I’m going to do one of these on the first Monday of every month between now and election day. Time to do away with the tossup cop out and get off the fence!
Rankings are ‘Tilt’ (less than 5 point race), ‘Lean’ (5-10 point race) and ‘Favored ‘(10-15 point race). Anything beyond that is ‘Solid’ for either party.
SENATE
Dem Tilt
IL
NV
WI
CA
WA
Rep Tilt
PA
CO
KY
OH
MO
NH
Dem Lean
FL*
Rep Lean
NC
IN
Dem Favored
CT
WV
Rep Favored
LA
AR
DE
With little over a year to go until the 2010 midterm elections I thought it would be interesting to look at recent history to see if it is at all likely that Republicans could take control over the House of Representatives.
In recent weeks several pundits have opined that the decling popularity of the Obama presidency and the Democratic congress makes this a least a possibility. I for one have been skeptical.
The GOP would need to pickup 40 seats to have a majority of 1. We know that in 1994 a large number of the Republican gains were in open seats but at the moment there are only four Democrats vacating. Looking back at the waves of 2006 and 2008 we find that Democrats picked up 30 and 21 seats respectively. In terms of incumbents the numbers are 22 for 2006 and 14 for 2008. What I was interested in looking at was the percentage of the vote each of these incumbents scored in the election before the year of their defeat. In other words in 2004 and 2006.
These are the 22 GOP incumbents defeated in 2006 in descending order of their winning percentage in 2004:
Don Sherwood (PA-10) 93%
Henry Bonilla (TX-23) 69%
Sue Kelly (NY-19) 67%
John Sweeney (NY-20) 66%
Jeb Bradley (NH-01) 63%
Melissa Hart (PA-04) 63%
Clay Shaw (FL-22) 63%
Richard Pombo (CA-11) 61%
Gil Gutknecht (MN-01) 60%
Nancy Johnson (CT-05) 60%
Anne Northup (KY-03) 60%
Jim Leach (IA-02) 59%
JD Hayworth (AZ-05) 59%
Kurt Weldon (PA-07) 59%
Charlie Bass (NH-02) 58%
Jim Ryun (KS-02) 56%
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) 55%
Charles Taylor (NC-11) 55%
Rob Simmons (CT-02) 54%
Chris Chocola (IN-02) 54%
Jim Hostettler (IN-08) 53%
Mike Sodrel (IN-09) 49%
For sake of clarity I am exluding Shelley Sekula-Gibbs from this list despite the fact she won a special election to replace Tom Delay so in theory TX-22 wasn’t an open seat on election day.
The first thing that struck me was the number of incumbents that were defeated having won easily in 2004. But then looking at the seats in detail it is clear that several of those winning with larger margins were to become plauged by scandal by 2006 or in the case of Henry Bonilla see changes to the demographics of their district.
These are the 14 GOP incumbents defeated in 2008 in descending order of their winning percentage in 2006:
Virgil Goode (VA-05) 59%
Tom Feeney (FL-24) 58%
Phil English (PA-03) 54%
Ric Keller (FL-08) 53%
Steve Chabot (OH-01) 52%
Joe Knollenberg (MI-09) 52%
Randy Kuhl (NY-29) 52%
Chris Shays (CT-04) 52%
Thelma Drake (VA-02) 51%
Tim Walberg (MI-07) 50%
Robin Hayes (NC-08) 50%
Bill Sali (ID-01) 50%
Jon Porter (NV-03) 48%
Marylin Musgrave (CO-04) 46%
The average for 2006 was 60% which thrilled me considerably since this is exactly the arbitary cutoff I’ve been using in my mind in trying to judge which Dems are vulnerable next year. The average for 2008 was 52% which is understandable due to the nature of back-to-back waves. Because of this I think the 2006 figure is a more sensible comparison to what me might expect next year in a worst case scenario.
So using this figure which Democratic incumbents are threatened? As you can see the list is worryingly long, much longer than I was expecting. I have split the list into two – seats won in districts won by John McCain (22) which in theory should be most vulnerable and seats won by the president (34) which shouldn’t be considered necessarily safe.
McCain Dems elected with less than 60% in 2008:
Frank Kratovil (MD-01) 49% R+13
Bobby Bright (AL-02) 50% R+16
Tom Perriello (VA-05) 50% R+5
Walt Minnick (ID-01) 51% R+18
Eric Massa (NY-29) 51% R+5
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) 51% R+3
Parker Griffith (AL-05) 52% R+12
Chet Edwards (TX-17) 53% R+20
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05) 53% R+5
Travis Childers (MS-01) 55% R+14
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08) 55% R+4
Jim Boccieri (OH-16) 55% R+4
Chris Carney (PA-10) 56% R+8
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01) 56% R+6
Jason Altmire (PA-04) 56% R+6
Betsy Markey (CO-04) 56% R+6
Harry Teague (NM-02) 56% R+6
Jim Marshall (GA-08) 57% R+10
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) 57% R+4
Baron Hill (IN-09) 58% R+6
John Murtha (PA-12) 58% R+1
Lincoln Davis (TN-04) 59% R+13
Obama Dems elected with less than 60% in 2008:
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15) 46% D+1
Dina Titus (NV-03) 47% D+2
Mark Schauer (MI-07) 49% R+2
Scott Murphy (NY-20) 50% R+2
Jim Himes (CT-04) 51% D+5
Glenn Nye (VA-02) 52% R+5
Alan Grayson (FL-08) 52% R+2
Michael Arcuri (NY-24) 52% R+2
John Adler (NJ-03) 52% R+1
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) 52% R+0
Steve Driehaus (OH-01) 52% D+1
Gary Peters (MI-09) 52% D+2
Paul Kanjorski (PA-11) 52% D+4
Steve Kagen (WI-08) 54% D+0
Kurt Schrader (OR-05) 54% D+1
Jerry McNerney (CA-11) 55% R+1
Larry Kissell (NC-08) 55% R+2
Ron Klein (FL-22) 55% D+1
Gerry Connolly (VA-11) 55% D+2
Dan Maffei (NY-25) 55% D+3
Chellie Pingree (ME-01) 55% D+8
Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) 56% R+4
Dennis Moore (KS-03) 56% R+3
Leonard Boswell (IA-03) 56% D+1
Martin Heinrich (NM-01) 56% D+5
Patrick Murphy (PA-07) 57% D+3
Dave Loebsack (IA-02) 57% D+7
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) 58% R+2
Debbie Halvorson (IL- 11) 58% R+1
Bill Foster (IL-14) 58% R+1
Tim Bishop (NY-01) 58% R+0
John Hall (NY-19) 59% R+3
Chris Murphy (CT-05) 59% D+2
John Yarmuth (KY-03) 59% D+2
Sobering isn’t it. However, I don’t think it very likely any of the seats with a Dem PVI will be lost except perhaps OH-15 and maybe OH-01, WI-08 and NV-03. That leaves 20 Obama Dems. Obviously there are seats that may look vulnerable outside these, including open seats but my thinking is that those will cancel out the seats in my list that will never materialize as even the slightest bit competitive. What I was interested in initially was to see if there was a total number of seats that make it even possible for the Republicans to take the House. It looks like the answer (42) is yes but only just. I’m sure the way I’ve come to this conclusion will look to many like I’ve pulled the number out my ass but it seems to me as good a way as any and at least it is based on real numbers from the recent past.
I’m quite prepared to delete this if I’m breaking site policy but the topic seems relavant to me.
I’ve been fighting something of a lonely battle at Daily Kos arguing with people over the health care debate and real possibility of the Obama administration dropping the so called ‘public option’ in order to bring conservative Democrats in congress onboard in order to pass a bill.
Most have drawn their proverbial line in the sand and are committed to opposing any bill that does not include a robust public option. I have no doubt that many posters here at SSP also hold this position. I respect it but cannot agree.
This mcjoan diary from earlier today seemed to be totally off base and I said so.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
They are fixated on the polls that show support for the public option in theory but refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the polling that indicates the electorate has turned against the plans that are actually under discussion. As we all know perception is reality in politics.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/…
The reason I believe we can and should discuss this here is because of the real paradox that this has created. On the one hand Democrats in conservative districts won by John McCain or narrowly won by the president last year are clearly concerned about supporting a bill that is unpopular among their constituents. Their rationale is to remove the public option. But of course this is a sticking point for progressives particularly in the House.
I think this impass is a recipe for disaster. Though I don’t think the health care failure in 1994 was the only factor in the Republican Revolution it was clearly the coup de grace after all the scandals and the contentious votes taken that cycle particularly on the budget and on the assault weapons ban. There is clear evidence that Dems in conservative districts that year who voted for those bills were likely to go down to defeat while those who voted no all survived.
Though the author is a bit of a winger and RCP in general leans conservative this article is quite persuasive.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
I know Dave Wasserman at The Cook Political Report has come to the same conclusion and Nate Silver posted a link to the article yesterday and made many of the same points.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
It is clear to me the pragmatic solution would be to find a compromise that can find the necessary votes in both chambers. Kossacks seem determined though to stand their ground even if it means no bill at all. What do y’all think?