It goes without saying that the wave election of last November was an extremely rare spectacle in modern politics–going beyond a mere “six year itch” that Ken Mehlman and friends would like you to believe. Due to the deeply fortified structural advantages that Republican incumbents had going into the 2006 cycle (a limited number of competitive seats due to shrewd gerrymandering, the standard powers of incumbency that were as salient as ever, etc), the intensity of this “wave” is rivaled only by that of 1994’s Republican coup. With that in mind, it’s worth noting what usually happens in the cycle after wave years. From the Hotline archives:
1974: +49D
1976: +1D
1980: +34R
1982: +26D
1994: +52R
1996: +3D
Waves don’t come in pairs for the same party–at least not historically. I suppose, however, that if the GOP managed to nominate a McCain-esque Iraq War cheerleader, it would almost make a second mini-wave (a ripple?) possible. But that’s a hypothetical that we shouldn’t count on at this point.
The point is: we have a number of potentially vulnerable House freshmen and even a few incumbents who probably will lose in 2008. We should get used to this idea, even as we fight our hardest to prevent it from happening. Where do we make up for it? Of course, judiciously targeting vulnerable Republican incumbents (think MI-07’s Club For Growth stooge Tim Walberg, for example) and scandal-plagued members in tippable districts (PA-18’s Tim Murphy would make a good target). The other thing we have to hope for is a strong crop of open seats left vacant by retiring Republicans in winnable districts.
So far, the open seat picture is largely speculative at this point, but I’ve made an attempt to track the number of definite and potential vacancies up for grabs in 2008. The first chart tracks definite retirements, listing each district by its incumbent, PVI, and their age on election day in 2008.
| District | Incumbent | PVI | Age | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-24 | Gallegly (R) | R+4.8 | 64 | Botched a retirement attempt in 2006 |
| CO-02 | Udall (D) | D+8.1 | 58 | Running for Senate |
| IL-04 | Gutierrez (D) | D+30.7 | 54 | Retiring |
Obviously, that’s a pretty small list at this point, as I’ve restricted it to only confirmed retirements (Gallegly has stated that this term will be his last). This list will grow considerably. There are lots of reasons for retirement: age, health issues, depression due to being in the minority, scandals, vacating the seat to pursue other career aspirations, etc. I’ve done a little bit of research into this question and have come up with a shortlist of potential retirements in districts with a PVI of less than R/D+10 (unless district history leaves me compelled to bend the rules). I could have compiled an extremely thorough list detailing including all of the members with advanced age issues (and let’s face it, we have more than our share of cryptkeepers in Congress), but I think this would be better focused on vacancies with the potential to tip the political balance. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far (and remember, just in case there’s any confusion, “age” here means age on election day, 2008):
| District | Incumbent | PVI | Age | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DE-AL | Castle (R) | D+6.5 | 69 | Health issues |
| FL-10 | Young (R) | D+1.1 | 78 | Speculation/age issues |
| IL-14 | Hastert (R) | R+4.8 | 67 | Hastert issues |
| IN-07 | Carson (D) | D+8.7 | 70 | Health issues |
| IA-03 | Boswell (D) | D+1.4 | 74 | Health issues |
| IA-04 | Latham (R) | D+0.4 | 60 | Possible Senate run |
| IA-05 | King (R) | R+8.4 | 59 | Possible Senate run |
| LA-06 | Baker (R) | R+6.5 | 60 | Possible Senate run |
| ME-01 | Allen (D) | D+6.2 | 63 | Likely Senate run |
| MI-09 | Knollenberg (R) | R+0.1 | 75 | Speculation |
| MT-AL | Rehberg (R) | R+10.8 | 53 | Possible Senate run |
| NE-02 | Terry (R) | R+9.0 | 46 | Possible Senate run |
| OH-16 | Regula (R) | R+3.6 | 84 | Age issues/Speculation |
| VA-11 | Davis (R) | R+0.6 | 59 | Possible Senate run |
This is by no means a complete list. There could very well be some left-field retirements that leave both parties scrambling to put up viable candidates, and I haven’t taken into consideration the potentiality of scandal-induced retirements. Additionally, maybe there have been some retirement rumblings surrounding incumbents in swing districts that I haven’t heard about. So, I invite you to join the discussion in the comments. Who do you think is likely to retire in 2008?
On the face of it, I’d say that the potential open seat picture favors Team Blue more than it does Team Red.
We gave Terry a real good scare in ’06. With a better fundraising operation this time around, and especially with an open seat, Esch could win it.
NE-01’s another potential open seat, though Jeff Fortenberry has not been as vocal about any potential Senate run.
to “not a level playing field” factors.
I predict that if there is no war against Iran Democrats will have another strong cycle in 2008 with significant gains in both the House and Senate.
It’s quite possible the Dem POTUS candidate could win a landslide of LBJ (’64), Nixon (’72) or Reagan proportions.
I thought he has some health issue.
And Don Manzullo (IL-16) should just be getting bored. What’s he done lately?
All 3 of those confirmed, I don’t see how any of them change parties. If we can get a real good candidate in CA-24 maybe we can pull it off but I doubt it.
Of those potential ones. From our side, Carson’s seat will stay with us she’s a weak incumbent and her successor should do better than she did. Allen’s seat will be heavily favored for us and his coattails should be able to get his successor the victory. My only concern with this is that we could have a very bloody primary. Boswell’s seat will be difficult to maintain although the GOP State Senate minority leader did lose to Boswell last cycle.
On their side, they’ll be very hard pressed to keep the DE seat. Then Young, Latham, Knollberg and Davis’ seats will be pretty much toss-ups but if Davis does decide to run for Senate the GOP candidate will probably be favored although if its against Mark Warner maybe not. With a good candidate we could possibly do some damage against Hastert and Regula seats and maybe the Montana seat.
I thought the lesson from 2006 was that we can seriously contest ANY district so long as we have a decent candidate. Why can’t we expand the playing field even further then? I’d think we could contest all the competitive districts that we lost last time (though some, like Bill Sali’s Idaho district and Doug Lamborn’s Colorado district, are probably out of reach) and find new ones (like Murphy and Walberg listed above) that we can win with the right candidates.
We have to be “judicious” in the sense of not throwing resources into unwinnable races, but aren’t a whole lot of incumbent-held districts around the country potentially competitive?
In any event, I know this is not an insightful comment, since of course we want to be aggressive, but I’ve seen a “we’ve beaten all the incumbents we can” sentiment creep into other sites, and I don’t think we need to be so self-limiting. Am I off-base here?
First of all, GWB is arguably the worst president in history. He is also involved in multiple scandals as well as hindering the Democratic majority almost to the point of it being illegal. This is the kind of stuff that will make for a different 08 than most post-wave elections. I don’t know if you remember, but the Repubs of 94 didn’t really do very much for their cause in the next 2 years and bill clinton’s popularity rose considerably over the next 2 years. GWB will not be so lucky.
On a side note, there’s the senate in 2k8 to take a look at as well. This is a place the Dem’s are almost certain to gain seats. The Republicans are going to have twice as many open seats as Democrats, with a few Repub. retirements and the senate being the worst offender in holding up anti-war legislation, this is an almost guaranteed Dem. gain (I’d be willing to bet Al Franken will bring the Dem’s one seat already). There are some weak Repub’s up for reelection too.
Then again, I wonder how many of the Democratic senators (and Republicans) running for president will offer their secure seats up for grabs.
For some reason I recall reading somewhere about Judy Biggert retiring.
is currently fighting a relapse of breast cancer. Davis underwent a massectomy & chemo back in (2005?).
Due to health issues Jo Ann Davis of Virginia should definitely be on the watch list for retirements.
I would take him off the speculation list for MI-09. In fact, he’s already started campaigning. You can’t open a newspaper without seeing his name lately and he put up a big billboard with a picture of Ahnuld saying “Arnold to Michigan: Drop Dead.” He’s taking on California and thinks he’s helping the auto industry. He also send out a campaign mailer last week. Nancy Skinner scared him to death.
Check out http://votenoonjoe.b… to keep up-to-date on Joe’s antics. There’s some really good information there.
While crazy Steve King’s district is likely too conservative to win, as a former resident of the district I’ve always thought Latham’s seat should be more competitive. Should he end up Harkin’s senate challenger, the Dems should do some serious recruiting and would have a very good shot at a pickup. The district is very competitive and Iowa Dems made a very strong showing in 06. Maybe somebody like Amanda Regan, a state senator from Mason City, could give it a go (though Iowa has a bad electoral history for female candidates).
Latham is an empty shirt and deserves a credible challenger.
Leonard Boswell will never willingly retire, though he should; in a banner year for Iowa Dems he only won by six points. He carpetbagged into the Des Moines district after redistricting and his good ole boy record is a poor match for “metro” Iowa. But no one will have the nerve to primary him, and Hillary Clinton just committed to an April undraiser for him.
That said, his health has improved dramatically in the past couple years so he may be able to hang on a bit longer. In two cycles Iowa drops from 5 disticts to 4.