This diary is intended to be an overview of the 2008 House elections picture. In the coming weeks, I will profile each district and race listed below (plus those which later look competitive due to retirements, scandals, or exceptional challengers) and also put together vulnerability rankings as I did in 2006. Overall, the successes of 2006 (winning fully 30 seats previously held by Republicans and holding all of our own marginal seats) mean that there will be a healthy dose of defense this time. Nonetheless, there are numerous potential Republican targets as well. And this is before most retirement announcements. I include 59 GOP seats and 44 Dem seats here.
The environment in 2008 so far looks to be as promising for the Democrats as 2006 was. Each of the Democrats’ three presidential frontrunners are drawing better crowds and raising more money than their Republican counterparts. With the exception of trial matchups between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani , the Democratic possibilities lead the Republicans in the polls and have better favorability numbers. The generic ballot tests both for President and for Congress heavily favor the Dems—at approximately 2006 levels.
At the Congressional level, the DCCC and the DSCC have far outpaced their Republican counterparts in fundraising. The RNC still has more cash than the DNC, but even that gap is narrowing and at any rate, the RNC cash is almost certainly going to go to prop up the Republican Presidential nominee. On the House side, this means that the Democrats will have the luxury of expanding the playing field in their favor, simultaneously increasing the opportunity for pickups and making our own vulnerable seats more secure since the NRCC simply does not have the wherewithal to defend its own turf and target the 30 districts the Dems won in 2006 plus the handful of others they’d like to.
Further, there are three more institutional advantages the Democrats are likely to have going into 2008. First, it is likely (although it has not yet happened) that there will be a large number of GOP retirements in 2008. Serving in the House in the minority is not nearly as fun or rewarding as serving in the majority. Members of the House can usually find much better paying jobs in the private sector if they want them. Others simply may decide that the hassle of politics is no longer worth it. In 1996, following the 1994 GOP gain of the majority, 31 Democratic House members retired or sought higher office. The Republicans picked up 10 of those seats, holding the net Democratic gains in that year when President Clinton was easily reelected to 8.
Second, the subtle shifts of some Republican voters into the Independent camp and the embrasure of the Democrats by Independents means that districts previously considered lean Republican are now much more even as a practical matter. Given that the coordinated Republican strategy when redistricting in 2001 was to create as many lean Republican districts as possible, this creates many opportunities for the Dems that wouldn’t otherwise be expected one cycle after picking up 30 seats. I am looking mainly at Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania here. Each of those states was thought to be a GOP gerrymandering masterpiece. Florida has 9 seats the Cook Report rates as R+1 to R+5; Michigan has 7; Ohio has 6; and Pennsylvania has 3. The Dems have only 4 of these 25 seats currently (Boyd and Mahoney in FL, Stupak in MI, and Altmire in PA).
Third, the Democrats have a huge number of first time candidates who lost close races in 2006 back for rematches. While strictly speaking rematches are not successful a great amount of the time, when they are it is almost always where a first time candidate runs a good race against an entrenched incumbent and brings the incumbent’s winning percentage down. The challenger has built a name and some good feeling for themselves and softened the GOP incumbent up for the next time out. Many of the second time candidates fit that bill. By my count, we have our 2006 nominee either running or publicly considering it in 22 of the top 50 vulnerable GOP seats: Dan Maffei (NY 25), Jack Davis (NY 26), Randy Kuhl (NY 29), Paul Aronsohn (NJ 05), Linda Stender (NJ 07), Phil Kellam (VA 02), Larry Kissell (NC 08), Christine Jennings (FL 13), Clint Curtis (FL 24), Victoria Wulsin (OH 02), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH 15), Sharon Renier (MI 07), Nancy Skinner (MI 09), Tammy Duckworth (IL 06), Dan Seals (IL 10), Selden Spencer (IA 04), Jim Esch (NE 02), Larry Grant (ID 01), Gary Trauner (WY AL), Jill Derby (NV 02), Charlie Brown (CA 04), and Darcy Burner (WA 08).
To briefly address concerns many undoubtedly have, I doubt that the passage of the supplemental funding for Iraq without timelines for withdraw last week will have a material impact on the 2008 dynamics. For those sick of this topic (or have seen my comments on the topic over the past few days), feel free to skip the next 5 paragraphs.
Regardless of the fact that the Democratic leadership allowed the bill to come to a vote (and many Dems voted for it), Iraq remains George Bush’s (and his party’s) pet war. Congressional Democrats passed (almost entirely on party lines) a funding bill mandating timelines to withdraw (not to mention that a majority of the caucus in both houses supported an immediate withdrawal bill). Bush vetoed the timelines bill, and the Congressional Republicans upheld that veto by voting almost uniformly against an override motion supported by almost all Congressional Democrats. Bush then signaled that he would likewise veto anything else which contained any non-ignorable directives to get out of Iraq by a date certain (and Congressional Republicans were poised to sustain further vetoes.
This left the Congressional leadership with exactly two options: 1) pass the clean funding bill that Bush wanted and put in other legislative items that we want (e.g. minimum wage raise, Katrina relief); or 2) pass nothing and allow funding to lapse (continually passing things that get vetoed is the same thing with more fruitless activity). Option 1 (which is what ultimately happened) does not change the status quo which is that we are mired in an unwinnable foreign quagmire at Bush’s whim and if we are still there in 2008 and the situation has not improved, Bush and his party will be spanked at the polls.
Option 2 would have likely had little practical effect on the war because it would not include any sort of directive from Congress to end the conflict (other than maybe a non-binding resolution) or even to stop spending money there. It simply would be a failure to put money in the budget for ongoing operations there. There are differing opinions over whether this would actually cause any hardships to the troops on the ground or, indeed, have any practical effect on the course of the war. There are several options Bush and the Pentagon would have to continue apace, including shifting other Pentagon money around, employing the Feed and Forage Act (which allows funding for essential military functions even without an appropriation), deficit spending, and extorting funds from the Iraqis would be four that immediately leap to mind. With all of these options available, it is simply unrealistic to expect that allowing funding to lapse would bring about an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq.
The narrative would be unpredictable: on the one hand, such a legislative action would be a strong statement of opposition to the war; on the other hand, whether true or not, the media narrative would surely be that the Democrats were sabotaging the war effort and irresponsibly causing hardships to the men and women on the ground in Iraq and it would open the door to a 2008 GOP campaign of "we could have won in Iraq if the Democrats hadn’t..." By getting the funding, on the other hand, Bush continues to have noone to blame for the disaster but himself. By upholding the veto of the bill with timelines, the Congressional Republicans have tied themselves—again—to Bush and that failure.
Now, at best, Republican candidates can point to this week’s bill and say "they voted for it too." This would be the same as the Democrats’ own lame attempt in 2002 to "take Iraq off the table" by pointing out that they, too, voted for the war authorization. The public knew then that it was a Bush-GOP operation and the Democrats got nowhere by saying "me too!" when it was popular. Likewise, the Republicans will not get anywhere in 2008 by saying "them too!" now that it is unpopular.
OK, not completely brief. I apologize.
In any event, the goal for Democrats in the 2008 House elections will be twofold. First and foremost, it will be to retain seats won in 2006. Only Nick Lampson, who took Tom DeLay’s TX-22 against a write-in opponent, looks like a decided underdog (and he might leave the seat to challenge Sen. John Cornyn basically guaranteeing the GOP a pickup), but many more freshman won GOP-lean districts and will see strong challenges. The second goal will be to expand the 2006 gains out of the northeast into the other regions of the country—particularly the Midwest, where the GOP still has an overall 52-51 edge in House seats even though the Dems hold 17 of the region’s 26 Senate seats. One advantage the Democrats have going in is that despite taking 30 seats in 2006, they actually lost most of the closest races, so there are more GOP incumbents than Dem incumbents who won narrowly last time out.
I divide this overview into the four regions:
Northeast
The Dems in 2006 really devastated the Republicans in this region. The party had 11 of its 30 pickups there, resulting in a 68-24 Democratic edge. In other words, the Democrats claimed 31% of the GOP’s seats in the northeast in 2006. Despite this, as many as 15 of the remaining 24 Republican seats could be vulnerable in 2008. On the flipside, each of the 11 freshman Dems who won GOP seats in ’06 could face competitive challenges plus the Dems have a potentially competitive open seat. The districts I’m looking at in the northeast are:
Maine 01 (OPEN—Allen (D) is running for Senate)
New Hampshire 01 (Shea-Porter (D))
New Hampshire 02 (Hodes (D))
Connecticut 02 (Courtney (D))
Connecticut 04 (Shays (R))
Connecticut 05 (Murphy (D))
New York 03 (King (R))
New York 13 (Fossella (R))
New York 19 (Hall (D))
New York 20 (Gillibrand (D))
New York 24 (Arcuri (D))
New York 25 (Walsh (R))
New York 26 (Reynolds (R))
New York 29 (Kuhl (R))
New Jersey 03 (Saxton (R))--potential retiree
New Jersey 05 (Garrett (R))
New Jersey 07 (Ferguson (R))
Pennsylvania 03 (English (R))
Pennsylvania 04 (Altmire (D))
Pennsylvania 06 (Gerlach (R))
Pennsylvania 07 (Sestak (R))
Pennsylvania 08 (Murphy (D))
Pennsylvania 10 (Carney (D))
Pennsylvania 15 (Dent (R))
Pennsylvania 18 (Murphy (R))
Delaware at Large (Castle (R)) --potential retiree
South
Believe it or not, the South was not the Democrats’ worst region in 2006; they picked up 6 seats as opposed to only 4 in the West. The Dems also held both Georgia seats which were specifically DeLaymandered to oust Dem incumbents. Granted, two of the pickups were very quirky (Mahoney taking the Foley seat in Florida and Lampson taking the DeLay seat in Texas) and a third was due to the Supreme Court’s partial striking down of the original DeLaymander (Rodriguez over Bonilla in TX-23). But still, there are signs that the Dems’ slide here has been halted. For 2008, I am looking at 10 opportunities for the Dems (mostly in Florida) and 11 defenses (the 6 pickups from 2006, the 2 Georgia seats, and 3 more veteran Dems in conservative districts who are never completely safe):
Virginia 02 (Drake (R))
Virginia 11 (Davis (R)) --potential Senate candidate
North Carolina 08 (Hayes (R))
North Carolina 11 (Shuler (D))
South Carolina 05 (Spratt (D))
Georgia 08 (Marshall (D))
Georgia 12 (Barrow (D))
Florida 08 (Keller (R))
Florida 09 (Bilirakis (R))
Florida 10 (Young (R)) --potential retiree
Florida 13 (Buchanan (R))
Florida 15 (Weldon (R))
Florida 16 (Mahoney (D))
Florida 22 (Klein (D))
Florida 24 (Feeney (R))
Florida 25 (M. Diaz-Balart (R))
Kentucky 03 (Yarmuth (D))
Louisiana 03 (Melancon (D))
Texas 17 (Edwards (D))
Texas 22 (Lampson (D))
Texas 23 (Rodriguez (D)
Midwest
The Midwest was perhaps the scene of the most Democratic disappointments on an otherwise hugely successful Election Night 2006—at least on the House side. True, the party picked up 9 seats in the region, second only to the Northeast, but there could have been many more (concentrated in three states). John Cranley, Victoria Wulsin, and Mary Jo Kilroy came up just short in Ohio; Sharon Renier and Nancy Skinner came unexpectedly close in Michigan; and Tammy Duckworth and Dan Seals narrowly lost in Illinois. As a result, the GOP still holds an overall one seat edge in the region. I have identified fully 21 opportunity districts for the Dems, and 14 defenses:
West Virginia 02 (Capito (R))
Ohio 01 (Chabot (R))
Ohio 02 (Schmidt (R))
Ohio 12 (Tiberi (R))
Ohio 14 (LaTourette (R))
Ohio 15 (Pryce (R))
Ohio 16 (Regula (R)) --likely retiree
Ohio 18 (Space (D))
Michigan 07 (Walberg (R))
Michigan 08 (Rogers (R))
Michigan 09 (Knollenberg (R))--potential retiree
Michigan 11 (McCotter (R))
Indiana 02 (Donnelly (D))
Indiana 07 (Carson (D)) --potential retiree
Indiana 08 (Ellsworth (D))
Indiana 09 (Hill (D))
Illinois 06 (Roskam (R))
Illinois 08 (Bean (D))
Illinois 10 (Kirk (R))
Illinois 11 (Weller (R))
Illinois 13 (Biggert (R))
Wisconsin 08 (Kagen (D))
Minnesota 01 (Walz (D))
Minnesota 02 (Kline (R))
Minnesota 06 (Bachmann (R))
Iowa 01 (Braley (D))
Iowa 02 (Loebsack (D))
Iowa 03 (Boswell (D))
Iowa 04 (Latham (R))
Missouri 06 (Graves (R))
Missouri 09 (Hulshof (R)) --potential retiree
Kansas 02 (Boyda (D))
Nebraska 02 (Terry (R))
South Dakota at Large (Herseth (D))
North Dakota at Large (Pomeroy (D))
West
If there was a region with more disappointing near misses in 2006 than the Midwest, it was the West. Despite many targeted races, the Democrats picked up only 4 seats: open seats in Arizona and Colorado that the GOP basically conceded and wins by Harry Mitchell (AZ 05) and Jerry McNerney (CA 11). In addition, the following came up just short: Larry Grant in Idaho, Gary Trauner in Wyoming, Angie Paccione in Colorado, Jill Derby and Tessa Hafen in Nevada, Patricia Madrid in New Mexico, Charlie Brown in California, and Darcy Burner in Washington.
These seats and others provide the Democrats with 13 opportunities; there are 8 defenses to be somewhat concerned about.
Idaho 01 (Sali (R))
Wyoming at Large (Cubin (R))
Colorado 02 (OPEN—Udall (D) is running for Senate)
Colorado 03 (Salazar (D))
Colorado 04 (Musgrave (R))
Colorado 07 (Perlmutter (D))
Utah 02 (Matheson (D))
Nevada 02 (Heller (R))
Nevada 03 (Porter (R))
New Mexico 01 (Wilson (R))
Arizona 01 (Renzi (R)) --potential retiree
Arizona 05 (Mitchell (D))
Arizona 08 (Giffords (D))
California 04 (Doolittle (R)) --potential retiree
California 11 (McNerney (D))
California 26 (Dreier (R)
California 50 (Bilbray (R))
California 52 (OPEN—Hunter (R) is retiring and running for President)
Oregon 05 (Hooley (D))
Washington 05 (McMorris (R))
Washington 08 (Reichert (R))