, and finish off the most divisive political bone of contention I've seen on Kos, once and for all. All those electoral contests can get looked at after that, because all of them follow from re-establishing the integrity of the process. Then, even if it turns out Schmidt and Kilroy and McCain all narrrowly and surprisingly win, well, at least we'll know it's because the voters actually chose them.
And there's your preliminary, 50-state analysis, complete for this round.