Author: Crisitunity

A few days ago I wrote about the House districts that made the greatest progress in 2006, moving from Republican to Democrat and, in the best cases, moving from wingnut to progressive. That left me wondering, however, where would the greatest changes in the House come in 2008? Unfortunately, that would require knowing where on the liberal/conservative spectrum the likely new freshmen in 2008 are likely to fall. That’s something where there won’t be useful metrics until at least, say, late 2009. After trying hard to put that question out of my mind, finally I decided, “Damn it, I want to know right now.”

I tried looking at issue pages and other content on a few candidate websites… and man, did my eyes glaze over fast. While I was pleased to see a general conformity with Democratic messaging and avoidance of right-wing talking points, there was little there to help a discerning eye differentiate between a Progressive, a New Dem, or a Blue Dog. Basically, everyone hates high gas prices and global warming; everyone loves job creation, access to health care, cute children, firefighters, and standing in front of scenic views in their districts.

So, I was left with no alternative but to do what any reasonable nerd would do when faced with the task of extrapolating future events: I performed a Poblano-style analysis using a variety of demographic factors, bearing in mind what demographics in a district tend to lead to what kind of representative getting elected. Just as whether a district would go for Obama or Clinton turned out to have little relationship to that district’s PVI, the PVI alone isn’t a good indicator for whether a district is likelier to produce a Progressive, a New Dem, or a Blue Dog.

More over the flip…

However, it’s not that complex: you need to factor in PVI (preferably more Dem-leaning), region (preferably northeast or west), ruralness (preferably more urban), education (preferably higher), and per capita income (preferably higher). (And this only applies in majority-white districts; obviously, there are a lot of districts that elect Progressives that have very low education and PCI numbers, but those are usually also non-white districts. Since Democrats already control all districts where Anglos are a distinct minority except for the three in south Florida, I just ignored that potential problem.) There’s only one element of ‘special sauce’ where I awarded bonus points, and that’s having endorsed the Responsible Plan for withdrawal from Iraq, which has become something of a statement of one’s progressive bona fides.

In testing the formula against the current crop of freshmen, it worked very well at predicting whether or not a representative would become a Blue Dog (and there are a lot of them among the current freshmen). It was a little screwier when predicting who would be a Progressive vs. who would be a New Dem. (For instance, it predicted John Hall and Peter Welch would be New Dems, while Joe Sestak and Ed Perlmutter would be Progressives (the opposites are true). Not that it matters too much, as the differences aren’t that great; it tends to be the difference between a Progressive Punch score of, say, 94 vs. 92.) Therefore, rather than using hard-and-fast predictions, I’ve tried to blur the boundaries a bit, with some ‘maybe’ categories on the cusp.

One last point to reiterate: these rankings don’t express how likely the Democrats are to pick up these seats. They express where these candidates, if elected, are likely to fit in on the liberal/conservative spectrum. The following tables include the demographics for districts for the candidates in toss-up and leaning seats, according to Swing State Project predictions. I also included all of our candidates in ‘likely R’ and ‘race to watch’ races, but I’m not including full demographic information in the tables for them. (A question mark next to the name means a primary still needs to be resolved.)

Likely Progressives

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
CT-04	Himes	D+5	NE	4.1	42.2	41K
IL-10	Seals	D+4	MW	0.4	47.5	39K
WA-08	Burner *	D+2	W	12.4	37.4	31K

* = Extra credit for Responsible Plan endorsement (although in Burner’s case, she’d still be “Likely Progressive” just based on district demographics alone)

Lower on the list: CA-46 (Cook *), CA-50 (Leibham), NJ-05 (Shulman *)

Likely Progressives, Maybe New Dems

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
MI-09	Peters	D+0	MW	0.7	43.5	36K
NJ-03	Adler	D+3	NE	3.8	27.2	26K
NJ-07	Stender	R+1	NE	9.6	41.5	36K

Lower on the list: CA-26 (Warner), IL-13 (Harper), PA-06 (Roggio), PA-15 (Bennett *)

Likely New Dems, Maybe Progressives

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
MN-03	Madia	R+1	MW	4.2	40.1	33K
NM-01	Heinrich	D+2	W	8.7	29.5	20K
NY-13	McMahon (?)	D+1	NE	0.0	24.0	23K
NY-25	Maffei	D+3	NE	21.0	27.8	22K
NY-29	Massa *	R+5	NE	41.6	26.1	21K

Lower on the list: IL-06 (Morganthaler)

Likely New Dems

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
CO-04	Markey	R+9	W	24.9	28.7	21K
NV-03	Titus	D+1	W	3.7	20.4	25K
NY-26	Powers (?)	R+3	NE	28.8	25.5	22K
OH-15	Kilroy	R+1	MW	8.8	32.1	23K
VA-11	Connolly	R+1	S	4.1	48.9	33K

Lower on the list: AZ-03 (Lord), FL-15 (Blythe *?), MN-02 (Sarvi), NE-02 (Esch), NV-02 (Derby *), OH-14 (O’Neill *), PA-18 (O’Donnell), TX-07 (Skelly), VA-10 (Feder)

Likely New Dems, Maybe Blue Dogs

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
IL-11	Halvorson	R+1	MW	21.8	18.5	21K
OH-01	Dreihaus	R+1	MW	5.2	22.3	20K
OH-02	Wulsin	R+13	MW	27.0	29.0	26K

Lower on the list: CA-04 (Brown), CA-45 (Borenstein), FL-08 (Stuart?), FL-24 (Kosmas), MD-01 (Kratovil), TX-10 (Doherty)

Likely Blue Dogs, Maybe New Dems

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
AK-AL	Berkowitz (?)	R+14	W	34.3	24.7	23K
AZ-01	Fitzpatrick (?)	R+2	W	44.5	17.5	15K
MI-07	Schauer	R+2	MW	46.0	19.1	21K
MO-06	Barnes	R+5	MW	33.7	21.2	20K
OH-16	Boccieri	R+4	MW	26.4	19.2	21K

Lower on the list: FL-09 (Dicks), FL-13 (Jennings), IL-18 (Callahan), KS-04 (Betts), MN-06 (Tinklenburg), PA-03 (Dahlkemper), SC-01 (Ketner)

Likely Blue Dogs

District	Candidate	PVI	Region	Rural %	4-yr. degree %	PCI
LA-04	Carmouche (?)	R+7	S	40.7	16.7	16K
NC-08	Kissell	R+3	S	30.6	18.2	18K

Lower on the list: AL-02 (Bright), AL-03 (Segall), ID-01 (Minnick), IN-03 (Montagano), IN-04 (Ackerson), IA-04 (Greenwald), KY-02 (Boswell), MO-09 (Baker?), NM-02 (Teague), NC-10 (Johnson), OH-07 (Neuhardt), PA-05 (McCracken), SC-02 (Miller), VA-02 (Nye), VA-05 (Perriello *), WV-02 (Barth), WY-AL (Trauner)

(I’ve left out Annette Taddeo, Raul Martinez, and Joe Garcia, as I have no idea whether this formula applies to non-white districts. We’re basically flying blind in terms of where the Cuban-American community is headed, in terms of generational change and Castro no longer having much boogeyman power.)

Now, granted, this is an analysis performed in a academic vacuum, bereft of any anecdotal evidence from campaign websites, press releases, appearances, local rumor mills, etc., that might give more clarity to predicting a candidate’s ideological record. (For instance, Larry Kissell may not turn out to be a Blue Dog, or at least not a bottom-of-the-barrel one like John Barrow or Jim Marshall. And that’s not just because I’m taking it on faith, like much of the blogosphere seems to, that a man who posts regularly at Daily Kos simply can’t be a Blue Dog. Check out the issues section of his website; he starts out by framing his agenda using right-wing talking points, but when you click on each one, he performs a neat bit of jujitsu on each one. That’s progressive messaging.) (And conversely, from what I’ve heard of Mike McMahon, he certainly doesn’t seem like a candidate to be a Progressive, and that’s reasonable, given the social conservatism of Staten Island.) So I’m relying on you guys in the comments to debunk my analysis and provide the anecdotes that prove that so-and-so is going to be a Progressive, district demographics be damned!

Rasmussen (likely voters, 6/17, 5/19 in parentheses):

Mark Udall (D): 49 (47)

Bob Schaffer (R): 40 (41)

(MoE: ±4%)

It’s a small bump, but Udall’s lead has moved outside the margin of error. His favorability numbers also are way ahead of Schaffer’s (56% very or somewhat favorable for Udall vs. 47% very or somewhat favorable for Schaffer, 35% very or somewhat unfavorable for Udall vs. 45% very or somewhat unfavorable for Schaffer).

I guess that’s what happens when you don’t know which mountains are located in your own state. Or what happens when you’re pals with Jack Abramoff and David Safavian…

Bonus finding (James): Obama leads by 43-41 in the state, down from 48-42 in May.

John Barrow stands out like a bit of a sore thumb: by most measures, he’s one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, but unlike the other arch-Blue Dogs, he’s doing it in a district that’s D+2 and where the majority of the Democratic electorate is African-American. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that he’s facing a primary challenge from the left this year, from state senator Regina Thomas.

This race hasn’t been getting much attention, in terms of netroots traction and certainly not in terms of money. However, the biggest gun of all was suddenly wheeled out today: Barack Obama, who cut a radio spot in favor of John Barrow. (You can listen to the spot over at Talking Points Memo.)

Obama credits Barrow for:

…standing up to the lobbyists, and the Republicans who vote right down the line with George Bush…

Hmmm… I wonder if Obama has been paying attention to the FISA fight that’s going on in the Capitol as we speak, and what side Barrow’s been on with that?

The question here is: is Barrow actually feeling some heat in the primary, or is he just calling in a favor as a preemptive strike (Barrow heads Obama’s voter registration efforts in Georgia, and Barrow endorsed Obama back in February)?

The decision has left some of Obama’s backers in Savannah disappointed. But as Matt Stoller diagnosed, it’s pretty much win-win for Obama. Cutting the ad for Barrow helps him show all the Blue Dogs that he has their back, and it may help reduce the talking out of turn by guys like Dan Boren and Tim Mahoney. If Barrow wins, he’ll still be less of a thorn in Obama’s side with an increased progressive majority where Blue Dogs hold less sway in the House. And if Thomas somehow pulls it out, well, that’s one more progressive ally for Obama’s agenda.

OK, get all the pirate-themed ARG jokes out of your system. Ready now?

American Research Group (likely voters, 6/13-17):

Jeanne Shaheen (D): 54

John Sununu (R-inc): 40

(MoE: ±4%)

Jeanne Shaheen still faces a big campaign funds shortfall compared with the loaded Sununu, but the polls have consistently had this one in Casey/Santorum wipeout territory, and this is no exception. She owes her edge to indies: Shaheen is up 53-38 among independent and undeclared voters.

Of course, that’s peanuts compared with the beat-down that popular incumbent governor John Lynch is administering to state senator Joseph Kenney, as he seeks another term.

John Lynch (D-inc): 65

Joseph Kenney (R): 21

(MoE: ±4%)

Bear in mind, though, that the top line of the poll also has Obama beating McCain 51-39, so this may be an overly Democratic sample. (Or else the McCain campaign is completely imploding, and there’s enough polling evidence over the last week to actually suggest that.)

We went a long way toward swinging the needle in the House to the left in the 2006 election. Obviously, this is a direct result of picking up 30+ seats, but there’s more to it than that. It’s also a matter of replacing Republicans with the right people: replacing a right-wing nutter with a progressive goes a much longer way toward than replacing a moderate Republican with a Blue Dog, and we did more of the former. In addition, most of our open seat replacements wound up being more liberal than their predecessors.

To explore this, I matched up the DW-Nominate score* for each representative in each seat in the 109th Congress (2005-2006) vs. the 110th Congress (2007-2008). (I also converted the scores into discrete ranks from most liberal to least liberal, as DW-Nominate scores don’t look very meaningful at first glance. However, I’m subtracting the scores, not the ranks, so that we’re measuring actual shifts in voting records, rather than measuring distortion caused by an increase in the size of the Democratic caucus.) Let’s start by looking at the seats where the overall shift was the largest (not coincidentally, these were the seats that switched from R to D).

District	109th Rep.	109th Score	Rank	110th Rep.	110th Score	Rank	Difference
MN-01	Gutknecht (R)	0.747	414	Walz (D)	-0.337	161	-1.084
CO-07	Beauprez (R)	0.631	378	Perlmutter (D)	-0.317	173	-0.948
WI-08	Green (R)	0.561	353.5	Kagen (D)	-0.333	165	-0.894
KS-02	Ryun (R)	0.637	383	Boyda (D)	-0.239	197	-0.876
NH-02	Bass (R)	0.479	302.5	Hodes (D)	-0.397	126	-0.876
IN-08	Hostettler (R)	0.753	415	Ellsworth (D)	-0.118	229	-0.871
NH-01	Bradley (R)	0.467	298	Shea-Porter (D)	-0.398	124	-0.865
TX-23	Bonilla (R)	0.482	305.5	Rodriguez (D)	-0.362	147.5	-0.844
AZ-05	Hayworth (R)	0.688	399	Mitchell (D)	-0.148	224	-0.836
KY-03	Northup (R)	0.431	279.5	Yarmuth (D)	-0.401	122	-0.832

More over the flip…

In case you’re wondering which GOP to Dem switch made the least difference, the answer may surprise you: it was in PA-08, which was one of the few cases where we went from a moderate Republican (Fitzpatrick: 0.213 (207)) to a Blue Dog (Murphy: – 0.233 (200)). (Patrick Murphy gets a lot of netroots credit for his anti-war stance, but he’s pretty economically conservative.)

Now let’s look at seats where the leftward shift was the greatest but where the same party kept the seat (and in some cases, the same person kept the seat).

District	109th Rep.	109th Score	Rank	110th Rep.	110th Score	Rank	Difference
HI-02	Case (D)	-0.222	184	Hirono (D)	-0.57	40.5	-0.348
TX-04	Hall (R)	0.453	287.5	Hall (R)	0.249	237	-0.204
FL-11	Davis (D)	-0.292	166.5	Castor (D)	-0.459	88	-0.167
FL-13	Harris (R)	0.561	353.5	Buchanan (R)	0.447	294	-0.114
TN-09	Ford (D)	-0.322	155	Cohen (D)	-0.432	106.5	-0.11
MD-03	Cardin (D)	-0.352	142	Sarbanes (D)	-0.46	87	-0.108
MN-05	Sabo (D)	-0.583	31	Ellison (D)	-0.674	15	-0.091
NV-02	Gibbons (R)	0.641	386.5	Heller (R)	0.561	355.5	-0.08
OH-10	Kucinich (D)	-0.727	7	Kucinich (D)	-0.795	2	-0.068
OK-05	Istook (R)	0.601	365	Fallin (R)	0.537	340	-0.064

I’m not really sure what overcame Ralph Hall. He switched to the Republicans in 2004 in order to survive the DeLay-mander, so my best guess is that he may have been overcompensating in 2005 and 2006 in order to prove his Republican bona fides and avoid a primary challenge, but now that he’s more safely ensconced in his seat, he’s reverting more toward his original Blue Doggish tendencies.

Finally, let’s look at the seats where there was the greatest rightward shift. If you look at the raw numbers, you might think the House as a whole moved to the right: there was a leftward progression in 149 seats and a rightward movement in 154 seats (with the score staying exactly the same in the other 132 seats). However, most of those rightward shifts are extremely small fractions, perhaps as the remaining Republicans closed ranks; a few bigger shifts resulted from open seats (both D and R-held). None of the shifts is anywhere near the magnitude of what occurred in seats that went from R to D.

District	109th Rep.	109th Score	Rank	110th Rep.	110th Score	Rank	Difference
OH-04	Oxley (R)	0.434	281.5	Jordan (R)	0.772	417	0.338
MI-07	Schwarz (R)	0.317	229	Walberg (R)	0.623	374.5	0.306
GA-09/10	Norwood (R)	0.711	405	Broun (R)	0.998	433	0.287
NE-03	Osborne (R)	0.362	243.5	Smith (R)	0.627	376	0.265
CA-22	Thomas (R)	0.399	261	McCarthy (R)	0.573	358	0.174
OH-06	Strickland (D)	-0.461	84	Wilson (D)	-0.289	181	0.172
TN-01	Jenkins (R)	0.548	344	Davis (R)	0.684	393.5	0.136
IL-06	Hyde (R)	0.419	271.5	Roskam (R)	0.538	341	0.119
GA-04	McKinney (D)	-0.641	17	Johnson (D)	-0.527	54	0.114
IL-17	Evans (D)	-0.47	79	Hare (D)	-0.366	146	0.104

* I’m using DW-Nominate 1st dimension scores for this because, of all the methods for assessing voting records, it’s the best for doing linear, historical research where one Congress is compared against another. DW-Nominate scores reflect all votes on all roll calls, so there isn’t the cherry-picking problem that other aggregators run into. In some ways, I’d prefer to be using Progressive Punch or National Journal scores, as I’ve done on previous projects; they’re scored 100 to 0, and people can easily mentally convert them into the A-to-F grading scale. However, in addition to the distortion problems that come with those methods, there’s the matter of older National Journal and CQ scores being behind paid firewalls, and the matter of older Progressive Punch scores being available only as lifetime scores rather than being broken down by year or congress.

Here is their explanation of how the scores work; for those of you who aren’t professional statisticians, what you need to know is that the scores basically run between – 1 and 1, with – 1 being most liberal and 1 being most conservative. My eventual goal is to build a database that examines the relationship between DW-Nominate scores and PVIs over the decades, but, please, give me some time on that.

In the open seat race in OR-05, which several months ago was actually supposed to be hotly contested, one more domino fell in place for Kurt Schrader. And this one’s actually a bit of a surprise: last Thursday, he got the endorsement of the Oregon Farm Bureau, one of the few remaining power bases for state Republicans. This is especially important in the 5th, which is where most of Oregon’s agricultural production is concentrated.

Republican Mike Erickson is now running without either of two of the most important endorsements a Republican in Oregon can have: the Farm Bureau, and Oregon Right to Life (which instead called for him to drop out after allegations that he previously paid for a girlfriend’s abortion).

Part of this may have to do with Schrader being a veterinarian and an occasional ally of farmers in the state senate, part of this may have to do with the perception that Erickson was fatally wounded by Kevin Mannix’s last-minute slime-bombing in the primary. But a lot of it seems to simply turn on the Farm Bureau’s acceptance of a near-term future where the Democrats dominate Washington:

Don Schellenberg, a farm bureau lobbyist, insisted that Erickson’s electability issues didn’t influence the farm bureau. In fact, he even said that the farm bureau thought Schrader could get more done because the Democrats will almost certainly retain control of Congress.

SSP currently rates this race as Lean Democratic.

I know that it’s easy here at Swing State Project to get seduced by all the glitz and glamour of U.S. House races. (That sounds hilarious when you think about how incredibly nerdy it sounds, but, well, there’s a kernel of truth there.) Bear with me for a minute, though, as we drop down to the real meat and potatoes of American politics: state legislatures. I’ll try to keep everyone updated in future months about developments in some of the biggest contests, but here’s a primer to start with.

Here are some reasons why you should very much care. First, the states are often the crucibles for experimentation with progressive policy. That’s especially been the case over the last few decades of Republican domination at the national level, although hopefully that will change once we actually have a progressive trifecta in Washington.

Consider where the movement toward civil rights and marriage or civil union rights for gays and lesbians has occurred: it’s been purely at the state level. If and when truly universal health care happens, given the difficulty of getting it through Congress, it’s most likely to happen in some of the states (and the some of the boldest moves in that direction have already occurred in the states, such as in Vermont and Oregon… and not coincidentally, back when they had MDs for governors).

Also, the state legislatures are our bench for federal office. The GOP may be the party of wealthy self-funders popping out of nowhere, but the Democrats are largely a meritocratic bunch and many of our best have stints in the state legislature on their resume, where they honed their skills and built their networks. Just as one example, consider what the guy who, four years ago today, was representing the 13th District of the Illinois State Senate is up to now.

Finally, in most states, the state legislatures control the redistricting process, not just for themselves but for U.S. House districts as well. The entire shape and terrain of the nationwide electoral battlefield for the entire 2010s will be determined by who has control of the legislature in key states following the 2010 election. This is partly why we were so hosed during the early 2000s: GOP-held legislatures in states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan drew remarkably GOP-favorable maps. And even when the blue wave came in 2006, the pro-GOP gerrymanders probably saved them the loss of even more seats.

Some GOP-held legislatures are ready to flip now; others have the Democrats in a somewhat deeper hole, but a sustained push over two electoral cycles can have the Democrats in control in 2010. Let’s take a look at the key playing fields for this year and the next few years, starting with Republican-held legislatures that are within striking distance. (The rank order is mostly gut-level, although I did use some informal metrics involving the size of the state, how close the gap between the two parties is, and how much is at stake for that state with 2010 redistricting.)

Democratic offense

1) New York Senate

30 Democrats, 32 Republicans (62 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip (Republicans would sort-of break the tie, as Joe Bruno is both Senate Majority Leader and Acting Lt. Governor because of David Paterson having become Governor, although he still gets only one vote)

Two-year terms, no term limits

Constituents per seat: 311,000

I think most prognosticators would agree with me that this is one is currently the big enchilada. The Republican edge in the Senate, resulting from the long-term presence of GOP lifers in seats that Dem-leaning areas (seriously… 7 of the GOP senators have been in place since the 1970s), has allowed Joe Bruno to single-handedly act as a brake on implementing the progressive agenda in New York.

Moreover, the opportunity for a Democratic trifecta in Albany (Dems currently control the Governor’s seat, and the Assembly by a wide margin) in 2010 would mean complete control over the redistricting process, and an opportunity to dislodge any remaining GOP Congressmen in New York. (Although it’s looking likely that there won’t be more than two or three left after the 2008 election!) New York is predicted to lose two house seats after the 2010 census, and the blow can be softened by making sure both are GOP-held seats.

We’ve edged two seats closer to takeover since the 2006 election via two special elections (in SD-7 on Long Island and SD-48 in far north Upstate). All 62 seats are up this year; unlike most other Senates, in New York, Senators serve two-year terms and are up for re-election every cycle. Robert Harding at the Albany Report has begun an ongoing series handicapping the competitive Senate races, and also started an excellent series of diaries profiling each of the Senate districts.

Of Harding’s most competitive seats, 8 of the 10 are currently GOP-held; the top two are SD-15 and S-11, two seats in heavily Democratic Queens held by GOP oldsters (Serphin Maltese and Frank Padavan). While polling of individual districts hasn’t begun, a Quinnipiac poll released yesterday found that, statewide, voters prefer a Democratic State Senate to a Republican one by a margin of 51 to 35.

2) Texas House

71 Democrats, 79 Republicans (150 total)

4 to tie, 5 to flip

Two-year terms, no term limits

Constituents per seat: 157,000

The Texas House has been controlled by Republicans since 2003. As you probably recall, their first order of business was to engage in the mid-decade DeLay-mander that led to the Dems’ electoral wipeout in 2004 (although several victims of that wipeout have managed to claw their way back into the House). Texas is predicted to gain as many as four seats in the U.S. House through 2010 reapportionment, and given the Texas GOP’s skill at creating bizarre tapeworm-shaped districts, it’s possible that, if we don’t have a seat at the redistricting table, all four of those seats could wind up GOP-leaning. (Given how close the House is, that seat is much likelier to come there than via the Governor or the Senate, where we’re in a deeper hole at 11 D/20 R.)

In addition, in terms of implementing policy, the House Speaker (currently Tom Craddick) is basically the most powerful person in Texas politics, much more so than the Governor. Four seats may seem a little steep – and this may wind up being a two-cycle project, although given the stakes, it’s critically important to follow through – but given the rapid demographic changes occurring in Texas (the same ones that are suddenly putting TX-07 and TX-10 within reach) it’s doable.

3) Pennsylvania Senate

21 Democrats, 29 Republicans (50 total)

4 to tie, 5 to flip (Lt. Governor, currently Dem, breaks tie)

Four-year terms, limit of two terms, half elected each election

Constituents per seat: 249,000

The Pennsylvania Senate is definitely a two-cycle project, as only half of the 50 seats are up for election in 2008, and it’ll be hard to turn more than one or two this year. I’m listing this as high as #3 because Pennsylvania is, after New York, the largest blue state where one of the legislative bodies is Republican-controlled. Like New York, this is because of old-school Republicans hanging on in areas that have long since gone Democratic, at least at the presidential level (Delaware, Montgomery, and Bucks Counties in particular). A prominent example is Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, who represents part of Delaware County.

In addition, Pennsylvania is projected to lose another seat in the U.S. House in 2010, so control of the redistricting process will be key. (Hellish redistricting in 2000 managed to turn their U.S. House delegation from 11 R-10 D in 2000 to 12 R-7 D in 2002. Of course, spreading the seats as thin as they did wasn’t that wise, as we got the last laugh in 2006, flipping four seats.)

4) Nevada Senate

10 Democrats, 11 Republicans (21 total)

1 to flip

Four-year terms, limit of three terms, half elected each election

Constituents per seat: 119,000 (except for two multi-member seats)

Nevada is a smallish state, but it ranks high on this list because it’s so closely divided (only one seat needs to change hands to flip control to the Democrats). The Democrats already control the state Assembly by a safe 27-15 margin, and given Jim Gibbons’ problems, may well take back the Governor’s seat in 2010, in which case flipping the Senate would give them the trifecta.

Nevada is also important from a redistricting standpoint, as it will be gaining a seat in 2010. We have a good shot to create three Dem-leaning seats in Clark County, each of which contain part Las Vegas and part suburbs, so, again, control of the redistricting process is key.

5) Tennessee Senate

16 Democrats, 16 Republicans, 1 Independent (Speaker is R)

1 to flip

Four-year terms, half elected every election

Constituents per seat: 183,000

Tennessee’s Senate is one of two tied legislative bodies right now (Oklahoma’s Senate is the other one), but the Republicans currently control the Speaker’s seat (Ron Ramsey won the Speaker vote 18-15, including the support of one Dem). This is on the list because a shift of one seat would give the Democrats control (assuming that Rosalind Kurita, the Dem who flipped would vote for a Democratic speaker in the event of a clear Democratic majority). Democrats already control the House and the Governorship.

This is a bit lower on the list because Tennessee is expected to retain nine House seats in 2010. Changes around the margins, however, could either work toward making existing Democratic seats safer, or else trying to make TN-07 competitive.

Others to watch

The Michigan Senate would be near the top of the list, as we’re down 17 D-21 R and only need to pick up two seats to tie it (where the Dem Lt. Gov. would break the tie). Michigan has one of the most pro-GOP gerrymanders in the nation, which will need to be undone in 2010. However, we can’t do anything about it yet because no Senators are up for election in 2008; all 38 stand in 2010.

The Virginia House of Delegates is a ripe target, especially in view of having just taken over the Virginia Senate. We’re down 45 D-53 R-2 I (the Independents both caucus GOP), so a swing of six would give us the trifecta. This election, however, won’t happen until 2009.

As I mentioned, the Oklahoma Senate is also tied, split 24-24. We maintain functional control over the Senate because of the Democratic Lt. Governor, however (although a power-sharing agreement gives the Republicans control during the month of July, believe it or not).

Wisconsin’s Assembly is within reach, with Dems down 47 D-52 R. And both chambers in Arizona are close (13 D-17 R in the Senate, and 27 D-33 R in the House); Arizona is set to gain two seats in 2010, but redistricting control isn’t at issue as the decisions are up to a nonpartisan commission.

Democratic defense

Now let’s take a look at legislatures where we’re going to have to play defense. I don’t foresee this being a cause for alarm, given broader Democratic strengths this cycle, but the fact that we currently control 57 legislatures to the GOP’s 39 means that we do need to watch our backs.

1) Pennsylvania House

102 Democrats, 101 Republicans (203 total)

1 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 61,000

A strong gust could tip the Pennsylvania House back to Republican control (especially considering that, although the Democrats control the chamber, they elected a Republican as speaker in a compromise). Looking at the sheer numbers of Republicans left in the Dem-leaning Philly burbs, the general trends point in our direction, but at only 61,000 constituents per seat, local-level dynamics can make all the difference.

2) Michigan House

58 Democrats, 52 Republicans (110 total)

3 to tie, 4 to flip

Two-year terms, limit of three terms

Constituents per seat: 92,000

In Michigan, the Dems hold the House and the Governorship, although both somewhat tenuously. Controlling the trifecta in 2010 is extremely important, as the pro-GOP gerrymander in the U.S. House seats needs to be undone (the split went from 9 D-7 R in 2000 to 9 R-6 D in 2002, where it persists today). Michigan is predicted to lose one more seat in 2010.

3) Indiana House

51 Democrats, 49 Republicans (100 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 63,000

The Democratic margin is Indiana is very narrow, and the only thing keeping the GOP from controlling the trifecta (the GOP has solid control over the Senate, at 33 R-17 D). Indiana is not predicted to lose a U.S. House seat in 2010, but a GOP gerrymander could make life much more difficult for the three Dem House members representing red districts in Indiana.

4) Oregon House

31 Democrats, 29 Republicans (60 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 62,000

Democrats in Oregon finally took back the House in 2006, giving them the trifecta (they have solid control over the Senate, at 19 D-11 R). This is on the list mostly by virtue of how close it is on paper, but the disparity wasn’t much of an impediment on Speaker Jeff Merkley’s ability to push through progressive legislation. With strong Obama coattails and the Republicans defending several suburban open seats, look for the Democrats to gain a few seats (as Skywaker9 at Daily Kos has thoroughly detailed). However, Oregon is set to gain a House seat in 2010, with the possibility of a 5-1 delegation if the Dems divvy up Portland correctly, so holding the trifecta through 2010 is important.

5) Illinois House

67 Democrats, 51 Republicans (118 total)

8 to tie, 9 to flip

Two-year terms

Constituents per seat: 109,000

Illinois doesn’t actually seem in that much danger this year, with a decent-sized cushion and major Obama coattails. The main reason this is on the list as opposed to a chamber with smaller margins is that Illinois is set to lose a U.S. House seat in 2010, and although we currently control the trifecta, we don’t want the GOP anywhere near the redistricting table.

A few other bodies are worth mentioning: the Virginia Senate (21 D-19 R), Louisiana House (53 D-49 R-1 I-2 V), and Mississippi Senate (27 D-25 R) are all very close, but these are all off-year elections and won’t be an issue until 2009.

(You might be wondering what our safest chamber is. I’d say it’s the Hawaii Senate, which we control 22 D-3 R.)

“Moneyball” opportunities

Finally, I wanted to turn my attention to several more pickup possibilities, which I’m calling the “moneyball” states. These tend to be the smallest states, where redistricting isn’t an issue because each one only gets one U.S. House seat, so they aren’t high priorities for us. On the other hand, these are the chambers that can be flipped for the smallest possible investment. I calculated this simply by multiplying the number of seats needed to flip by the number of constituents per seat (and thus the presumed expense of flipping a seat). Two of these cases (Delaware and Montana) would actually give the Dems the trifecta in those states.

1) Montana House

49 Democrats, 50 Republicans, 1 Constitution Party (100 total)

1 to tie, 2 to flip

Constituents per seat: 9,000

Moneyball number: 18,000

2) Delaware House

19 Democrats, 22 Republicans (41 total)

2 to flip

Constituents per seat: 21,000

Moneyball number: 42,000

3) North Dakota Senate

21 Democrats, 26 Republicans (47 total)

3 to flip

Constituents per seat: 14,000

Moneyball number: 42,000

4) South Dakota Senate

15 Democrats, 20 Republicans (35 total)

3 to flip

Constituents per seat: 22,000

Moneyball number: 66,000

5) Alaska House

17 Democrats, 23 Republicans (40 total)

3 to tie, 4 to flip

Constituents per seat: 17,000

Moneyball number: 68,000

There’s a real shortage of information out there at the national level about individual state legislature races, so if anyone of you out there know of any blogs or individual diarists that excel at handicapping state legislature races, please let us know in the comments and we’ll be sure and keep up with them as we approach November.

Rasmussen is out with new numbers in the Minnesota Senate race, the first numbers since Franken won the DFL nominating convention.

Rasmussen: (6/11, likely voters, 5/22 in parens)

Norm Coleman (R-inc.): 48 (47)

Al Franken (D): 45 (45)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Almost no movement since the last one, despite Franken getting the DFL nod and the kerfuffle over his Playboy article. Things get a little dicier for Franken if Jesse Ventura enters the mix (although his entry into the race is pure speculation at this point, and, IMHO, not going to happen):

Jesse Ventura (I): 24

Norm Coleman (R-inc.): 39

Al Franken (D): 32

On the other hand, 60% of likely voters do not want Ventura to run; only 27% want him to. Ventura has till the filing deadline of July 15 to jump in.

Swing State Project rates MN-Sen as Lean R.

As a bonus, Rasmussen polled the Michigan Senate race. Carl Levin, the 30-year incumbent Dem, is up against State Representative Jack Hoogendyk of Kalamazoo. Frankly, there’s nothing to see here.

Rasmussen (6/11, likely voters, 5/7 in parens)

Carl Levin (D-inc.): 55 (54)

Jack Hoogendyk (R): 35 (37)

(MoE: ±4%)

“Dollar Bill” Jefferson is getting a credible primary challenge this year. (Considering that he’s awaiting trial on corruption charges and was found to have large amounts of cash in his freezer, the question wasn’t really whether he’d get a challenge, but who.) State Rep. Cedric Richmond, who represents part of eastern New Orleans, announced his bid.

In his only veiled reference to Jefferson’s legal problems, he told the crowd, “I promise — and I want to be clear about this — I promise to serve you with the utmost integrity.”

Interestingly, the Times-Picayune described Richmond as a “longtime political ally” of Jefferson, and said that prior to 2006, Richmond stated he would run only if Jefferson didn’t run. Being unacquainted with the backwaters of Louisiana politics, I’m unclear whether that means:

1) he’s broken with Jefferson,

2) he’s running to succeed Jefferson who will soon stand down (and considering that Jefferson’s brother, sister, and niece were indicted last week, he might be feeling boxed in), or

3) he’s running as a trojan horse to siphon support from other “change” candidates to allow Jefferson to squeak through to a run-off. (Like Rep. Karen Carter, who lost the 2006 primary to Jefferson and may come back for another try… I don’t know if she plans to do so; her campaign website hasn’t been updated in over a year.)

For what it’s worth, corruption issues notwithstanding, Jefferson is one of the most out-of-whack Dems in the House, in terms of the relationship between his National Journal score of 73 and the D+28 lean of LA-02.

The NRCC is way, way behind the DCCC in cash on hand… $6.73 million to the DCCC’s $45.27 million as of the end of April. A lot of that probably has to do with big money donors sitting on their wallets, seeing that an investment in the NRCC is about as likely to pay dividends as an investment in that nice man from Nigeria needing your help with his bank account problems. Some of that gap, however, went toward paying for the renovations on Christopher J. Ward’s house.

Politico is reporting today that Ward, the NRCC’s former treasurer, diverted up to $725,000 from the NRCC to his own purposes over the course of six years. (This goes all the way back to Tom Davis’s turn at the NRCC’s helm, so it can’t all be pinned on Tom Cole being asleep at the watch.) Money that was supposed to be used to pay for galas where the President fund-raised for Congressional GOPers instead… well…

Court documents filed by DOJ charge that Ward diverted more than $500,000 from the President’s Dinner accounts to his own use, using the funds to pay his mortgage and to finance nearly $200,000 worth of home renovations.

Original NRCC estimates of how much Ward may have appropriated were along the line of $500-600K, but the NRCC’s outside auditors confirmed today that the actual damage was $725,000. In addition, Ward managed to grab $28,000 from the NRSC via joint fundraising activities and $47,000 from other GOP leadership PACs, for a total of almost $800,000. (Not to mention the $530,000 the NRCC has spent on lawyers and accountants tracking down the fraud!)

“It was important to get to the bottom of what happened,” House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said. “Clearly, it’s not nearly as bad as many of us said it might be.”

Well, it probably is a relief… to the extent that no one higher-up than Ward was found to have been engaged in any embezzling. As for the number of close races coming in November that could have been turned around with that $800,000, the damage can’t be calculated yet.