Author: Predictor

In the 2006 House Races, the Democratic Party picked up a total of 31 seats (incl. VT-AL). Unfortunately we missed picking up seats in 19 very close contests, by less than 10,000 votes in each District. We ended up short by 88,577 votes or an average of 4,662 votes per District. By contrast our candidates won 16 seats in districts by less than 10,000 votes. We captured/held those 16 seats by a total of 82,480 votes for an average of 5,155 votes per District.

Some have asserted that if the DCCC had reacted to some of these races and provided necessary funding, we could have picked up more seats. Others have claimed that the DCCC did the best it could with the resources on hand and the fact that the RNCC had to pour money & resources into normally safe GOP Districts, benefited us nationwide.

I’ll let y’all come to your own conclusions about that, because the purpose of this Diary is more from a Statistical/Tactical Perspective for 2008 regarding the lessons we’ve learned from the 2006 Midterms.

Caveat: Races won by over 10,000 votes (either side) are not included in the Parameters of this Study, though any number of those could be in play in ’08, plus many other seats may be on the horizon that were not in-play in 2006. On the same note, many of these races shown below may not be close for us in ’08, but are sure to get some attention.

More below the fold. Enjoy!

1. CT-02

Courtney-D 121,248 50.002%
Simmons-R 121,165 49.998%
Margin=  +83 D

2. NC-08
Hayes-R 60,926 50.01%
Kissell-D 60,597 49.99%
Margin = +329 R

3. FL-13

Buchanan-R 119,309 50.008%
Jennings-D 118,940 49.992%
Margin = +369 R

4. NM-01

Wilson-R 105,986 50.02%
Madrid-D 105,125 49.98%
Margin = +861 R

5. GA-12

Barrow-D 71,651 50.3%
Burns-R 70,787 49.7%
Margin = +864 D

6. WY-AL

Cubin-R 93,336 48.3%
Trauner-D 92,324 47.8%.
Rankin-Lbt  7,481 3.9%
Margin = +1,012 R

7. OH-15

Pryce-R 110,714 50.2%
Kilroy-D 109,659 49.8%
Margin = +1,055 R

8. PA-08

Murphy-D 125,667 50.3%
Fitzpatrick-R 124,146 49.7%
Margin = +1,521 D

9. GA-08

Marshall-D 80,660 50.55%
Collins-R 78,908 49.45%
Margin = +1,752 D

10. OH-02

Schmidt-R 120,112 50.45%
Wulsin-D 117,595 49.39%
Noy-NP  298 0.13
Condit-NP  76 0.03
Margin = +2,517 R

11. NJ-07

Ferguson-R 98,399 49.43%
Stender-D 95,454 47.95%
Abrams-WTD  3,176 1.6%
Young-Lbt 2,046 1.02%
Margin = +2,945 R

12. PA-06

Gerlach-R 118,807 51.9%
Murphy-D 115,806 48.1%
Margin = +3,001 R

13. NY-25

Walsh-R-C 110,525 50.8%
Maffei-D 107,108 49.2%
Margin = +3,417 R

14. NV-03

Porter-R 102,232 48.5%
Hafen-D 98,261 46.6%
Silvestri-Lbt 5,157 2.4%
Hansen-I 5,329 2.5%
Margin = +3,971 R

15. FL-16

Mahoney-D 115,832 49.55%
Foley (Negron)-R 111,415 47.66%
Ross-NPA  6,526 2.8%
Margin = +4,417 D

16. NY-19

Hall-D-WFP 100,119 51.2%
Kelly-R-C 95,359 48.8%
Margin = +4,760 D

17. IL-06

18. Roskam-R 91,382 51.35%
Duckworth-D 86,572 48.65%
Margin = +4,810 R

18. VA-02

Drake-R 88,777 51.27%
Kellam-D 83,901 48.73%
Margin = +4,876 R

19. NH-01

Shea-Porter-D 100,691 51.3%
Bradley-R 95,527 48.7%
Margin = +5,164 D

20. KY-03

Yarmuth-D 122,489 50.62%
Northrup-R 116,568 48.18%
Mancini-Lbt 2,134 0.9%
Parker-I 774 0.3%
Margin = +5,921 D

21. WI-08

Kagen-D 141,570 50.95%
Gard-R 135,622 49.05%
Margin = +5,948 D

22. IA-02
  Loesback-D 107,683 51.52%
Leach-R 101,701 48.48%
Margin = +5,982 D

23.CO-04

Musgrave-R 109,732 45.61%%
Paccione-D 103,748 43.12%
Eidness-Lbt 27,133  11.28%
Margin = +5,984 R

24. NY-29

Kuhl-R-C 106,077 51.46%
Massa-D-WFP 100,044 48.54%
Margin = +6,033 R

25. CT-04

Shays-R 106,510 50.96%
Farrell- 99,45 47.58%
Maymin-Lbt  3,058 0.15%
Margin:  + 7,060 R

26. WA-08

Reichert-R 129,362 51.46%
Burner-D 122,021 48.54%
Margin = +7,341 R

27. KS-02

  Boyda-D 114,139 50.6%
Ryun-R 106,329 47.1%
Tucker-F 5,094  2.2%
Margin = +7,810 D

28. AZ-05

Mitchell-D 101.838 50.4%
Hayworth-R 93,815  46.4%
Severin-I 6,357  3.1%
Margin = +8, 023 D

29. FL-22

Klein-D 108,688 50.9%
Shaw-R 100,663 47.1%
Evangelista-I  4,254  2.0%
Margin = +8,025 D

30. NY-26

Reynolds-R-C 109,257 51.98%
Davis-D-WFP 100,914 48.02%
Margin = +8,343 R

31. CA-04

Doolittle-R 135,818 49.1%
Brown-D 126,999 45.9%
Warren-Lbt 14,076  11.28%
Margin = +8,819 R

32. OH-01

Chabot-R 105,680 52.25%
Cranley-D 96,584 47.75%
Margin = +9,096 R

33. PA-04

Altmire-D 124,674 51.9%
Hart-R 115,394  48.1%
Margin = 9,280 D

34. MI-07

. Walberg-R 122,348 49.93%
Renier-D 112,665 45.98%
Hutchinson-Lbt 3,788 1.55%
Horn-UST  3,611 1.47%
Shwarz-R(WI)  2,614 1.07
Margin =+ 9,683 R

35. IN-09

Hill-D 110,454 50.02%
Sodrel-R 100,469 45.48%
Schansberg-Lbt 9,893 4.5%
Margin = +9,985 D

These Election Results are based on Certified Election Returns from the individual States’ Secretary of State/Board of Elections Sites, or in the case of Illinos, the two County sites, Cook & DuPage, as the State site is pitiful.(The Commonwealth of Virginia site gets an A++.) Should anyone come up with varying results, please feel free to post them and the source info, so that it can be verified.

Percentage calculations are rounded and may not add up to 100.000%. If anyone would like the links to SOS BOE sites for each/any race, please ask and I will provide in a Comment reply.

Originally posted at Daily Kos on 12/18/06. Some typos regarding vote totals and percentages have been since corrected there and here. Thanks for any input.

(A solid synopsis of an opportunity lost – promoted by James L.)

VA-02 was a target seat this year for a Democratic Party takeover of the House. Freshman Thelma Drake (R-Norfolk) seemed ripe to topple. After Iraq War Veteran David Ashe (D), who lost to Drake in ’04 55-45%, dropped out of the race to pave the way for Virginia Beach Commissioner of Revenue Phil Kellam (D), things were looking pretty good. Kellam, member of a well known Virginia Beach Democratic political family, was the only Citywide elected Democratic Official, this city accounts for approximately 71% of the District’s population. Drake hails from the smaller though Democratic leaning Norfolk. Virginia Beach is historically Republican at both the National & Local level, though Gov. Tim Kaine (D) narrowly carried the city in 2005 and carried the district by 3.02%, former Gov. Mark Warner came within 0.15% of carrying the District in 2001. Besides the City of Viginia Beach, the District includes 23 (+ 2 AT/CV) Precincts in the City of Norfolk, 12(+2 A/T) precincts in the City of Hampton  and the Eastern Shore Counties of Accomack & Northampton.  (More after the flip.)

In my quest to discover why Kellam was unable to unseat Drake in a District I had called home for almost two decades, I did a little research and located two websites: Not Larry Sabato and Vivian J. Paige of Norfolk.
The links will lead you to not only their analysis of what happened here but blog comments from those even closer to the ground or with a differing perspective.
My personal take was re-affirmed on the following points:
1. The Kellam Political dynasty is not a reliably powerful entity and is unknown to many of the transient voters in the Distict, read: of little impact.
2. Kellam avoided debates with Drake after his initial and only debate with Drake in mid-June. His performance in that debate was perceived as “unsteady” by the press.
3. Grassroots/Ground Support was too light.
4. Kellam failed to clearly delineate himself as much different from Drake politically & ideologically. Granted in this conservative leaning-Military heavy District that might seem like a good thing but I don’t think it worked to Kellam’s advantage in the type of Wave year we just saw.
5. Momentum damage from disclosures about Kellam’s past.
6. Failure to secure major newspaper endorsement in the District and failure to dent the potenially vulnerable Drake in the press.
7. Lack of coordination with VA Dem Party major leaders for campaign support.
8. The RNC Robocalls against both Kellam & Webb.

Take a look at these links and the information contained within and see what you think.

A look back at the 2nd Congressional District
http://notlarrysabat…

Kellam: the turning pointhttp://vivianpaige.w…

Thanks to both those sites and the Commentators for dissemination of this information.
Election Results VA-02
2004 Pres
Kerry-D  101,576 41.53% 
Bush-R 141,097 57.69%
2005 Gov
Kilgore-R 64,955 46.79% 
Kaine-D 69,153 49.81%

2006 Sen
Allen-R 89,145 51.04% 
Webb-D 83,268 47.67%

2006 VA-02
Drake-R 88,777  51.27%
  Kellam-D  83,901  48.45%

Congressional District Map Link:
http://en.wikipedia….

I’m predicting a 5-6 seat Dem pick-up in the Senate with the Rhode Island seat being the Toss-up. I just have this nagging feeling that Chaffee will pull this out (although I hope not). I’ve included % guesses here for the Senate races, bypassed that for the Gubenatorial & California races. I’ve always relied on the Field Poll for California races but they’ve not issued anything new for the “down-the-ticket races so I’ll just go with a plain selection. Though I do not believe Arnie will win by double digits. The closet Statewide races should be Lt. Governor & Secty of State.

Competitive Senate Races

First Wave (+5 gain):
Pennsylvania – Casey 55- 45%
Ohio – Brown 54 – 46%
Virginia – Webb 52 – 48%
New Jersey – Menendez 53 –47%
Missouri – McCaskill 50.5 – 49.5%
Minnesota – Klobuchar 55% – 45%

Montana – Tester 52 – 48%
Maryland – Cardin 51.5 – 48.5%

Second Wave – 33% chance (4) (+1 gain*)

Arizona – Kyl-R 51.5- 48.5%
Connecticut – Lieberman-CFL 44.5 – 44 – 11.5%
Rhode Island – Chaffee-R 50.1 – 49.9% (*too close to call)
Tennessee – Corker-R 52.5 – 47.5%

Senate Gain = 5-6 seats.

Governor Races:

Maine – Baldacci-D
Alabama – Riley-R
Illinois – Blagojevich

Pennsylvania – Rendell-D
Connecticut – Rell
Alaska – Knowles-D
Hawaii – Lingle-R
Maryland – O’Malley-D
New York – Spitzer-D
NY AG – Cuomo – D
New Hampshire – Lynch-D
Iowa – Culver-D
Michigan – Granholm-D
Florida – Davis -D
Kansas – Sebelius-D
Massachusettes – Patrick-D
New Mexico – Richardson-D
Ohio – Strickland-D
Rhode Island – Carcieri-R
Arizona – Napolitano-D
Arkansas – Bebe-D
Georgia – Perdue-R
Colorado – Ritter-D
Minnesota – Hatch-D
Nebraska – Heineman-R
South Dakota – Rounds-R
Oklahoma – Henry-D
Oregon – Kulongski-D
South Carolina – Sanford-R
Tennessee – Bredensen-D
Texas – Perry-R
Vermont – Douglas-R
Wisconsin – Doyle-D
Wyoming – Fuedenthal-D
NY Senate switches to D
Kansas AG – Morrison-D
Ohio Statewide Offices – D Sweep
Governor Gain = 8-9

California State Races:
Dianne Feinstein – D (Chretien-G gets 10%)
Governor – Shwarzenegger-R
Lt. Governor – Garamendi-D
Secty of State – Bowen – D
Atty General – Brown – D
Treasurer – Lockyer-D
Controller – Chiang-D
Insurance Commish – Poizner-R
BOE #1 – Yee-D
St.Sen #8 – Yee-D
State Sen #10 – Corbett-D
Assembly #11 – DeSaulnier-D
Assembly #12 – Ma-D
Assembly #13 – Leno-D
SF prop.”J « Impeach Bush/Cheney – Yes 74.5%
SF Board Dist 4 – Chan-D
SF Board Dist 6 – Daly-D/G

Well, here goes. My method is going to be different than usual, instead of specific % predictions on every given race my method for both the House Predictions has a two tier (wave) system. First Wave races have a 75% chance of winning, Second Wave races have a 25% chance of winning. I have 37 First Wave races times 75% for a gain of 29 seats. Second Wave House 39 seats times 25% for a 9 seat gain, totalling a pick-up of 29-38 seats (incl VT-AL).  There’s more:

The listings are in descending order, those towards the top of the waves are most likely to win:

,

Competitive Congressional District Races ( in2 Waves)

First Wave-75% chance of winning (39) = +29 gain

Vermont – AL – Welch
Texas-22 – Lampson
Florida -16 – Mahoney
Ohio-18 Space
Iowa –01 – Braley
North Carolina – 11 – Shuler
Pennsylvania –10 – Carney
Pennsylvania – 07 – Sestak
Colorado – 07 – Perlmutter

New Mexico – 01 – Madrid
Arizona – 08 – Giffords
Wisconsin – 08 – Kagen
Indiana –02 – Donnelley
Indiana –08 –  Ellsworth
Florida – 22 – Klien
New Hampshire – 02 – Hodes
New York 24 – Arcuri
Kentucky –04 – Lucas
New York – 25 – Maffei
New York – 29 – Massa
Connecticut –04 – Farrell
New York – 20 – Gillibrand
Indiana – 09 – Hill
New York – 19 – Hall
Nebraska – 03 – Kleeb
Pennsylvania – 06 – Murphy

Pennsylvania –08-Murphy
Connecticut – 02 – Courtney
Connecticut – 05 – Murphy

Kentucky – 03 – Yarmuth

Idaho – 01 – Grant
Illinois – 06 – Duckworth
California – 11 – McNerney
Ohio –15 – Kilroy
Colorado –04 – Paccione
Wyoming – AL – Trauner
Virginia – 02 – Kellam
Florida – 13 – Jennings
Arizona -05 – Mitchell
Kansas – 02 – Boyda

,

Second Wave- 25% chance of winning (37) = +9 gain

New York – 26 – Davis

Arizona –01 Simon
Colorado –05 – Fawcett
North Carolina –08 Kissel
New Jersey – 07 – Stender
Washington – 08 – Burner
Ohio – 02 – Wulsin

Minnesota – 06 – Wetterling
Nevada – 02 – Derby
Minnesota – 01 – Walz
Pennsylvania – 08 – Murphy
Ohio – 01 – Cranley
Illinois – 10 – Seals
Virginia – 11 – Hurst
Nebraska –01 – Moul
Virginia – 10 – Feder
Kentucky – 02 – Weaver
New York –03 – Meijas
New York – 13 – Harrison
Florida – 08 – Stuart

California  – 04 – Brown
California – 50 – Busby
Washington – 05 – Goldmark
Kansas –04 – McGinn
Pennsylvania – 04 – Altmire
Ohio – 12 – Shamansky
West Virginia –02 Callaghan
Iowa – 02 Loebsack
New Hampshire – 01 – Shea-Porter
Virginia – 05 – Weed
Ilinois – 19 – Stover
New Jersey – 05 – Aronsohn
New Jersey –02 – Hughes
New Jersey –03 – Sexton
New Jersey –04 – Gay

(From the diaries, in the spirit of equal time for oldtimers – promoted by James L.)

I have seen a lot of discussion comparing  this mid-term election to the 1994 mid-term election, however I feel there is a more applicable point of comparison from the past, the 1966 mid-term election.
Let me open this by giving some background. In 1966 I was a Republican – I didn’t switch to the Democratic Party until 1973. So for me the 1966 Republican Midterm rout where the GOP picked up a net gain of 47 House seats, 3 Senate seats, 8 Gubenatorial Seats, 156 State Senate seats and 401 Lower Chamber legislative seats.
This was a memorable experience in my capacity as Treasurer of both my Township and County Teenage Republicans. The Vietnam War had escalated into a complete mess and the Civil Rights movement had scored major success. Caveat: I was a Republican but I was of the Clifford Case/Jacob Javits variety. As a pack-rat over the last 4 decades I managed to accumulate and save a lot of books and publications. (Now… more below the fold.)

From the start of the 1966 campaign, the Democrats realized that they faced formidable odds if they hoped to maintain their overwhelming margins of control, in the Congress, state governorships and legislatures. Yet, at the end of 1965, it looked as if the Republicans would be held to minimal gains. The 89th Congress had passed laws with benefits for almost every segment of the population; President Johnson still enjoyed the wide “consensus” support he had enjoyed in 1964, from every group from organized labor to big business and the minorties; and the economy was booming on virtually every front.

By the start of the 1966 campaign, however,it was apparent that the odds had shifted significantly to the benefit of the Republicans. Behind the change was the escalation of the Viet Nam War, with its heavy toll in both American lives and dollars. The Republicans did not pretend to have an easy solution for the Viet Nam War; indeed most Republicans tended to support the Johnson Administration’s Viet Nam policies, and the Republicans were sharply critical of Democratic critics of the war for failing to give solid support to the American war effort. But, unlike the Korean War, the conflict in Viet Nam, because of its limited nature, increased frustrations across the country and began to undermine public support of the Administration in power.

The Republicans were able to argue with some effectiveness that the Johnson Administration should be cutting down, rather than increasing , national expenditures for a wide variety of Great Society programs.

President Johnson’s own popularity plummeted during the year; wide splits appeared in the Democratic party in many key states; at the very same time a number of attractive Republican party candidates appeared to lead the Gop in critical states—in sharp contrast to the unpopularity of Goldwater, the party’s 1964 standard bearer.

Early in 1965 the Democrats had launched an ambitious “Operation Support” from within the Democratic National Committee, designed to support the 71 freshman Democratic Representatives who came into office in the 1964 Democratic sweep – 38 of them from formerly Republican districts.

The Republican effort, on the other hand, was bolstered by a massive fundraising campaign that made it possible to funnel thousands of dollars into every doubtful Congressional district in the country.

Former Vice-President Richard Nixon, who campaigned tirelessly for Republican candidates throughout the land and took the role in the public Republican debate with the President in the closing days of the campaign.

Shades of California:

Gov. Nelson Rockefeller counted a sure loser in 1966, campaigned skillfully and benefited from deep splits within the Democratic party to win a third four year term.

The GOP picked up 52 House seats and lost five for a net gain of 47 seats. This was the year that saw Edward Brooke (R-MA) elected to the Senate as CQ put it the “first Negro of the century to win election to the U.S. Senate”, Spiro Agnew (R) as Governor of Maryland, Claude Kirk (R) as first Republican Governor in Florida, in 90 years. However, in my Congressional District, James J. Howard (D NJ-03), who was swept-in in the 1964 landslide in a Republican District by a 53% to 47%, managed to hold on by a razor-thin margin in ’66. Well, by 1973 when I joined the Democratic Party, I was happy this had occurred. I supported him in his many subsequent re-election bids.

All above quoted information is courtesy of CQ’s Background Politics In America 1945-1966, Politics and Issues of the Postwar Years – Second Edition Copyright 1967 by Congressional Quarterly,Inc.

In 1967 the price was $2.50.

I believe there are numerous differences between 1966 and 2006 including the fact that we are not coming off a landslide GOP 2004 election and the GOP’s heavy hand in redistricting over the last 6 years, but, the issues of the War in Iraq comparable to the Viet Nam war, unpopularity of GWB and Gay Rights/Civil Rights issues comparable to feelings about those Civil Rights issues in the 60’s were just too much to ignore. So, therefore I am confident we may well be positioned towards a landslide mid-term win.

SUSA has released 3 more polls: IN-09, Hill-D down by 2; OH-06, Wilson-D up by 19; and MD-Gov, O’Malley up by 1. More below the fold.

IN-09:

Hill (D): 44

Sodrel (R-inc.): 46

Schansberg (L): 5

Undecided: 4

(MoE: ±4.3%)

Schansberg is pulling Liberal support away from Hill-D to the tune of picking up 11% of the Liberal vote, 2% of the Conservative vote, and 5% from Moderates.

OH-06 (OPEN):

Wilson (D): 58

Blasdell (R): 39

Undecided: 3

(MoE: ±4.2%)

MD-Gov:

O’Malley (D): 48

Ehrlich (R-inc.): 47

Undecided: 2

(MoE: ±3.8%)

The latest California Field Poll has Shwarzenegger up by double digits but still under 50%. Feinstein also up by double digits, with slight slippage within the MOE. Unfortunetly no polling on the “down the ticket” or Congressional races.

11/1/2006 MOE 3.5% Both Polls

Gov:

Shwarzenegger 49 (44)

Angelides 33 (34)

Other 6 (7)

Undecided 12 (15)

Angelides is only leading in LA County-42% to 36% and tied in the SF Bay Area, not good news. Looks like the Gropenator will pull this out but interesting that he still hasn’t popped 50%. 78% believe Shwarzenegger will win.

Sen:

Feinstein 55  (57)

Mountjoy 33  (29)

Other  4 (6)

Undecided 8 (8)

No regional info. Interesting slip though its within the MOE and I only just saw my first Feinstein TV Ad today.

AZ-08

Zogby(Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Graf (R) 41 (37)

Giffords (D) 54 (45)

CO-07

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

O’Donnell (R) 40 (34)

Perlmutter (D) 54 (45)

CT-02

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Simmons (R) 47 (44)

Courtney (D) 42 (41)

CT-04

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Shays (R) 44 (41)

Farrell (D) 51 (46)

IL-06

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Roskam (R) 40 (38)

Duckworth (D) 54 (43)

IN-02

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Chocola (R) 39 (39)

Donnelly (D) 52 (49)

IN-09

Zogby for Reuters. 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Sodrel (R) 46 (38)

Hill (D) 48 (46)

IA-01

Zogby(Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Whalen (R) 42 (34)

Braley (D) 49 (47)

KY-04

Zogby(Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Davis (R) 42 (42)

Lucas (D) 45 (36)

MN-06

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Bachmann (R) 52 (46)

Wetterling (D) 42 (43)

NM-01

Zogby for Reuters. 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Wilson (R) 44 (40)

Madrid (D) 53 (50)

NC-11

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Taylor (R) 43 (40)

Shuler (D) 48 (51)

OH-18

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Padgett (R) 33 (36)

Space (D) 58 (45)

PA-06

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Gerlach (R) 44 (41)

Murphy (D) 49 (43)

VIRGINIA (2nd CD)

Zogby (Reuters). 10/24-29. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/25-10/2 results)

Drake (R) 51 (42)

Kellam (D) 43 (46)