Swing State Project

« TX-28: Early Voting Looks to Favor Ciro | Main | TX-28: This Is Crunch Time »

Monday, March 06, 2006

Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In?

Posted by DavidNYC

With the Texas primaries on Tuesday, I'm having a hard time thinking about anything but TX-28. Same with you?

Posted at 10:00 AM in 2006 Elections - House, Texas | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2201

Comments

Iowa 4th just got a challenger. He could use some help getting on the ballot if you've got any readers in Iowa (it's a little harder here than in Ohio ;-).

Posted by: Drew Miller at March 5, 2006 11:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

PA-8

Good news here in Pennsylvania for the 8th congressional seat. Over the weekend the party overwhelming voted to endorse Patrick Murphy (see fighting dems) by a margin of 264-114. He is opposed by Andy Warren, who was part of the local republican establishment until last year when he decided he would like to run for congress. Unfortunately Mr. Warren’s new “enlightenment” brought along some typical republican traits with him. Realizing he did not have the votes for the nomination he has resorted to personal attacks. Such as trying to paint Murphy as an outsider who has not lived in the area and does not vote in elections. I guess Murphy serving his country being deployed to Bosnia in 2002 and again to Baghdad, Iraq in 2003-2004 as a paratrooper with the 82d Airborne Division is not a good enough for some people.

www.murphy06.com

Posted by: Buckscountydem at March 5, 2006 01:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thinking more generally than any one specific race, did everyone see the Fox poll that came out the other day. Not only did the "Fair and Balanced" network have the President's approval rating down to 39%, I think the poll contained something even more important -- the GOP only had a 5-point edge over Democrats on the issue of dealing with terrorism. I think this is the issue we're most vulnerable on in the fall, and it's the card Republicans are going to play over and over and over and over again (well, they don't really have anything else). If we go into the summer and fall only behind 5 points on that question, we're in really good shape.

Posted by: IndianaProgressive at March 5, 2006 01:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

As usual I'm focused on CA-11. But I'm getting increasingly interested in the GOP primary. Pete McCloskey is not going to beat Richard Pombo. But in the last couple of days I've heard that the Sierra Club and a national women's organization are both going to back McCloskey in the primary. And hopefully they'll give him money to just beat the living hell out of Pombo. It ought to be fun to watch.

Also, on the Democratic side of things, I just found out that the California Young Dems have targeted the Pombo race in November (I guess they're staying out of the primary). I was at a house party last night that was a fundraiser for
CYD and the Action Caucus. They're going to develop a web-based ride board a la Driving Votes to help make sure that people who want to volunteer in the district have the ability to get there. I'm really excited to see the emerging youth component to the anti-Pombo activism. The race is important in its own right. But as a cause to organize around, it's playing a huge role in bringing somewhat disparate progressive groups together.

Posted by: Matt Lockshin at March 5, 2006 01:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Soundslike good news from PA-8.

In CA-11, I have to admit to being tempted, for the first time in decades, to send money to a Republican. McCloskey is a throwback to a branch of the GOP otherwise dead. He was one of the most important champions of the environment, when he was in Congress, and he opposed Nixon on the Vietnam war - even ran against him, in the New Hampshire primary.

I don't think I would support even Pete McCloskey against a progressive Democrat in November. But if he can seriously batter Pombo in their primary, that's all to the good.

Posted by: Christopher Walker at March 5, 2006 03:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

A few races i'm interested in.

TX-28: All behind Ciro.
TX-Gov: No horse in the primary maybe a Democrat can win in the chaos of Independents running.
FL-Gov: Moved from Davis to undecided but i don't want to support Smith in the primary untill he can get his poll numbers up.
FL-15: Get Bowman on the ballot!
OH-Sen/OH-15: I feel like we are slowly but surely on the path to loseing both of these races there not getting much attention and the last poll i saw showed Sherrod Brown down 7 points.
VA-Sen: Webb is the magic 6 to give us the majority.
PA-Gov: Looks like Trends are showing that Rendell will move back into the lead.
CO-Gov: By 2008 i think this will be a blue state assumeing we don't nominate Hilary. Ritter looks to be in a good position with commanding leads.
NV-Sen: Are we giving up here?
MA-Gov: Hopeing Patrick can win the nomination and general.
TX-22: Delay has his own primary interested in who wins that hope Delay by a very small margin.
AK-Gov: Hopeing TK stays out and runs in 2008 when Ted Stevens retires i belive he will anyway if not then in 2010.
AR-Gov: Need to make wins in the south.
MN-Sen: Is looking like the only place the GOP has a chance for a steal NJ and MD seem to be moving farther to the Democrats.

Just a few things on my mind...

Posted by: D in FL. at March 5, 2006 05:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

D in FL, the GOP only take the MN-Sen race if Klobuchar makes a serious blunder or if Mark Kennedy shocks and awes voters with his charisma and charm. Neither seems likely right now. I'd give Kean a better chance in NJ than Kennedy in MN, at least at this point.

Posted by: Mark at March 5, 2006 06:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

MT-AL

Last week Monica Lindeen proved that Montana Democrats tradition of straight talk and bold ideas on issues that matter is gender neutral. While too many politicians around the country--and too often Democrats--mince words when it comes to controversial issues like Iraq and simply offer platitudes on complex issues like energy policy, Monica Lindeen proves why Brian Schweitzer says she is the woman to beat Dennis "The Drunken Horseman" Rehberg. She tells the truth about what the she thinks about the issues, and she's not afraid to think big.

At a time when politicians are often unwilling to take a stand on anything, Monica is laying it on the line to call for Congressional accountability as Iraqi teeters on the brink of civil war and has the ideas to lay out a plan for energy independence to create jobs in Montana and end the days that America's young people have to risk their lives for foriegn oil. Straight talk on tough issues should be rewarded.

The Lindeen campaign has apparently recieved a ton of contributions since taking a strong stand on accountability in Iraq and energy independence at home. Please help "make a difference".

Learn more about Monica's bold stands at"www.bigskydemocrats.org".

Posted by: Montana_Dem at March 6, 2006 12:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

MT-AL

Last week Monica Lindeen proved that Montana Democrats tradition of straight talk and bold ideas on issues that matter is gender neutral. While too many politicians around the country--and too often Democrats--mince words when it comes to controversial issues like Iraq and simply offer platitudes on complex issues like energy policy, Monica Lindeen proves why Brian Schweitzer says she is the woman to beat Dennis Rehberg. She tells the truth about what the she thinks about the issues, and she's not afraid to think big.

At a time when politicians are often unwilling to take a stand on anything, Monica is laying it on the line to call for Congressional accountability as Iraqi teeters on the brink of civil war and has the ideas to lay out a plan for energy independence to create jobs in Montana and end the days that America's young people have to risk their lives for foriegn oil. Straight talk on tough issues should be rewarded.

The Lindeen campaign has apparently recieved a ton of contributions since taking a strong stand on accountability in Iraq and energy independence at home. Please help at www.lindeen.net

Posted by: Montana_Dem at March 6, 2006 12:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

MN-SEN: I think we are going to win this one, but it will take hard work and a very solid campaign from Klobuchar.

MN-01: John Kerry has been raising money for Tim Walz.

MN-06: El or Patty? I can't decide.

TX-28: Go Ciro Go! Win Ciro Win!

MT-SEN: Just dropped a recurring contribution for Jon Tester. We need this guy to win that primary!

Posted by: DFLer22 at March 6, 2006 09:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am interested in how the Democrats get on in the South in 2006. It seems to me to be the only area of the country where the 50 state strategy is lagging.

AL-Gov. Baxley is a solid candidate, but I think Riley is beginning to heal the fractures in the GOP base (which, let's face it, is pretty dominant in Alabama - I guess that's why the Democrats are struggling to find challengers in AL-01, AL-02, AL-03, AL-04, & AL-06).

AR-Gov. I am optimistic about Beebe's chances for a pick-up here.

FL-Sen. As long as Harris ends up on the ballot, Nelson wins by at least 5%.

FL-22. I think this is one of the best opportunities the Democrats have to pick off a GOP incumbent in the country. I rate this along with AZ-08, CO-07, CT-02, CT-04, IA-01, KY-04, PA-06 as absolute must-win races if the Democrats are going to retake the House.

NC-08. Will this be the year that Robin Hayes finally pays the price for his CAFTA vote? Whether its Dunn or Kissell, the Democrats need the political wind at their back here.

NC-11. I like Shuler's chances better than I do Kissell or Dunn because I think the 'culture of corruption' will be a brutally simple & effective message everywhere in November, but especially in districts where the incumbent has 'form'.

VA-Sen. I think Webb has to be the favourite in the primary until Miller succeeds in defining how his candidacy is going to play outside of Northern Virginia. Webb's biography is his strongest (and most unimpeachable) card at this point.

VA-02. David Ashe was a good candidate last year - this is exactly the kind of race where Kellum might go further on Webb's Navy-friendly credentials.

Posted by: Tom at March 6, 2006 10:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We need to focus exclusively on the 19 Old-South GOP-held House seats still lacking a Democratic challenger. Filing deadlines are coming up very soon for the 2 seats S. Carolina (3/30), 1 each in Arkansas (4/4) and Tennessee (4/6), all 5 seats in Alabama (4/7), 2 in Virginia (4/14), 3 in Georgia (4/28), 2 in Florida (5/12), 3 in Louisiana (8/11). Until we can regain ballot presences across the entire South, Dean's goal won't be realized. Returning these to 2-party politics can't help but protect these lower-income states from the shock of losing committee chair power after we regain a House majority.

Posted by: Florida Prof at March 6, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think we're pretty much screwed in Alabama. We have no hope of winning ANY of the seats there--to the best of my knowledge, so we're looking for nominal challengers at worst--or at best, gutsy kamikaze candidates. But the state party requires a ridiculously high filing fee--something just under $5k, I think. Hell, some of our Congressional challengers in other red states can't even RAISE $5k to qualify for an FEC report. The gates are high indeed, in the state of Alabama...

Posted by: HellofaSandwich at March 6, 2006 01:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

CA-11:
Sabato's Crystal Ball 2/9:
California (11)

Outlook: Likely Republican

This race is part of the Crystal Ball's "Watch List" of the next 20 House races worth keeping an eye on.

Seven-term GOP Rep. Richard Pombo has carried this Stockton-based district easily for over a decade, but of late Democrats have accused him of ethics lapses and want very badly to target this seat in 2006. Although Pombo should easily dispatch liberal, anti-war Republican primary opponent former Rep. Pete McCloskey, his chief opposition for an eighth term is likely to be a Democrat: either former Top Gun Steve Filson, who has had the inside track to Washington support, or businessman Jerry McNerney, who has amassed considerable labor and grassroots backing in the district. Though a draining Democratic primary is possible, both Filson and McNerney would surely seek to take Pombo to task for alleged taxpayer-funded family vacations to national parks. Still, Pombo holds a huge fundraising advantage and will have all the resources he needs to rebut Democratic charges of impropriety.

Candidate - 4th Quarter Raised - Cash on Hand
Richard Pombo (R)* - $374,117.34 - $841,793.10
Steve Filson (D) - $51,156.18 - $102,498.52

Needless to say I don't agree with Sabato's take. This race is at least a "Toss Up". Mc Closkey will do damage to Pombo but won't win the primary. It boils down to Filson & McNerney and whether or not Mc Closkey would formally endorse the Dem candidate (that'd be a help). Feinstein at the top of the ticket is a possible help. Assuming that Ahnold will not recover, he'll be of no help to Pombo.

VA-2 is one of our best chances for a pick-up. Kellam is a strong candidate, Ashe left the race in a positive manner to take a spot on Tim Kaine's staff. Although this district leans GOP it is fairly socially liberal and went to Kaine in the last election. If Webb is the Senate nominee, this also helps in this military linked district.

TX 28 - Go Ciro!

VA-4 - Needs a candidate! Kilgore did win this District but by less than 50% (49.6%). Not a totally hopeless district. Before redistricting made it more GOP, this was (D) Norm Sisisky's district.

Posted by: Predictor at March 6, 2006 01:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

CT-02, CT-04, CT-05 are winnable for the Dems. Connecticut is a very blue state. These three congressional seats are held by supposedly "moderate" Republicans, all who are vulnerable in '06, given national trends. I am particularly interested in CT-02 which was a Dem district until 2000. We have a good candidate and can take it back this year, if we can somehow attract money to this race. Every Dem who lives in a safe Democratic district should be giving money to a race such as these, where your dollars are really needed and can make a difference.

Posted by: MVD at March 6, 2006 02:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

My source in CT is reporing that both Johnson (R-5) and Simmons (R-2) are in trouble, more so than Shays (R-4). Surprising as I would have guessed Shays as being the most vulnerable. One of the problems here is Rell (R) coasting to victory and her effect on the rest of the ticket.
Its good that all 3 of these CT districts have viable Dem candidates and hopefully the DCCC will pour in the money.

Posted by: Predictor at March 6, 2006 04:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

From Charlie Cook's site:
(I don't agree with his take: "the potential for losses of the magnitude of many previous six-year elections is negligible." and find it amazing that he makes such a statement after giving historical examples of tsunami-like turnover election cycles. I always assume that Cook is more pro-gop than not).

"The relevance in examining what happened last year and what is occurring this year is that it will help determine whether the historical second-term midterm election, dubbed the "six-year itch" phenomenon, occurs in November.
In February 1958, at this point in his presidency, President Eisenhower had a Gallup job approval rating of 54 percent. In November it was 52 percent, and Republicans lost 13 Senate and 48 House seats.
In February 1966, in the sixth year of the Kennedy/Johnson administration, President Johnson had a 56 percent Gallup approval rating. Going into November, it was 44 percent, and Democrats lost four Senate seats and 47 House seats.
President Nixon's approval rating in February 1974 was 27 percent. After Nixon left office, President Ford went into the midterm election with a 54 percent approval rating, having dropped 21 points after his pardon of Nixon. In the wake of Watergate, the GOP lost five seats in the Senate and 48 in the House.
At this point in his tenure, President Reagan had a 64 percent approval rating. He was only 1 point lower going into the 1986 midterm election when the GOP lost only five House seats and eight Senate seats. Neither loss was terribly significant that year.
In truth, 1986 was a reaction or correction. A large number of very weak GOP Senate incumbents who rode into office in the 1980 Reagan tidal wave were promptly washed back out to sea when they came up for re-election six years later. Worth noting is that the Iran-Contra scandal broke a day after the midterm election; in the very next Gallup Poll, Reagan's approval rating plummeted to 47 percent.
President Clinton's approval rating at this point was 66 percent. It was precisely the same going into the 1998 midterm election, which explains why Democrats actually gained five seats in the House and broke even in the Senate.
Clearly, with just one open Republican Senate seat and just five truly vulnerable GOP Senate seats -- not to mention several highly vulnerable Democratic Senate seats, few Republican open seats and few incumbents seriously challenged in vulnerable GOP districts -- the potential for losses of the magnitude of many previous six-year elections is negligible.
But presidents with job approval ratings in the 40s and 50s, as opposed to the 60s, have had real losses, and for President Bush, who is currently at 43 percent, that has to be sobering.
While GOP exposure to those historic levels of losses might not be real, they remain vulnerable to some of the same dynamics and reoccurring patterns that have contributed to past losses. What happens over the next nine months will determine whether expected GOP losses stay under or go over the magic six seats in the Senate or 15 seats in the House that turn over control of those chambers."

Posted by: Predictor at March 6, 2006 04:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment