We forgot to put one of these up. So have at it, belatedly.
Here is the list of House incumbents to watch in the 2010 election. I am listing all of the incumbents that received less than 60% of the vote. I will include the Cook Partisan Voting Index for each district when all the final results are in, and update the list of challengers as time goes on between now and the 2010 filing deadlines in each state.
NOTE: As the 2010 election gets closer, some incumbents could be taken off of this list while others are added. John Barrow (D-GA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT) were considered vulnerable early this year because of their razor-thin wins in 2006, but later on this year were taken off the GOP’s radar screens. On the other hand, Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) and Henry Brown (R-SC) were not considered vulnerable early this year, but later on they were. And of course some incumbents could retire, either by choice, such as Bud Cramer (D-AL), or by defeat in the primary, such as Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD).
The table is over the flip.
**Charlie Melancon (D-LA) and Niki Tsongas (D-MA) were unopposed in 2008, but won with less than 60% in their previous elections (Melancon 55.0% in 2006 and Tsongas 51.3% in the 2007 special).
Freshmen are in boldface.
Incumbents that are retiring are marked in italics.
|House||Incumbent||% won in 2008||Age on 11/02/2010||Potential challengers|
After very nearly shocking the nation with his surprisingly strong result against GOP scuzzbucket Rep. Ken Calvert, Democrat Bill Hedrick has finally conceded defeat. From the Riverside Press-Enterprise:
More than three weeks after Election Day, the votes have finally been tallied in the 44th Congressional District, and Democratic challenger Bill Hedrick acknowledged defeat.
“We have shown quite clearly that we most certainly can win this seat two years from now,” Hedrick said in a letter sent late Thursday to supporters. “While we are disappointed that we did not win this election, we are not discouraged.”
The longtime Corona-Norco school board member vowed to run again in two years to unseat incumbent Rep. Ken Calvert.
This is a rematch that I can get behind. On paper, Hedrick is a fine candidate — he’s an elected school board president with a son serving in Iraq. I wouldn’t mind seeing what he’d be able to do with the enthusiastic backing of national Democrats, as well as a healthy campaign budget (he raised just $155K for his race). In a district like this one, the Dem bench is probably pretty bare, so giving Hedrick a second crack seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Update: In the comments, SSPer Steven Axelrod, himself a CA-44 resident, weighs in. It’s worth a read.
Here is the outlook of the Senators that will be up for reelection, including the special elections that will happen in Illinois, Delaware, and New York.
NOTE: Just because a candidate is listed in the table does not necessarily mean that I think they will win. I am only listing the candidates that have received buzz about running.
**Since Barack Obama has already resigned from the Senate, I will have Illinois open until Gov. Blago names a replacement. Gov. Minner in Delaware has already named Ted Kaufman as Joe Biden’s replacement, who I put in the table. I will keep Hillary in the table as well until Gov. Paterson names her replacement.
The table is over the flip.
Retiring incumbents are marked in italics.
|State||Incumbent||Age on 11/02/2010||Potential to Flip||Potential Challengers|
Eric Croft (St. Rep.)
Diane Benson (2006 AK-AL nominee)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08)
Chuck DeVore (Asm.)
Al Ramirez (telecom sales exec.)
Bill Owens (former Gov.)
John Elway (ret. quarterback)
Tom Tancredo (CO-06)
Mike Coffman (Sec. of State)
Kevin O’Connor (Assoc. U.S. Att. Gen.)
John McKinney (State Sen.)
Sam Caligiuri (State Sen.)
Lawrence Cafero (House Min. Leader)
John Carney (Lt. Gov.)
Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL-20)
Ron Klein (FL-22)
Bill McCollum (Att. Gen.)
Allan Bense (State House Speaker)
Marco Rubio (former St. House Speaker)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Alexi Giannoulias (Treasurer)
Tammy Duckworth (Iraq War veteran)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Emil Jones (St. Sen. Pres.)
Pat Quinn (Lt. Gov.)
Mark Kirk (IL-10)
John Shimkus (IL-19)
Steve Buyer (IN-04)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Todd Rokita (Sec. of State)
Becky Skillman (Lt. Gov.)
Jerry Moran (KS-01)
Todd Tiahrt (KS-04)
Ron Thornburgh (Sec. of State)
Sandy Praeger (Ins. Comm.)
Lee Tafanelli (State Rep.)
Derek Schmidt (State Sen.)
Jack Conway (Att. Gen.)
Crit Luallen (Auditor)
Dan Mongiardo (Lt. Gov.)
Darlene Price (ex-U.S. Customs agent)
Paul Connick (D.A.)
Chris John (former LA-07 Rep.)
Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
Don Cazayoux (LA-06)
Mike Sanders (Jackson Co. Exec.)
Jon Porter (NV-03)
Paul Hodes (NH-02)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Richard Moore (Treasurer)
States are starting to certify their totals and there are a decent amount of states with their presidential results by Congressional District completely or partially inputted in SSP’s table. Of course, there’s always room for more…
I aim to analyse this data to work out where Obama ran ahead or behind of Congressional candidates. This should allow us to see which areas are trending our way or against us, what types of candidates to run and what districts have slipped under the radar.
The next election is the last under the current maps. We need to see what’s going in which direction, because 2012 will be a whole new ball-game and Republican redistricters will have noted this information and used it to try to preserve and expand their positions through gerrymandering.
I will begin with New England (except Connecticut, as my regionalisation follows, as well as I can remember, that used at 538 during the election.) This is not perhaps the most useful of regions for me to analyse, since we hold all the Congressional seats here (and Dean Barker has written a pair of great analyses of NH, with a lot more local knowledge than I’ll ever have), but the results have all been inputed here and I may as well make my initial mistakes in an area where it matters less.
The results from Maine are mine. I can’t speak to the reliability of the results from New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Massachusetts (and the results from the latter leave out third party votes) but I see no reason to doubt their essential accuracy.
I’ll skip over Vermont, as it’s a single CD and the state is hardly likely to slip out of our hands. Besides, there wasn’t even a Republican on the ballot opposing Peter Welch.
Maine had been considered as a state where McCain might compete and in particular he ran ads in the more rural 2nd Congressional District.
It paid off, slightly. McCain lost by just a whisker under 7% nationally, and by 11.2% in ME-2. That’s in line with it’s D+4 PVI.
Now you might think that’s not much of an investment. But in ME-1 he lost by 23.5%, more than 10% more than it’s D+6 PVI would have suggested. So that one really paid off.
On a more serious note, it’s clear that Maine is pretty far away from swing state status. ME-2 did not move decisively, but ME-1 certainly did.
This might point to an opportunity to redistrict for 2012 to make ME-2 wave safe and to permit a progressive replacement to Mike Michaud. However, Maine has an independent redistricting panel, with the legislature merely approving its proposals, Michaud tends to be a perfectly serviceable, though never stellar, Dem on most issues, despite being an anti-choice Blue Dog, and we don’t want to get ambitious and make some ghastly mis-matched districts and piss voters off.
No, the message here is not worry about Maine. McCain only won one county (Piscataquis), and that had the smallest number of voters (and he only won by 300 votes). In fact, the next smallest county (Washington) had nearly twice as many voters as it. Maine is not a problem.
Nor is New Hampshire. I won’t say much here, as Dean has said it better elsewhere. NH-01 is still fairly close to the tipping point in a close election, but provided both our congressmembers there keep up the good work, we do not need to worry.
As for Massachusetts, I think we can safely write off the threat of Republicanism here. The results here aren’t entirely complete, but given that only the 10th Congressional District showed a victory for Obama of less than 50000 votes and that only four seats actually had Republican candidates on the ballot (none of whom reached 30%), I don’t see any looming threat. In fact, if I ran the Vermont Progressive Party, I’d be looking in to setting up affiliates in eastern Massachusetts. If the Republicans can’t even hit 30%, there’s actually no way they could win a 3-candidate race.
Which leaves Rhode Island. It did slip from second to third most Democratic state between 2004 and 2008, but you can’t complain when the margin of victory was 28 points. I do have some concerns – RI-2 may be getting moderately less Democratic as compared to the nation as a whole, since in 2000 Al Gore outperformed his national margin by 26 points, in 2004 John Kerry only managed 18 points above his numbers and Obama could only get 17 points. And in RI-1 the fall was steeper – from 32 points in 2000, it was 28 in 2004 and this year only only 25 points.
But enough being facetious. Barring a 1984 or 1972 style electoral rout for Democrats, Rhode Island will be down to one congressional district long before either of them is won by a Republican in the Presidential election. Margins of 65-33 and 61-37 simply do not change that fast, especially when you don’t target a state. And with four electoral votes, Republicans have precious little incentive to target Rhode Island.
If you worry about Rhode Island’s elections at all, worry about electing a Democratic governor in 2010 and worry about electing the most progressive Democrats you can.
With the possible exception of New Hampshire, in fact, this applies for every one of the states I’ve mentioned. These are very blue states and will remain that way until the Republican Party changes in a big way. They may maintain the Maine senators and possibly Judd Gregg, but everything else is gone or about to, and unlikely to come back. If the netroots is serious about helping to elect the hard core of progressives that people like Matt Stoller have called for as engines of progressive change, here is where you’ll get them.
OK, so I realise that “New England is pretty Democratic, and is probably the easiest place to get lots of fiery progressives elected” is not a particularly ground-breaking message, but bear with me. As and when there are more results to work with (and I’m beginning to see some interesting data in the Michigan results that I’m in the process of putting together) I’ll be putting up summaries of somewhat less monochromatic areas.
Until then, I welcome comments, flames and people pointing out where I’ve failed to add up correctly on a very basic level.
UPDATE: I didn’t provide presidential numbers by CD in the main body of the diary, although you can get them from the links. Obviously this was a mistake, and an easily rectifiable one. I’ll bear this in mind for next time, too.
So here are the results, all to one decimal point:
ME-01: O 60.5% M 37.0%
ME-02: O 54.6% M 43.4%
NH-01: O 52.7% M 46.5%
NH-02: O 56.1% M 43.0%
VT-AL: O 67.4% M 30.4%
MA-01: O 66.0% M 34.0%
MA-02: O 60.3% M 39.7%
MA-03: O 59.2% M 40.8%
MA-04: O 64.4% M 35.6%
MA-05: O 60.0% M 40.0%
MA-06: O 58.6% M 41.4%
MA-07: O 66.1% M 33.9%
MA-08: O 86.1% M 13.9%
MA-09: O 61.2% M 38.8%
MA-10: O 55.8% M 44.2%
RI-01: O 65.1% M 33.2%
RI-02: O 61.2% M 37.1%
Don’t trust the Massachusetts figures – several townships aren’t in the spreadsheet and it also doesn’t account for the (admittedly small) third party vote. I’m in no great hurry to go sort that out, but if anybody else wants to, I’m happy to update the spreadsheet to correct those totals.
I’m putting this post in the diaries because it’s about presidential elections rather than the downballot. Just trying to keep it real! But this is an issue I was curious about so I thought I’d share my findings.
John McCain pieced together just 173 electoral votes this year. That’s the 8th-worst showing by a Republican since 1916. Interestingly, all seven weaker GOP showings came at the hands of just three men: FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton. To win in 2012, the GOP needs to get to 270, of course, so they’ve got to scrape together another 97 EVs. How likely is this?
(Sidebar: Why 1916? In 1912, the electoral college expanded to 531 votes, which is close enough to today’s 538 to make pure EV comparisons meaningful. In 1908, there were just 483 EVs. Also around and shortly after 1916, you had the realignment of the two major parties, the extension of the franchise to women, and the direct election of senators. In short, it’s a decent benchmark for the “modern” political era. Also, the election of 1912 was a serious oddball, with the GOP coming in third.)
The GOP has posted EV gains in excess of 97 six times since 1916:
The next-best showing was a net of 90 EVs in 1948. Most of these big gains took place at moments of serious change.
1920: Harding’s “return to normalcy.” Had 3,000 votes in California gone the other way in 1916, Woodrow Wilson would have lost to Charles Hughes. A war-weary public and a damaging recession let Harding run against the unpopular Wilson (much like Obama “ran against Bush”) and rack up the biggest popular-vote margin since 1820.
1952: Twenty years of Dem control of the White House ended. The incumbent president, Truman, was unpopular due to a seemingly intractable war in Korea and chose not to seek re-election as a result. The GOP candidate was the venerated Allied commander in WWII, Gen. Eisenhower.
1968: Another incumbent Dem mired in an even less popular war in Asia (LBJ) decided against running for another term. A badly fractured Democratic Party put forth a wounded, underfunded candidate (Humphrey) against the conniving Nixon, who knew how to exploit the fears and resentments brewing during a time of social upheaval. And hard not to improve on Goldwater’s performance.
1972: A continuation of 1968 in many ways – the Democrats even more badly fractured, their candidate woefully unready and unappealing to many. Nixon, evil though he was, deserved credit for appearing on this list twice.
1980: Stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a Democratic president swept narrowly into office in the wake of Watergate (Carter) versus Nixon’s heir. Carter’s outsider status, a virtue on the campaign trail, also turned into a major liability once in DC, as few people owed him anything.
2000: The outlier on this list. Pundits and Ralph Nader succeeded in turning this into the “Seinfeld election” (ie, the “election about nothing”). Gore struggled to cast himself as the natural inheritor and steward of the Clinton legacy and Rove (again abetted by the media) cast Gore as a serial liar. Without those unearned Florida electoral votes, the gain would have only been 87 EVs – not enough for this list.
Now, the 97-plus Democratic gains:
These elections are a bit more of a mix between the epochal and the prosaic. Also, in the prior elections, Dems took 111 or fewer EVs five times – that only happened once for the GOP.
1932: The Great Depression. ‘Nuff said.
1960: Perhaps the trickiest race on this list. At the very least, Adlai Stevenson’s abysmal 1956 haul meant the odds favored a better performance by Kennedy.
1964: A wildly conservative, non-mainstream Republican candidate versus a pre-backlash LBJ, running in the wake of JFK’s assassination. Despite the size of the victory, this election famously did not offer the Dems lasting gains but actually presaged a long period of decline.
1976: Watergate, the accidental presidency of Gerry Ford, and McGovern’s unthinkably pitiful showing gave Carter lots of room for improvement.
1988: How sad is it that Michael Dukakis is on this list? It’s only possible because Walter Mondale was ten times sadder. Dukakis is the only person on both lists to post a big gain but still lose – a classic dead-cat bounce.
1992: A bit tough to classify. Dukakis not only did poorly in 1988, he underperformed expectations badly. The dark recession of 1990-91 played a major role here, though.
2008: The most unpopular president in US history and the second-worst financial crisis in US history, not to mention an unpopular war and an alienating conservative GOP ticket.
So a few pretty clear trends emerge. Most of these elections took place during or in the wake of unpopular wars or economic downturns, or both: 1920, 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2008. Two back-to-back races saw a political collapse on the part of each party: 1972, for complex reasons, and 1976, for much simpler ones.
Some just involved improvements over craptacular prior performances, like 1960 or 1988 (but also including 1932, 1968 & 1976). One time, 1964, saw one party put forth a completely unacceptable candidate, at least for that particular moment in time. And as for the election of 2000… well, as Al Gore himself would say, sometimes, there’s that little-known third category.
As impressive as Nixon’s consecutive gains were, in a way, George W. Bush’s surge from Bob Dole’s sucky performance might be the most remarkable of all. After eight years of peace and prosperity, he had to invent an amazing mythology in order to give voters a reason to change horses. It didn’t really work, of course – Gore still won more votes. But thanks to an assist from the Supreme Court, he pulled it off.
Anyhow, drilling down to the 2012 election, I don’t think this past history offers the GOP a whole lot of hope. The war in Iraq darn well better be over by then, and we probably won’t engage in another large-scale conflict. The Dems aren’t about to implode or nominate someone unelectable. And McCain’s haul wasn’t so awful, ala McGovern or Mondale, that you simply have to expect a bounce.
They already tried the 2000/2004 smear strategy this year, and that failed. I think it’ll be a lot harder to try that on an incumbent. So that leaves the possibility of a major economic downturn. It’s sadly possible that we won’t be out of this mess in three years, but that seems hard to imagine. What I think is more likely (but hopefully not very likely) is that we recover and then relapse (think 1938).
The pure odds would seem to favor McCain – after all, 97-plus gains have happened 13 times in just 24 elections. But the background facts are very unfavorable, and that’s without even looking at demographic nitty-gritty of the blue states which might be winnable in 2012 for Republicans. That can wait for another day, though.
The elections of 2006 and 2008 bore many of the aspects of the “party system” changes that happen every 36 to 40 years in American electoral politics. There was a change in electoral control (in the House, Senate, and White House) and two strong gains by one party in consecutive elections.
Of course the classic change election occurred in 1932. After gaining 50 House seats in 1930, Democrats swept the White House and added 97 more in 1932. And they kept adding to both the Senate and House numbers although at a lesser rate in the House, in both 1934 and 1936. That, of course begs us to ask a key question: how long do waves last. If you look at the waves around the election of 1800, 1860, and 1932 the answer is clear and surprising. Waves seem to last for four elections. In the case of 1860, much of the strength came with the tail after Lincoln and the war were clearly successful.
With a Senate class that is Republican heavy and untouched, the wave would seem to have a minimum of one more act and another six or eight Senate seats to go. What about the House?
Despite a lot of talk about very Republican districts turning blue, most of the gains in both 2006 and 2008 have come from either Democratic or weak Republican districts won by Democrats. In 2006, 17 of the 30 seats that were gained had a Cook PVi of R+3 or less aand 24 had a Cook PVI of R+7 or less. In 2008, 15 seats won by Democrats had a Cook PVI of R+3 or less and 21 had a Cook PVI of R+7 or less.
That raises several issues. How many of these field of opportunity remain to be plucked? Well, 26 House seats still held by Republicans are in the prime R+3 or less category. Why am I harping on R+3? Above that point, Republicans hold a majority of seats. Up to R+3, we hold the edge.
Over 95% of House seats with a Democratic PVI are held by Democrats. The number of these seats held by Republicans has been sharply falling from (if my calculation is right) 24 to 15 to 9 in just two quick elections. Some of those nine have been hard fought continued battlefields that Democrats keep losing (or Republicans keep winning): IL-10 (Mark Kirk vs. Dan Fields), WA-8 (Dave Reichert vs. Darcy Burner), and to a lesser extent PA-6, PA-15 and IA-4 fall under this category. DE-At Large (D+7), NY-3 ((D+2), FL-10 (D+1), and NJ-2 (D+4) have been largely passed over. Yes, we “expect” that Bill Young or Mike Castle might retire sometime but they need to be challenged. As things stand, we only have one more crack at them under the present districts. In most of these districts, the Republican has had his weakest showing in an off-year election rather than a Presidential election year: DE-At Large, 2006 (57%), IL-10 2006 (53%), IA-4 2002 (55%), NY-3 2006 (56%), PA-6 2006 and 2002 (51-49, also 2004 and only 52-48 in 2008), WA-8 2006 (51-49).FL-10 actually was weakest this year at 61-39 when Bob Hack was a credible opponent (local mayor) in a high turnout year.
R 0 to R+3 districts are represented by 25 Democrats and just 17 Democrats. We have picked up 17 of these seats in the last 2 election cycles. They are, in fact turning blue. Part of this is the switch over in many traditional suburban districts from Republican to Democratic. These districts are more ethnically and culturally diverse and educated professionals in many fields trend at least mildly Democratic (teachers, nurses, lawyers, creative types).
It may have been a once in a lifetime thing but in California, Democrats gained 5 House seats in 2000 that had been slowly trtending Democratic. There were eight Republican House seats IIRC in California alone that were won with under 60% of the vote.
The number of Republican seats in the R+4 to R+7 range is way, way too high due to gerrymanders in many states (Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia in particular. There are 63 seats with a PVI of R+4 through R+7 (25 held by Democrats) vs. only 31 seat that are D+4 through D+7 (28 held by Democrats) These seats are also opportunities.
As for the long shots with Cook PVIs over R+7, well we hold 10 of them. And that’s more seats than the Republicans hold in the D+0 to D+7 range (or all D ranges) at nine.
Call it the “rematch watch”, if you will. Here’s a tally of potential rematch-seekers who have either signaled their intentions or are staying mum. If you’ve heard any buzz about any other failed candidates (or toppled incumbents) running again in 2010, let us know in the comments.
CA-03: Bill Durston (D):
After making two unsuccessful tries at knocking off incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River), Democrat Bill Durston said he plans on making a third bid in 2010.
Noting how his support in the 3rd Congressional District race improved between 2006 and 2008 – from 37.9 percent to 43.8 – Durston said he believes Lungren could be vulnerable in two years.
CT-04: Chrissy Shays (R):
KING: Chris Shays, two questions. First, where does your party go, and will you come back and run again?
SHAYS: Well, I may. It’s hard to imagine when you just have had a defeat that you thought you were going to win. You know, it kind of says to you I better think this over. My two-year contract was not renewed, Larry.
But, you know what? I’m struck with — and maybe it’s just that I’m still feeling the pain — there is no Republican Congressman in all of New England, 21 seats, all Democrat. There are only three Republican Congressmen in New York, out of 29. You put them together, 50 Congressmen, only three are Republicans.
But in an article published just a few days before his interview on CNN, Shays sent a decidedly different message:
Shays could see himself working back in Connecticut, perhaps New York City or in D.C. In some ways it will also depend on his wife, Betsi, who has a job at the U.S. Department of Education. One thing for sure is that he does not plan to run for elected office again.
“I don’t see myself running for any office,” he said. “I definitely do not see myself running for Congress again.”
GA-12: John Stone (R):
“We beat John Barrow,” Stone said. “What we couldn’t beat was the combination of the (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) coming in here at the last minute and bailing him out and the behind the scenes undermining of our campaign by the (National Republican Congressional Committee). You can’t beat both parties at the same time.” […]
Stone said at his election party in Augusta on Tuesday night that he plans to run against Barrow again in 2010.
MD-01: Andy Harris (R):
State Sen. Andy Harris (R-Cockeysville) said Monday he’ll be running for Maryland’s 1st Congressional District seat again in 2010, according to Queen Anne’s County Republican Central Committee member Diana Waterman. […]
Harris said earlier this month that he had not ruled out a 2010 rematch against incoming U.S. Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Stevensville), who defeated him by only a few thousand votes for the 1st District seat.
MO-09: Judy Baker (D):
Baker, a state legislator from Columbia fell roughly 2.5 points short of Luetkemeyer’s final tally. She didn’t rule out another congressional campaign. After all, she could have the right mix of fundraising contacts and name recognition to make another go of it in two years.
NH-01: Jeb Bradley (R):
Former U.S. Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) said that it is “very unlikely” his name will appear on the ballot in 2010, but did not rule out running for political office in the future.
NY-24: Richard Hanna (R):
Later, in an interview with The Daily Star, he said he may run again in 2010, having come close on his first political outing.
“I’m not ruling it out, but it’s nothing I have to decide right away,” he said. “I’ve just spent about $650,000 of my own money and a year of my life on this, but I’ve learned a lot and I’m glad I did it.”
PA-04: Melissa Hart (R):
The once rising political star said she will return to her private life as a lawyer, where she said she is very happy. She doesn’t foresee running for any elected office anytime soon.
“I have no plans to run for anything,” she said.
PA-10: Dan Meuser (R, ’08 primary loser):
No Republican has announced a challenge to Mr. Carney, but already the political rumor mill has Mr. Meuser sizing up another try.
What’s feeding that rumor is Mr. Meuser’s August resignation from his job as president of Pride Mobility Products in Exeter, his family’s company. Mr. Meuser said he was leaving to “pursue a full-time career in public service.”
He was no more specific about running in 2010 last week.
“I’m not going to offer any real commitment either way,” Mr. Meuser said. “I’m keeping all my options open.”
PA-11: Lou Barletta (R):
Two weeks after narrowly losing his bid for Congress, Republican Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta says he’s not even thinking about whether or not he’ll try again-yet.
“I haven’t given that any thought at all right now,” he told PolitickerPA.com in a phone interview Wednesday. “I’m going to just sit back and take a little time at all to reflect and then relax after a hard-fought campaign.”
PA-12: William Russell (R):
Just eight days after Election Day, Bill Russell says he’s ready for round two against U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Johnstown).
The Republican congressional candidate, who received a late avalanche of attention of attention in his race against the 34-year incumbent before ultimately falling by 16 points, told PolitickerPA.com Tuesday that he plans to run again in 2010.
SC-01: Linda Ketner (D):
Following her narrow loss in the 1st District Congressional race, Linda Ketner announced Tuesday she’s forming a new nonpartisan, nonprofit group to try to make the coastal district a better place to live.
She also wouldn’t rule out running again in 2010.
I’m thankful for many, many things, but I’m especially thankful that this country is about to get back on the right track, to begin regaining its stature, and to start helping those who need help, as we ought to.
What are you thankful for?
After a week of recounting, with 88% of the votes recounted:
Coleman has added to his lead, partly by challenging more ballots (2885 to 2738), but also
because there aren’t many Democratic areas to recount. St. Louis County is complete, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties are 87% and 81% complete, respectively. Of the eight counties not yet started, seven of them went to Coleman.
So is it over for Al? Without challenges, he’s only picked up 80 votes. And with the strong possibility that the missing absentee ballots might not be counted, it’s getting grimmer for Franken.