Under the defensive side of the cycle is a way that want to find the easier offices until tie the current number of offices in Democratic hands in every level of power.
To tie the number of the offices in Democratic hands at the begin of the cycle mean not to keep the current offices in Democratic hands. Sometimes that is no possible because the redistricting process cancel some districts, and other times is diffucult because some offices get open by Democratic incumbents in difficult places.
The offices that get not between the easier offices are replaced by the easier gains, taking them also as part of the defensive side of the cycle.
The overview for every level:
PRESIDENT-VICEPRESIDENT LEVEL
Without keeping the President and the Vicepresident in blue hands we can not have a success in the defensive side of the cycle.
The polls are giving good results here. My numbers (that change with every new data or poll) tell Obama is winning:
...
WA: +13.58
ME: +13.42
CT: +12.75
NJ: +12.50
NM: +8.25
OR: +7.13
MN: +6.92
MI: +5.00
WI: +4.83
NV: +4.67
OH: +4.50 R+
PA: +4.33
---------------------- 271 votes (needed 270)
CO: +3.83
VA: +3.75 R+
NH: +2.83
IA: +2.58
FL: +1.00 R+
NE-02: -1.14 R+
NC: -1.67 R+
AZ: -6.42 R+
SC: -6.67 R+
---------------------- 368 votes (2008 365)
The necessary states for winning the majority of votes are in the defensive side of the cycle with a little safety margin. CO, VA, NH, IA and FL would be also included.
For the 20 states betwen D+6 and R+6 that I follow closely the current data are -5.2% lower than the average in 2008. That mean Obama would be winning to Romney by 2.0%. We can to round off 2%.
After see the statewide polls I can draw this map:
SENATE-GUBERNATORIAL LEVEL
2006 and 2008 were good years for the Democratic Party, and that mean to keep the number of offices in this level is a difficult goal. But it is also a necessary goal because the majority in the Senate is in risk, specially after 2014 elections. If we have three consecutive weak elections in 2010, 2012 and 2014 the majority will be Republican after 2014.
We have also polls for the most competitive races, and that make easier the analysis. Taking B Sanders (VT), L Chafee (RI) and A King (ME) as "Democrats" and following the same rules than before my numbers tell at this point:
41: ME-Sen (now R inc)
42: MI-Sen
43: FL-Sen
17: MO-Gov
44: MO-Sen
45: HI-Sen
18: WA-Gov
46: WI-Sen
47: OH-Sen
48: NM-Sen
19: NH-Gov
49: PA-Sen
50: CT-Sen
51: VA-Sen
52: MA-Sen (now R inc)
20: MT-Gov
53: IN-Sen (now R inc)
54: ND-Sen
---------------------------------- (tie point)
55: MT-Sen (now D inc)
56: NV-Sen
57: AZ-Sen
21: IN-Gov
58: NE-Sen (now D inc)
22: NC-Gov (now D inc)
Many of the competitive races in this level are also in competitive states in the race for President, and I think that can help to the Democratic Party. The number of competitive races is big. A bad result in 2012 can give the majority in the senate to the Republicans.
But at same time if the Democratic Party catch the tie point, will have 54 senate seats, and that would be a very good basis for keeping the senate majority after 2014. The current situation drive the tie point to a point where the Democratic party wins one Senate seat but loses one Governor.
I wish to note that against the logical results, the polls show Obama overperforming the local Democratic candidates in many of the senate races in the R+low states. The Republicans are fighting the senate really hard this cycle. Specially the dark money. I would tell they are fighting the senate even harder than the race for President. I think the true goal of the dark money of the right is to win the majority in the Senate in 2012 or 2014, even over the election for President. I think they want a Republican president in 2016 with a Republican majority in the Senate and the House, even more than a Republican president in 2012 without majority in both chambers. Of course that mean not the Democratic Party must work less in the reelection of Obama. But I think the Democratic Party should work very hard for losing not the majority in the Senate.
Some Democratic candidates in races of the defensive side of the cycle of this level are back fundraising:
HI-Sen: M Hirono (D)
NM-Sen: M Heinrich (D)
NH-Gov: M Hassan (D)
PA-Sen: R Casey (D)
CT-Sen: C Murphy (D)
IN-Sen: J Donnelly (D)
No-one of them should be back.
US HOUSE-STATEWIDE LEVEL
After the bad 2010 year this level give a easier prospect for the Democratic Party. But this time the fight for the US House seems more quiet. The republicans and the Democrats are and will be more focused in the fight for President and for the Senate, then, it is logical the resources go to support the candidates that are fighting for it.
For finding the tie point that keep the number of offices in the cycle in this level, is necesary to take into account the previous gains and loses.
LA-AG --- KY-SS (R+ gain 2011)
NY-09 --- NY-27 (R+ gain 2011)
And also is necessary to take into account the effect of the redistricting process. In the left side will be the Democratic seats that disappear after the redistricting and in the right side the seats that must compensate these loses.
MO-03 --- TX-33 (D+ new)
OH-13 --- OH-03 (D+ open by Republican)
OH-10 --- FL-09 (D+ new)
PA-04 --- WA-SS (D+ open by Republican)
MI-13 --- WA-AG (D+ open by Republican)
NJ-09 --- PA-AG (D+ open by Republican)
NY-22 --- VT-SA (D+ open by Republican)
MA-01 --- TX-34 (D+ new)
There are also some seats that now get out the easier offices for keeping the current number of offices in this level. This time to be in the left side mean to be out the easier offices, but mean not to be a lose because in this level it is possible to increase the number of offices in Democratic hands. And to be in the right side mean again to be between the easier offices for keeping the current number of offices in Democratic hands in this level.
AR-04 --- IL-08 (Weak Republican incumbent in D+)
OK-02 --- WA-10 (D+ new)
NC-13 --- FL-22 (D+ new)
CA-21 --- IL-13 (D+ open by Republican)
MT-AG --- MD-06 (Weak Republican incumbent in D+)
NC-11 --- NH-02 (Weak Republican incumbent in D+)
IN-02 --- AZ-09 (R+ new)
MO-SS --- IL-11 (Weak Republican incumbent in D+)
NC-LG --- NY-24 (Weak Republican incumbent in D+)
MA-06 D+ --- TX-14 (R+ open by Republican)
CO-07 D+ --- FL-26 (Weak Republican incumbent in R+)
IA-03 --- MT-LG (R+ open by Republican)
UT-04 --- MN-08 (Weak Republican incumbent in EVEN)
NC-08 --- MI-01 (Weak Republican incumbent in R+)
NY-27 --- FL-02 (Weak Republican incumbent in R+)
Note that NY-27 appears as gain (in 2011) and as potential lose now.
Some races of this level appear with fundraising disadvantage at this point:
OR-SS: K Brown
WV-AG: D McGraw
CA-47: A Lowenthal
CA-33: H Waxman
FL-22: L Frankel
IL-13: D Gill
CA-09: J McNerney
IL-12: W Enyart
IL-11: W Foster
NY-24: D Maffei
TX-14: N Lampson
MN-08: R Nolan
MI-01: G McDowell
FL-02: A Lawson
ND-SPI: T Potter
Again, no-one of them should be back fundraising.
All this analysis drive to the alert that is in my following diary, that look at some gains for this cycle. I let the alert only in one diary to need not to update the same alert in both diaries.
PS1: All the results in this diary are Rasmussen narrative free
PS2: I will update this diary until the election day.