IDAHO
1st – Sali (R) – Boise, Lewiston, and Nampa.
Normally, a district which gave Bush 7 out of 10 votes in 2004 would not even be considered competitive. However, when the incumbent is considered radical and detested by some within his own party, then the circumstances are viewed differently. In 2006, Bill Sali emerged the victor from a six person contested primary. He then went on to win the general election by 5% over the Democratic nominee. The lack of party unity following the primary and a competitive Democratic candidate had kept the race far more close than expected in a solid Republican district. This year Sali is being challenged by Democratic nominee Walt Minnick. While the Republican tilt of the district does not favor any Democrat, there are several aspects which do favor Minnick. His fundraising has surpassed that of Sali’s, which is poor for any incumbent in a close race. Further alienating Sali is Governor Butch Otter, the former holder of the seat now occupied by Sali. Otter became agitated when Sali worked against his choice for state Republican chair. As a result of this interference, the nominee selected by Otter had lost. The relationship between Sali and his House colleague Mike Simpson is also said to be strained. Sali’s ultra-conservatism has managed to alienate many moderates, including Republicans. Some suspect that Otter and fellow moderates may work behind the scenes in defeating Sali, yet that is highly unlikely. One group that Sali does pose a threat to is the moderate wing of the Republican Party, including Otter and Crapo. Voter turnout in Idaho increases drastically during a presidential year and the increased turnout could make the difference, yet whom benefits is the unknown. Due to Sali’s erratic behavior, his alienation of moderates, and Minnick’s fundraising, this is a race which may have developments closer to the election.
Rating: Leans Republican
ILLINOIS
6th – Roskam (R) – Elk Grove Village, Elmhurst, and Wheaton.
With the retirement of Henry Hyde in 2006 Democrats saw an opportunity to pick up an open seat. A disabled Iraq War veteran was fielded against conservative State Senator Peter Roskam. Both the DCCC and NRCC invested millions in a fight for this seat, yet in the end Roskam won, albeit narrowly. This year Roskam is once again facing an Iraq War veteran. Democrats have nominated Jill Morgenthaler, who not only served in Iraq, but also was the Illinois Homeland Security director. However, what appeared to be a promising candidate may have fizzled at best. Morgenthaler’s fundraising is lackluster while Roskam has raised more than a million for his re-election (Morgenthaler’s total raised is less than 1/4th of what Roskam raised). While Cook County favors Democrats, the majority of the district is in DuPage County, which favors Republicans. Due to Morgenthaler’s poor fundraising and the Republican nature of the district it is less likely that the DCCC will make a serious attempt here. In fact, the DCCC would best utilize its resources by defending two incumbents (Bean and Foster), trying to knock off another Republican in a Democratic district (Kirk), and picking up two open seats (Weller and LaHood). If there is an Obama effect here (highly unlikely) or a disgruntled electorate, then that in itself could keep the race close throughout, even with poor fundraising by Morgenthaler.
Rating: Likely Republican
8th – Bean (D) – McHenry, Schaumburg, and Palatine.
In 2004, when Melissa Bean defeated Phil Crane, the longest serving Republican in the House at the time, Republicans vowed revenge. In 2006, Bean faced a conservative Republican and a moderate Democrat, running as an independent. The Republican, David Sweeney, emerged from a brutal primary, largely damaged at best. However, Democrats were more concerned with what effect Bill Scheurer, the independent candidate, would have on the race. Scheurer accused Bean of being too conservative. As a result, the probability existed that he could take Democratic votes from Bean, thereby providing Sweeney with a narrow victory. Yet, even though Scheurer did take votes from Bean, it was not enough for Sweeney to prevail (Bean’s victory was a 7.5% vote margin over Sweeney). She proved once again that she had the ability to not only defeat a long serving incumbent, but to also retain a Democratic seat in a Republican leaning district. This year she is being challenger by Republican Steve Greenberg. Unlike 2006, when she had to defend her seat against two serious challengers, Greenberg could at best be classified a “failed” candidate, one specially recruited by Tom Cole and the NRCC. Greenberg’s fundraising is so atrocious that it would be unconscionable to expect the NRCC to come to his rescue, yet then again Tom Cole did a great job in recruiting a “star” candidate in a Republican district, therefore supporting him across the finish line to defeat would be fully appreciated. Under normal circumstances this race would be competitive, yet this year is anything but normal. Republicans recruited a flawed candidate with poor fundraising. Bean has raised significant funds and has proven the ability to win in a Republican district, even against strong candidates.
Rating: Democrat Favored
10th – Kirk (R) – Arlington Heights, Northbrook, and Waukegan.
An early sign of a candidate in trouble is massive fundraising. Republican Mark Kirk has raised more funds that any other House Republican (incumbent or challenger). However, even with the abundance of cash on hand, Kirk faces three problems: he represents a Democratic district, Obama is most likely to win his district, and his vote margin has dropped each year since winning the seat in 2000. Kirk experienced a 4% drop in 2004 and a 12% drop in 2006. If Kirk’s vote margin drops an additional 4% this year, then he may find himself with a narrow loss. Dan Seals, the Democratic nominee in 2006, is back to challenge Kirk once again. Seals has raised decent funds for his campaign, yet he is greatly behind Kirk in total cash on hand. Yet, even with this monetary disadvantage, Kirk has a disadvantage of his own. A “Ron Paul” independent candidate is most likely to take votes from Kirk rather than Seals. If the race is close, as expected, then a loss of votes to a “Ron Paul protege” may be decisive. In order for Seals to be victorious he will have to win Lake County with a comfortable margin and lower Kirk’s margin of victory in Cook County. This can only be done by raising additional funds in order to keep pace with the explosive spending which Kirk will undertake. In 2006, the total raised between the two candidates was $5.09 million, of which 62% was raised by Kirk. This year, the total raised is $5.91 million, yet 65% of this is money raised by Kirk. Not only is Kirk on pace to raise more funds than in 2006, he has also raised a greater percentage between the two. An increase in the percentage of overall money raised normally translates to an increase in overall vote total. While this is historically true, there is past precedent where the candidate that raised the most did not necessarily win (ex: Buchanan vs. Jennings in Florida). While Buchanan was declared the winner, many believe that Jennings, the Democrat, won the race. That district leaned Republican, therefore making the job of Jennings much harder. In contrast, Kirk’s district leans Democratic, therefore the job of Seals is considered much easier. Making a prediction based on money raised would be fairly easy, yet there are too many other factors which negate the money advantage Kirk currently has. Based on money alone Kirk has a narrow advantage, yet this will be a much closer race in the end.
Rating: Leans Republican
11th – Open Seat (R) – Bloomington, Joliet, and Kankakee.
The retirement of Jerry Weller handed Democrats one of the greatest pick up possibilities of the year. The Republican nominated in the primary was New Lenox mayor Tim Baldermann, yet shortly after winning the primary he dropped out. This unexpected setback forced Republicans to find another formible candidate. They finally settled on Marty Ozinga, a political unknown, whose only advantage is his ability to self fundraise. Democrats have recruited a strong nominee in State Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson. The campaign being run by Ozinga ignores the issues for the most part and insteads attempts to link Halvorson to unpopular Governor Rod Blagojevich. Halvorson is more focused on the issues and running a campaign which addresses the concerns of the district, normally a strategy which leads to victory. Halvorson leads in fundraising, yet that will hardly discourage Ozinga, a concrete magnet, from “pouring” in the money if necessary. Halvorson also represents a large part of Will and Kankakee counties in the state senate. The two counties account for 60% of the vote total in the district. As has occurred in past races, most wealthy candidates are confronted with accusations regarding business dealings or their personal failures, information that very few are able to overcome once disclosed. It’s only a matter of time before Ozinga, a flawed candidate (with a personal ATM machine), finds himself on the defensive.
Rating: Leans Democrat
13th – Biggert (R) – Bolingbrook, Naperville, and Orland Park.
An early indicator of an angry electorate can be found here in Illinois. This year it had its highest primary turnout since 1992, the year in which Clinton was swept into office. The issue that year: the economy. It was only two years ago, when the economy was not considered the major issue, that Illinois had its worst general election turnout in more than fifty years (a dismal 49% of voters came out in 2006). What a difference two years can make in one state. Projections for November turnout this year is between 75-79%, a net increase of 4-8% from 2004. Republican Judy Biggert has seen her overall vote percentage drop since 2002. The type of candidate oppossing her provides a little insight into her performance. A candidate posing no challenge enables her to take approximately 70% of the vote (2002), a small effort with very little spending results in 65% of the vote (2004), and a candidate that raises funds and spends competitively results in 58% of the vote (2006). This year with increased voter turnout expected and a candidate that has raised more than any of Biggert’s previous competitors since 2002, this could be one of the surprise upsets of the night. However, Democratic nominee Scott Harper, cannot expect that turnout or Obama coattails necessarily translate into victory. Biggert, who had a primary challenge this year against a self-funded candidate, took 77% of the primary vote. Harper, who faced no competition, notes that he received more votes than Biggert and her Republican challenger combined (while significant, he shouldn’t conclude that this is an early sign of victory). Harper’s main issues have been energy prices and the war in Iraq, attempting to link Biggert with Bush and Big Oil. Biggert seems to see the vulnerability, recently releasing an enery plan with another endangered Republican, Mark Kirk. However, George Bush is the one issue which will not go away from now until Election Day. As a result, many Republicans, including Biggert, who viewed him as an asset in the past, have sought to demonstrate what the differences are with them and the president (that’s what close friends do: love you when you help them and dump you when you hurt them). While it is likely that Biggert’s vote total will drop, as much as 5% at this point, Harper still has a lot of work to do before closing the deal.
Rating: Republican Favored
14th – Foster (D) – Aurora, Dixon, and Elgin.
When taking control of Congress in 1994, Republicans felt that their Contract with America was a winning strategy. Yet, what it produced was controversial leadership. First, there was Newt Gingrich, and then he was gone. Then Bob Livingston, who was chosen as Speaker of the House, yet resigned in controversy before he even took the gavel. And of course Tom DeLay, who could be best described as overconfident, yet surrounded in controversy and bypassed by his colleagues. Republicans then settled on a virtual unknown, Dennis Hastert. For twenty years Hastert represented his strong Republican leaning district, until he himself became part of the controversy. His 2006 election resulted in his lowest level of support since taking office and the first time he fell below 60%, even though he outspent his opponent 17 to 1. Realizing that he not only lost the speakership and party control, but also the power that comes with both, Hastert decided to retire early. A special primary was then held resulting in a rare Democratic victory on Republican territory by Bill Foster. In normal circumstances the district would be considered safe for Republicans, unless of course that Republican is Jim Oberweis, who’s only note to fame is losing three campaigns: US Senate, Governor, and now House of Representatives. Most would see the signs after three loses, yet Oberweis has not. While Oberweis’s primary was bitter and his losing opponent refused to support him, Foster also had a primary, yet the end result was less division. This year Oberweis is back for an unprecedented strike four. Neither Oberweis, nor Foster, have much cash on hand, in fact their debt, most of which was personal funding, is much larger. While Oberweis promises to run a more positive campaign (highly unlikely) for the general election, there is one source where less support will be flowing from: the “struggling” NRCC. This lack of support, a higher voter turnout, Oberweis’s unprecedented record of simply losing, and Foster’s moderate voting record, all indicate that Oberweis will have only one victory come election night: that of perennial loser.
Rating: Likely Democrat
18th – Open Seat (R) – Jacksonville, Peoria, and Springfield.
Ray LaHood’s decision to retire has provided Democrats with a second opportunity to pick up an open seat. Statewide, Democrats have been successful winning in Republican areas, Bill Foster and Melissa Bean being the two primary examples. This is one other example of a Republican leaning district. However, there are many similarities between this district and the other open seat in the 11th district. While the Republican candidate dropped out in the 11th, the Democratic candidate did the same here. While 60% of the vote total is concentrated in two counties in the 11th, the same can be said true here, yet in three rather than in two. The three counties that compose a majority of the vote total are Peoria, Sangamon, and Tazewell. Republicans have nominated Aaron Schock, who at the age of 27, would be the youngest member of Congress if elected. Democrats have nominated Colleen Callahan, a journalist. Schock won overwhelmingly in a three-way primary while Callahan was a replacement candidate for Richard Versace, the Democratic nominee who dropped out. Schock has the proven ability to win, starting at an early age. He came to the state senate by defeating an eight-year incumbent. Both candidates hail from the Peoria area, yet Schock has legislative experience, whereas Callahan does not. Schock also leads in fundraising, yet his recent invitation for Bush to appear at a fundraiser, could prove a liability later on. At a time when the country is preferring change over experience, which do they choose: the youthful candidate with three years of legislative experience or the candidate that has better public speaking abilities? The one thing for certain is that both parties will invest heavily here. However, based on the Republican leanings of the district and the fact that Schock has a history of winning, the advantage may lie with him. It may be hard to consider Callahan an equal to Foster and Bean, since both ran as conservative Democrats and had raised significant funds. It may also be difficult for the DCCC to find anything within a short legislative history against Schock, therefore their best strategy may be linking him with Bush, yet as a non-incumbent, even that may prove difficult.
Rating: Leans Republican
INDIANA
3rd – Souder (R) – Fort Wayne and Goshen.
The Republican sweep of 1994 resulted in Mark Souder defeating Jill Long Thompson, a Democrat representing a largely Republican district at the time. While the district is solidly Republican, Souder does have one noticeable vulnerability. Souder’s closest race was not in 1994, in which he defeated an incumbent, yet it was in 2006, when he took 54% of the vote. The Democratic nominee this year is Michael Montagano, an attorney. Unlike his opponent in 2006, Montagano does not hail from Allen County, which delivers a little less than 50% of the overall vote total. The 2006 Democratic nominee also had legislative experience, unlike Montagano. However, one positive sign for Montagano is fundraising. He has managed to keep pace with Souder, yet has still accumulated less than the 2006 nominee. Another bright spot for Montagano is having Thompson on the ballot. Thompson, is currently running for governor against the unpopular current governor, Mitch Daniels. Thompson can help Montagano as much as Daniels hurts Souder, yet even if this occurs and voter turnout increases, Montagano would still have a substantial amount of work remaining. Allen County and the surrounding Fort Wayne area are Republican strongholds, therefore a candidate would have to run as a Blue Dog Democrat in order to be successful. Montagano does not appear to be doing such. Even if there is a wave of Republican losses on election night, it may take a cyclone of loses or 2010 redistricting before Souder is defeated.
Rating: Republican Favored
4th – Buyer (R) – Greenwood and Lafayette.
You know your member of Congress is a product of Washington when 79% of their fundraising is derived from PAC’s. Astonishingly true, yet meet Steve Buyer, a true Bush Republican. Buyer may be the best example of the influence special interests have in Washington. However, he has gradually begun to see support at home slip. His margin of victory since 2002 has diminshed lower and lower. Each time Buyer outspent his opponents (thanks to special interest groups), yet still took less of the electorate than the preceding election. This year he is being challenged by Nels Ackerson, a Democratic lawyer. Ackerson is the best financed opponent Buyer has had since coming to Congress. Understanding the Republican nature of the district, Ackerson has criticized Buyer for his connections to special interest and embarked on a grassroots style campaign. Buyer’s most noted fame is being an impeachment manager during Clinton’s trial in the US Senate. Of the thirteen original managers, he is one of four remaining in Congress (Sensenbrenner, Chabot, and the recently defeated Cannon being the others). Interestingly, the careers of these post-impeachment managers has been unimpressive. Three, two of which were running for higher office, were defeated in the next election (Hutchinson, McCollum, and Rogan). Two more faced defeat following 2001 redistricting (Barr and Gekas). Another lost twice running for US Senate (Bryant) and only one has been successful making it to higher office (Lindsey Graham, who has become less conservative than he was in the House). This year, Chris Cannon of Utah, became the latest casualty, with Steve Chabot of Ohio, almost certain to be the next. That will then leave the gang of 13 down to two (Sensenbrenner and Buyer). Of course, Buyer has yet to find any wrongdoing on the part of Bush, yet why would he when the same special interests are in his re-election corner. While defeating Buyer is a battle within itself, the Democratic nominee would have to do something which none other has done: win decisively in Tippecanoe County (Obama carried it in the primary). Bringing Evan Bayh into the district to campaign is also strongly productive, after all Buyer has Bush on his side.
Rating: Republican Favored
9th – Hill (D) – Bloomington, Columbus, and New Albany.
In the past three election cycles two names have consistently appeared on the ballot: Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel. In 2002, Hill narrowly defeated Sodrel, then it was Sodrel who defeated Hill, also narrowly, in 2004. In 2006, after heavy funding by both parties, it was then Hill who once again defeated Sodrel, likewise narrowly. Now it is 2008 and round four has begun. However, the environment is much different. In 2004, Bush was popular and also on the ballot. Now it’s 2008 and Bush is far less popular. Additionally, the NRCC has less money to spend. It also has to contend with open seats galore and the massive money advantage of the DCCC. Further complicating the Republicans retaking this seat is lackluster fundraising by Sodrel, the worst in each attempt he has made for Congress. The Libertarian candidate, who took 4% of the vote last time, most likely favorable to Sodrel, has also made it on the ballot again this year. Had it been a two way race in 2006 and Sodrel received the votes of the Libertarian and a write-in Republican, Hill would have still won, by a narrower 59 votes. The district overall is Republican, with Monroe County being the only reliable Democratic vote. The other two important counties are Clark and Floyd, yet they have consistently been considered even on both candidates. Hill’s endorsement of Obama was rather awkward since Clinton carried every county, except Monroe, and took 61% of the district vote. However, even with his endorsement, Hill shouldn’t expect Obama to be an asset, nor is McCain necessarily an asset to Sodrel. If Obama does campaign in Indiana and anywhere within the district, Hill should restrict him to Monroe County (Bloomington) because even in Clark and Floyd counties, both of which are evenly split between Hill and Sodrel vote wise, Clinton defeated Obama overwhelmingly (68% in Clark and 66% in Floyd). Unlike 2006, this may not make the NRCC’s top ten list, complicated by additional loses last election and open seats with a dozen vulnerable incumbents this year. As a result of this disturbing news, Sodrel may want to call on Bush, he worked rather well in 2004, let’s see how well he may work in 2008.
Rating: Leans Democrat
IOWA
4th – Latham (D) – Ames, Fort Dodge, and Mason City.
Since coming to Congress in the Republican wave of 1994, Latham has gradually seen his state change for the worst, that is worst for Republicans. He has seen the congressional delegation go from 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat to 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The surprise defeat of Jim Leach at the hands of David Loebsack, who won as a write-in candidate during the Democratic primary, provides only part of the concern Latham should be experiencing. The election also saw Republicans lose four seats in the state house and five seats, in what was then, an evenly dividided state senate. These loses signify that Democrats are likely to control redistricting at a time when Iowa is projected to lose a seat. Therefore, even if Latham if victorious this year, he is almost certain to find himself in a battle with Steve King in 2012. The district itself favors neither party and may actually be one where Obama may be considered an asset. Obama won 13 of the 28 counties here, whereas the best showing McCain had was finishing second in three counties (Fred Thompson’s Law and Order triumped the Straight Talk Express here). The Democratic nominee is Becky Greenwald. She defeated four other candidates in the primary, yet third place finisher William Meyers, a disabled war vet, has decided to run as an independent following his poor primary performace, an indicator that could only help Latham. However, with this development, Latham cannot consider himself safe. Iowa has gradually been transforming from a red state to a blue state (CO, MT, NH, NM, OH, and VA being the others). Democrats have a registration advantage in the district, dominating the three major cities: Ames, Fort Dodge, and Mason City. The only solid Republican support can be found west of Des Moines. The effect Meyers has on Greenwald would be minimal at most since he only took 10% of the vote in the primary. Latham does dominate Greenwald in fundraising, yet Greenwald has been undertaking a grassroots campaign (if there is a candidate similar to Carol Shea-Porter’s surprise victory in 2006, then this would be the one). Historically, Iowa voters have not had a problem abandoning long-serving incumbents and electing underdogs in their place, especially during waves. Leach, a casualty of the Democratic wave two years ago, had served for 15 years. Neal Martin, an incumbent with 20 years of service, was a casualty of the 1994 Republican wave. Greenwald has many factors benefitting her, including Obama’s performance in the district and McCain’s lack of, popular Governor Culver and Senator Harkin’s ability to offer campaign support, and the Democratic trend of the district. Investment by the DCCC here would be much wiser and less costly than in a few other districts. Latham has funds, but also history on his side. If the wave hits Iowa he may become its latest casualty.
Rating: Likely Republican
KANSAS
2nd – Boyda (D) – Leavenworth, Pittsburg, and Topeka.
In 2004 Nancy Boyda was defeated by incumbent Jim Ryun by a 15% margin. Two years later, in a surprise upset of the night, Nancy Boyda defeated Jim Ryun by 4% (a 19% improvement from two years previous). In fact, Boyda was only one of two unsuccesful challengers from 2004 to win in 2006 (McNerney was the other). The fact of Mark Foley, the infamous page scandal congressman, being his Washington neighbor, may have less to do with Ryun’s loss than what he did in the days prior to the election. Once he realized that he was facing a closer race than 2004 he invited Bush and Cheney to fundraise with him. At a time when both were toxic, and still are, the mere invitation to both may have convinced the electorate that Ryun was indeed too aligned with Bush and Cheney, resulting in his defeat. Ryun now wants his job back, yet he faces a competitive primary challenger in State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins. The primary itself mirrors an ongoing battle within the Kansas Republican Party. Ryun is a staunch conservative and Jenkins is considered a moderate. Republicans dominate both chambers of state government, yet many moderate Republicans have voted with Democrats on social issues strongly opposed by conservatives. In 2006, party division not only led to Ryun’s loss, but also to that of five state house seats, and a state attorney general detested strongly by moderate Republicans. The Ryun-Jenkins race is just one of many featuring conservative vs. moderate. Conservative leaders in the state senate have recruited fellow conservatives to challenge what they call “liberal” Republicans who are running for re-election this year. While Ryun is expected to win the primary due to strong conservative turnout, the primary challenge has left him with an inability to concentrate solely on Boyda. The advantage in this Republican leaning district clearly lies with Boyda. She has established a fairly moderate voting record, thereby allowing her to appease the moderate voters of the Republican Party. Campaign support from a popular Democratic governor and sharing the ballot with the last Democrat to represent the district, Jim Slattery, are also strong advantages. If Ryun wins the primary, then expect a large percentage of Jenkins supporters to shift to Boyda, providing her with sufficient support in overcoming the Republican dominance of the district. If Jenkins wins, then expect many of Ryun’s supporters to overlook the race in its entirety. After all, if a moderate Republican is a “liberal” in Kansas, then what would one consider a moderate Democrat? As for any role Senator Roberts plays in this race could be interesting. If he campaigns aggressively for Ryun, then he could alienate Republican moderates and narrowly lose his own re-election.
Rating: Leans Democrat (Ryun wins)/No Clear Favorite (Jenkins wins)
3rd – Moore (D) – Kansas City, Lawrence, and Overland Park.
One of four conservative Democrats consistently challenged by Republicans has been Dennis Moore (Edwards, Marshall, and Matheson are the others). As a result of this challenge and the Republican strength of the district, Moore has had competitive races each year since being elected, with 2006 being the rare exception. Conservative strength in the district has been negated by moderates who have gone to Moore when the Republican candidate was considered too conservative. Moore’s rise to Congress is similar to that of Boyda’s in that he defeated an incumbent considered as being too conservative for moderate Republicans. In 2000, Republicans nominated Phil Kline, a staunch conservative, the result was a narrow win for Moore (Kline later went on to become state attorney general, yet was defeated overwhelmingly in his 2006 re-election due to moderate Republicans deserting him). In 2002, Republicans nominated Adam Taff, a moderate, yet Moore once again won narrowly. In 2004, Kris Kobach, a radical conservative was nominated. Moore not only won again, but with a greater margin than his previous two elections even with George Bush on the ballot (Kobach is now chairman of the divided state Republican Party). This year Republicans have “unofficially” nominated state senator Nick Jordan, who is doing something none of the three previous challengers did, disguising his conservative credentials by running as a moderate. Unlike previous years, Jordan’s campaign website makes no mention of illegal immigration or pro-life positions, issues which have divided the Republican establishment. Jordan has based his campaign more on running against Washington, than running against Moore, yet even that may be an overstatement. The Bush fundraising machine came into the district and helped raise funds for Jordan (so much for the Washington establishment). Jordan views McCain as an asset since he appeals to moderate Republicans and he hopes that in praising McCain he will be a beneficiary of that appeal. He also knows that he can rely on the conservative base, those that know what his true colors are. However, the DCCC and Moore will most certainly uncover the disguise which Jordan has adopted. Inviting Bush to the district, as Ryun did, will only provide greater assistance in unmasking the fraud. Two benefits for Moore is his fundraising advantage and the placement of a Libertarian candidate on the ballot. Whether or not Jordan will be successful in uniting conservative and moderate Republicans (as he states) remains to be seen, yet it is highly unlikely.
Rating: Leans Democrat
KENTUCKY
2nd – Open Seat (R) – Bowling Green, Elizabethtown, and Owensboro.
Following the closest re-election in his congressional career and the loss of Republican control, Ron Lewis has decided to retire. The method in which Lewis announced his retirement caught many Republicans off guard. On the last day to file, the wife of Daniel London, Lewis’s chief of staff, withdrew Lewis’s re-election papers and replaced them with London’s. However, when state senator Brett Guthrie heard of Lewis’s pending retirement, he quickly filed, meeting the deadline narrowly. By withdrawing his papers at the last minute Lewis wanted to ensure that London would run without oppossition, yet the plan ultimately failed, culminating with Guthrie defeating London overwhelmingly in the Republican primary. Meanwhile, Democrats had a competitive primary between Daviess County judge executive Reid Haire and state senator David Boswell. It was Boswell who ultimately prevailed. While the district is considered Republican leaning, it actually has a 107,000 Democratic voter registration advantage. However, like in Mississippi, Democrats here are notoriously known for voting Republican on the federal level. Guthrie currently leads Boswell in fundraising, yet that noticeable difference may be due to the Democratic primary being more competitive than the Republican primary, allowing Guthrie to conserve money while Boswell was spending his. Guthrie is strongly endorsed by Senator McConnell and has even invited Bush to fundraise on his behalf. There is no net gain having Obama on the ballot for Boswell (Obama only carried 26% of the electorate during the primary). In fact, this may be one of the few places in the nation where Obama does more harm than Bush. In the northeastern part of the district, where Fort Knox is located, the war in Iraq is most likely to be a major issue. In the southern part of the district, where Bowling Green is home to several manufacturing jobs, including a General Motors plant, the downturn of the economy is certainly a concern. One certainty is that Obama will not win this district, yet Democrats statewide have traditionally performed well here. Boswell has run a different type of campaign, even refusing to accept campaign donations during the primary (in fact all his contributions go through ActBlue). Whether or not this lackluster plan helps or hurts him in the end remains to be seen. Guthrie, in contrast, has sought to align himself with Bush and McConnell, a negative at best (especially if McConnell’s campaign implodes). Until the sparks fly and war is declared, this race has gained very little traction.
Rating: Too Close to Call
3rd – Yarmuth (D) – Louisville.
In 2006, the first sign of Republican hemoragging was the surprising win of John Yarmuth (Kentucky polls are the first to close in the nation). Following her defeat, Anne Northup decided to run against an ethically tainted governor, yet still lost (the endorsement by Sen. Bunning didn’t help). After two loses in the past two years, Northup is back to make it a perfect three. In terms of fundraising, Northup has remained competitive, thanks of course to Big Oil (Northup took more donations from Big Oil in her career than any other current member of the House). While she has been outraising Yarmuth, and the NRCC remains committed in bringing Big Oil Anne back to Washington, the task may be more challenging this year. The GOP would have preferred to not be spending in the Louisville market, at a time when overall funds are low and when the race itself was never considered a prospective loss in 2006. Yet the Obama factor is what makes the task that much harder. Obama won this district during the primary and it is most likely the only congressional district statewide where he will defeat McCain soundly. Any attempt by Big Oil Anne to make the campaign about energy, as she has promised, could certainly backfire. However, due to her inability to defeat a failed governor, and the demographics of the district clearly against her, the likelihood of Big Oil Anne returning to implement failed policies is low at best.
Rating: Likely Democrat
LOUISIANA
1st – Scalise (R) – Hammond, Metairie, and Slidell.
The first congressional district can best be defined as one in which individuals either resign (Livingston and Jindal) or retire (Vitter), yet very rarely is an incumbent defeated. The same should be said for this year as well, yet Scalise faces a well-funded self financier. The Democratic nominee is James Harlan. He has donated 500K to his challenging quest to defeat Scalise. The road is shaky and no DCCC funding will be coming anytime soon. The district is reliably Republican in every aspect, yet it will force Scalise to spend time and money in the district. Scalise won a special election to succeed newly elected Governor Jindal, yet the primary against state representative Tim Burns was anything but civil. Therefore, unlike his Democratic opponent who was poorly financed and less of a threat, expect Scalise to tie Harlan into Obama as much as possible (this district has very few African Americans and is of course in the South). While Harlan will keep Scalise busy, don’t expect the race to turn much competitive, unless Scalise does something absolutely stupid or if a late development (the Foley factor) brings Scalise down.
Rating: Safe Republican
2nd – Jefferson (D) – New Orleans.
While most members of Congress either resign or are defeated in the next election when wrongdoing is alleged, William Jefferson’s re-election in 2006 defies this notion. However, there has been one slight development since Jefferson’s re-election victory in 2006: he has since been indicted. Unlike other members of Congress who have decided to retire under indictment (Renzi), Jefferson is not phased, nor willing to succumb to pressure. However, while he may be corrupt and running for re-election, he is not the only one. In fact, many Republicans have decided to run again, even though they have become entangled in active investigations (Jerry Lewis, Tom Feeney, and Don Young to name a few). Democrats are not concerned with Republicans picking up the seat, even with Jefferson’s problems. In fact, the last time a Republican held the seat was in 1889 and he served only one term. However, there should be some concern for Democrats, especially Sen. Landrieu (the last thing she needs is Jefferson appearing beside her) who will need the African American vote in New Orleans. If Jefferson does survive the primary, there is a possibility of the Rostenkowski effect occurring, yet it is very unlikely (Rostenkowski, under indictment, was defeated in an overwhelming Democratic district by a Republican). As a result, the real fireworks of this race will occur during the September primary. Jefferson is facing a crowded Democratic primary, similar to what occurred two years previous. As a result of the crowded primary, Jefferson could certainly make it into the October run-off. The Democrats most competitive against Jefferson are New Orleans councilman James Carter, Jefferson Parish councilman Byron Lee, or state representative Cedric Richmond. However, keeping the cash strapped Jefferson from making it into the run-off should be the primary focus of all candidates.
Rating: Safe Democrat
4th – Open Seat (R) – De Ridder, Natchitoches, and Shreveport.
When prolific Republican fundraiser Jim McCrery announced his retirement the rush for potential successors had begun. Three Democrats, four Republicans, and two independents are now competing for the seat. The only Democratic candidate with decent funding is Caddo Parish District Attorney Paul Carmouche. The real competition is on the Republican side (anyone who though the open seat primary in Alabama was nasty is in for a real treat here). The Republicans include Dr. John Fleming who has dumped $500K of his own funds into the race. Then there is businessman Chris Gorman who has dumped $396K of his own money into the race. Finally, there is former Bossier Chamber of Commerce President Jeff Thompson, the preferred choice of the NRCC. However, unlike his primary opponents, whom he has attacked for their self donations, he has only donated $50K of personal funds (that would be $50K more than Carmouche as well). Therefore, if he attacks his opponents for their self donations, should he make it to the general election, he too will be eligible for the same attack. While Carmouche should easily seal the nomination in September, the Republican nominee will most likely be determined in an October runoff, providing little time to raise funds or rebuild party unity. Carmouche is the perfect Democratic candidate for the district, yet Democrats here have been known to stray onto the oppossite side in the past (Governor Roemer and Foster are two former Democrats that switched to Republican). While unemployment has remained low compared to the national average, energy prices are most likely to be the decisive issue. Yet all three Republican candidates are talking social issues: illegal immigration, pro-life, family values, and who is most conservative. While this argument may work throughout the primary, the likelihood is that these issues will be less important in the general election. The bright spot for Carmouche is that Democrats compose 51% of the voters. He also has an edge in cash on hand and will be able to compete against the eventual nominee, following a bruising and nasty primary, rather easily.
Rating: Leans Democrat
6th – Cazayoux (D) – Baton Rouge.
The worst news Don Cazayoux may have received was not Woody Jenkins dropping out, rather it may have been Michael Jackson (no not the Thriller guy) deciding to run as an independent. Cazayoux defeated state representative Michael Jackson in what many considered a civil primary (Jackson may have felt otherwise). In the special election, Cazayoux then defeated the controversial Jenkins, surprising Republicans by winning a seat that had been in Republican control for 33 years. Republicans have since nominated state senator Dr. Bill Cassidy. What worries Democrats is what effect Jackson, an African American, will have on other African Americans who compose 30% of the electorate. Republicans sought to manipulate the issue following Jackson’s primary loss, with the clear intent of alienating African Americans, yet it didn’t work. Democrats overall compose less than 50% of registered voters, yet a loss greater than 10% of African Americans would make the task of Cazayoux much harder, forcing him to win the remaining bloc of Democrats and independents. Cassidy comes with more cash on hand, while Cazayoux, who spent much during the primary, has very little. Jackson on the other hand has none. Cazayoux realizes that Jackson is a negative factor, yet he is also a new incumbent, therefore party expenditures are certain from the DCCC. The same will come from the NRCC, yet since the DCCC has more funds on hand, Cassidy cannot expect spending similar to that of the special election. One way to convince Jackson to leave the race may to retire his debt and offer him the ambassadorship to Bahrain (McCain already offered Phil Gramm one to Belarus).
Rating: Too Close to Call
7th – Boustany (R) – Lafayette and Lake Charles.
In 2004, Charles Boustany was the surprise winner of the seat being vacated by Democrat Chris John. Boustany’s win was attributed to African Americans voting for him as a result of what was perceived as the DCCC favoring the primary winner (State Sen. Willie Mount) over Don Cravins Sr., an African American. This year Boustany is facing a challenge from, ironically, the son of Don Cravins Sr. Democrats have selected Don Cravins Jr. to challenge Boustany. The district is 54% Democratic and 24% African American, yet it is a Caucasian majority district. If history is an indicator, Cravins will have an uphill battle. In the south, African-American majority districts have historically been represented by African-American representatives (Cohen of Tennessee being the rare exception). Yet, never has an African-American represented a Caucasian majority district in the South (Watts of Oklahoma being the closest). However, outside the South, African-American representatives have represented districts with a Caucasian majority (Carson, Cleaver, Ellison, and Moore all currently do). Whether or not the Caucasian electorate would vote for Cravins, based on appeal, rather than voting against him based on race, is an aspect that remains to be seen. In terms of fundraising, Boustany has a commanding lead, yet Cravins should not have a problem raising funds. If this turns into an upset on election night, then it may be an indication of the South finally looking beyond race. Yet, historically, the South has been reluctant to change, therefore Boustany should be considered a favorite for re-election.
Rating: Likely Republican