(Discuss. – promoted by James L.)
Most of the news in the Swing State Project is based around specific races and candidates, but I'd like to get a more general look at the Congressional races. More to the point, I'm trying to look into your expectations, what are you expecting in the 2008 elections? And what would you consider to be a huge win or a huge loss?
So, here are my expectations:
Senate Races
Expecting: (Dems pick up 2-3 seats)
Reason: The environment in the senate already gives the Democrats a huge advantage (only defending 12 compared to the Republicans' 22), in addition the national mood favors the Democrats pretty well overall. The individual races give me a bit more pause, the Democrats have a good advantage in two senate races already (Colorado and New Hampshire) with strong prospects in at least three other states (Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon). Having said that, the Democrats are in trouble in Louisiana, and in a presidential year, I'm having a hard time seeing Mary Landrieu surviving the race in Louisiana if the governors race doesn't turn around. Additionally, the Democrats might have another competitive seat in South Dakota, depending on the condition of Tim Johnson and whether or not Rounds decides to challenge him. The two assumes the Democrats win in both Colorado and New Hampshire and picks up one of the three states with high prospects and Mary Landrieu loses her seat, the three assumes the previous conditions with Landrieu keeping her seat.
Big Win: Dems win 5+ seats
Reason: In addition to the seats mentioned on top, there is still the potential for more competitive seats coming from North Carolina, New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, and Kentucky. My minimum of five seats assumes a clean sweep of all the competitive seats, assuming how some of these states go, it could end up being a landslide, picking up 6-8 seats in the senate. Keep in mind that I think winning 8 seats is only technically possible, and I'd probably have a heart attack from shock if that happened.
Big Defeat: Dems lose 0-2 seats
Reason: The flip side of the coin has to be the possibility of some Democratic seats being compeitive. I've already covered Louisiana and South Dakota, so I'll also bring into the equation the possibilties of competitive races in Iowa and Arkansas. Huckabee could still challenge Pryor and the possibility is still there that he could lose. The zero assumes either no incumbent party lost seats or the Dems either picked up New Hampshire or Colorado but lost Louisiana, the 2 assumes the Democrats don't win anything and lose in Louisiana and in either Arkansas or South Dakota. Again, keep in mind this is another of the shock scenarios, the chances of this happening are about the same as the chances of the Dems winning 8 or more seats.
I've got to get ready for work, so I'll post what I think for the House a little later. And if you disagree with me, please, I want to know what you think.
Update:
Alright, I’m going to give my outlook for the House, now keep in mind that I’ve actually been concentrating a bit harder on the Senate than the House, so I’m only going to give what I think the general mood is, you House watchers, if you think I’m wrong, please speak up and correct me:
House
Expecting: Dems break even or pick up 1-2 seats
Reason: Ok, the overall national mood still favors the Democrats, and while the Senate is definitely a huge opportunity for the Dems, the House is a very different story. With the purging of a lot of Republicans from blue districts in the Northeast (Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New York) and the fact it’s a presidential year, I don’t really see the Democrats making a repeat of 2006. The Democrats are going to have to defend a bunch of newly acquired seats such as TX-22 and FL-16. The Dems do have the ability to knock off a few more Republicans though, (NM-1 [Heather the Feather] and CT-4, for example). While the DCCC does have a money advantage over the NRCC, it’s not as dramatic as the one between the DSCC and the NRSC.
Big Win: Democrats pick up 6+ seats
Reason: Keeping in mind all everything I’ve mentioned before, the overall mood does favor the Democrats, and with more retirements likely to be on the way from Republicans, the Democrats have the potential to make a few more competitive races in swing districts. Additionally, if the Republicans pick someone like Rudy Giuliani, who would likely hurt conservative turnout in Republican districts, that might be enough to give the Democrats an edge in a few more areas.
Big Loss: Republicans pick up 4+ seats.
Reason: Look, I want it to be perfectly clear, the Republicans won’t pick up the House next year, they just don’t have the resources, will, or stability to do it. Having said that, there are definitely circumstances where the Republicans can pick up a few seats, as I mentioned before, TX-22 and FL-16 are probably going to be difficult to hold on to, not to mention KS-3 and NH-2 (was it 1 or 2 that was the suprise pick up in House?). Additionally, the congressional seat won by John Hall might be in trouble if Ari Fleschier decides to run against him. There are still other districts with really big problems like in Arizona, Georgia, and a few other House seats, but you should keep in mind this is the “nightmare” scenario, one to be prepared for, but not paranoid about either.
to post my comment. The word null comes up where the text should, and when I try yo click post nothing happens. it won’t post my comment, it only seems to work with shorter ones.
i think he’s playing the veepstakes. it would be too hard going after johnson in his state, so why not set his sights higher? he knows if rudy, mccain (don’t laugh, it could still happen, though it is very improbable) or even romney get the nod, they’re going to need a STRONG pro-life veep. I’d say Rounds fits that to a bill. plus he won’t have the negatives the presidential candidates will have accrued after months of increasingly cutthroat camapigning. he may not help electorally, but neither did dick cheney.
is that she still doesn’t have a top-tier challenger (I have my doubts that anyone’s switching to the GOP; not a great career move even in the South), and she’s polling well against a generic Republican. In fact, the likeliest scenario in which she loses would be if Jindal somehow didn’t win the state house and ran against her as a consolation prize.
I also see New Mexico, Virginia and Alaska as likelier to flip than you do–demographics aside, they’re all either going to be open seats or seriously wounded incumbents with very strong challengers. Kentucky and North Carolina will be long shots unless there are still more shocking developments (and we haven’t been disappointed so far).
No one here is saying to give up on Landrieu, but the facts right now tell us that she is the most vulnerable Democratic Senator running in 2008. Having said that, there is absolutely no excuse for the DSCC to not give significant funding to Landrieu’s reelection campaign.
Ugh. I wouldn’t go that far.
So I have some “skin in the game” on that one. I miss the Sen. Diaper Dave Vitter stories – let’s hope more details come out and he is forced to testify in the DC Madame trial and is asked, under oath, about what other Republican referred him to the prostitutes and did he also visit prostitutes in Louisiana – that becomes a relevant question if he takes the stand.
….I cannot imagine a scenario where Landrieu can win with more than 100,000 fewer black voters in New Orleans than there were when she squeaked by in 1996 and 2002. With a Democrat at the top of the ticket that will almost assuredly be branded as objectionable by most white Southerners, Landrieu’s likely in fatal trouble.
On the other hand, I’m not that afraid of Rounds in South Dakota. Even if Tim Johnson retires, I think Herseth could handle Rounds. The wild card is the effect Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket would have in decidedly nonfeminist South Dakota.
It is atitudes like this is why the democrats lost elections that we sould have won. No matter what the odds are we sould never just give up a race. Look at Virgina, nobady could have predicted the fall of George Allen and no one sould just give up on Mary Landrieu. She is a great Senator worthy of re-election. Plus nobady sould also give up on the governor race in Louisiana. Given a lot of money and time Walter Boasso could definatly beat Bobby Jindal.
Republicans will not gain anymore than possibly a seat or two if Democrats win the White House.
A couple that come to mind are CA-04(Doolittle) and CA-42(Miller). Those are very, very Conservative districts(Bush got over 60% in both and this is California). I can’t think of anything else.
Heck, we’ll pick up two seats in Ohio alone.Granted, much depends on who gets the prezzie nominations and how they perform, but overall, I say we make a net gain of five or six seats, and I wouldn’t be stunned if it is even 7.
My fear would be that progressives could pour so much time, money and heart into races that are simply unwinnable and perhaps deprive resources from more plausible candidates, who are going to need all of the help they can get.
The ace up Gillibrand’s sleeve is that if she appears to be in trouble Emily’s List will probably front-page her in their money funnel efforts. They are a redoubtable financial ally.
Ari Fleischer won’t run, period. There are, however, a variety of well funded and competitive Republicans itching to take on Hall in NY-19 and Gillibrand in neighboring NY-20.
John Hall in trouble if Ari Fleischer runs?!? All Hall would have to do is run one WH press conference and Fleisher is done and dead. Besides, just like Long Island and Connecticut, the Hudson Valley is getting more Democratic by the minute. Hall isn’t going anywhere.
Gilibrand up in NY-20 has a tougher reelection, but she’ll still probably win. In fact, look for the GOP to have only 2-3 house seats left in New York, as Walsh, Kuhl, and Reynolds will all have big challenges, I’ve read McHugh is pondering retirement, and King and Fossella are not getting free passes in an important election year in New York (Dems are going all out to take the State Senate).
People concerned about whether the top of the ticket will affect the outcome of the Senate race in Louisiana forget that the final result may not come in November, but in a later run-off, one in which Senator will be the top race on the ticket.
There’s a Zogby poll (FWIW) out there done for a potential GOP opponent, showing only leading 48-45. This candidate is very pro-war, pro-security state, etc.
And awhile back there was some poll showing a low re-elect number. Is this one to worry about?