Author: Tarheeman1993

Overview

I am predicting that the Democrats will lose 28 seats (net) in the 2010 mid-term elections.  I believe we will win 5 seats held by the Republicans, while losing 33 Democrat-held seats.

I have already listed what I consider the 22 most vulnerable Democratic seats in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Thanks to all who have provided feedback.

33 most vulnerable Democratic-held seats in the 2010 mid-term elections

The first 22 seats were listed in my previous thread.  Without further delay, here is my final list of the 33 most vulnerable House seats:

1.  LA-03

2.  TN-06

3.  AR-01

4.  AR-02

5.  TN-08

6.  ID-01

7.  MD-01

8.  VA-05

9.  KS-03

10. AL-02

11. MS-01

12. WA-03

13. NM-02

14. CO-04

15. IN-08

16. OH-01

17. OH-15

18. PA-07

19. NH-02

20. VA-02

21. IN-09

22. NY-29

23. NV-03

24. NY-23

25. PA-11

26. TX-17

27. NH-01

28. PA-12

29. FL-24

30. NY-24

31. MI-07

32. FL-22

33. AZ-05

I should point out that in my own handicapping of these races, several of the above races are listed as “Tossup-Tilt D”.  I believe we will win several of these races.  However, as most of you know, many of these races will be a nail-biter that could go either way.  If it wasn’t for the current political environment swinging against the Democrats, I would believe we would retain at least half of these seats.  It’s only February, so maybe the Democrats will pick up some momentum and retain many vulnerable seats.

As a side note, this exercise has been a lot of fun, and I really appreciate everyone providing insight on these races.  Feel free to comment on potential substitutes that can replace any of these seats that I have listed.  

I received a lot of positive feedback and strong insight on Part 1 thru Part 6 of my string of diaries.  I am by no mean an expert on handicapping the races, and that’s the main reason why I’ve been incorporating the feedback I’ve received along with my own gut feelings on how the 2010 mid-term elections will finally play out.  

Recap

My initial conclusion was that the Democrats will lose 28 seats (net) in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Since I believe (along with the average SSP voter) that we will pick up 5 GOP seats in 2010, we will probably lose around 33 Democratically-controlled seats in 2010.  At this time I’m not adusting the overall number of Democratic seats that will be lost.

The following is my list of the 11 most vulnerable Democratic seats, not in any particular order:

1.  LA-03

2.  TN-06

3.  AR-01

4.  AR-02

5.  TN-08

6.  ID-01

7.  MD-01

8.  VA-05

9.  KS-03

10. AL-02

11. MS-01

I received solid feedback regarding these seats.  After reviewing your comments, I will admit that AR-01, AR-02, and TN-08 probably could be removed from the most 11 vulnerable seats.  However, right now I’ll keep these seats on the 22 most vulnerable Democratic seats list.  So here is my list of the 22 most vulnerable Democratic seats (again, in no particular order):

1.  LA-03

2.  TN-06

3.  AR-01

4.  AR-02

5.  TN-08

6.  ID-01

7.  MD-01

8.  VA-05

9.  KS-03

10. AL-02

11. MS-01

12. WA-03

13. NM-02

14. CO-04

15. IN-08

16. OH-01

17. OH-15

18. PA-07

19. NH-02

20. VA-02

21. IN-09

22. NY-29

Once again, please feel free to comment on what you know about these races.  Your comments are valuable to me.  If you feel like some of the above seats do not belong on this list, please tell me, along with viable substitutes.

Thanks to everyone for particpating on my diaries regarding the 2010 mid-term elections.  I’d like to recap my House predictions for everyone:

My original hypothetical 2010 election model predicted that the Democrats would lose (net) 30-35 house seats.  SSP nation has provided me feedback that indicates that the Democrats would lose (net) 22-27 house seats.  Although there is not a lot of difference between the two set of numbers, I decided to adjust my predictions accordingly based on SSP particpants vast knowledge regarding elections.  As a result, I’ll alter my previous model and now predict that the Democrats will lose 28 house seats (net).

In part 5 of this series, SSP nation voted on how many Republican held seats will be gained by the Democrats.  The average is 4.5 seats.  I’ll round this number to 5, which means that I believe 33 seats will switch hands from the Democrats to the Republicans.

I want to start out with a baseline of 11 currently held Democratic seats that I think will switch hands.  I ask that everyone please submit what they believe are the 11 most vulnerable Democratic seats that the GOP could win.

Tarheeman’s list of the 11 most vulnerable Democratic seats, not in any particular order:

1.  LA-03

2.  TN-06

3.  AR-01

4.  AR-02

5.  TN-08

6.  ID-01

7.  MD-01

8.  VA-05

9.  KS-03

10. AL-02

11. MS-01

It’s important to note that only 3 of these seats are outside the South (ID-01, KS-03, and MD-01).  

If you do not believe that these seats do not belong in this group, please let me know (a) where you would rank them and (b) what seats should replace them on this list.  Based on your feedback, I’ll revise my list accordingly.

On my diary titled “The 2010 Mid-Term Elections, part 4:  the House of Reps”, I polled SSP nation on how many seats (net) the Democrats would lose in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Currently, the results are as follows:

11-20 seats:  11 votes

21-30 seats:  7 votes

31-40 seats:  4 votes

41-50 seats:  2 votes

I decided to compute the average number of seats in the House that the Democrats will lose (net) based on my poll results.  Since it was more practical to ask SSP readers a range of seats that would be lost as opposed to a specific number, I’m using a median average for each range.  This means that if you voted for 11-20 seats lost, I’m counting your specific number as 15 (and accordingly 21-30 seats will be 25, and so on).

Based on the above results, SSP nation believes that the Democrats will lose (net) 24 seats in the House.  Since this is not entirely accurate, a more reliable range to consider is that we will lose (net) 22-27 seats.  My original model showed that we would lose 30-35 seats, so on average SSP nation is more optimistic than my hypothetical election model.

I would like to determine the number of seats we will lose in 2010, but to get that number I’m interested in how many Republican seats will switch over to us in 2010.  Listed below are 4 seats that I think we can (and probably will) win in November.

(1)  LA-02.  Cao may be a moderate, but this is a strong Democratic district.

(2)  DE-AL.  Carney is a strong candidate and should easily win.

(3)  IL-10.  This is an open seat in a moderate Democratic district.

(4)  PA-06.  Gerlach was to run for Governor, now he’s running for his current seat.  Moderate blue district.  A flip-flop may not go over too well.

There are several other seats that could come into play.  Several of the California districts (CA-03, CA-44, CA-45, CA-50), WA-08, FL-12, MI-11, SC-02, OH-12, and MN-03.  These districts are vulnerable for various reasons, most notably that the district is trending blue or that the Republican Rep is a loose cannon.  Democratic obstacles in these districts include (1) the power of incumbency, (2)quality of our candidates, (3)the national momentum towards the Republicans, and (4) fundraising (Note: this includes the size of any DCCC contributions for a specific district).

Please vote on my poll below.  I’m very appreciative of your comments, so please join in!  

In my last diary, I predicted that the Democrats would lose 30-35 seats in 2010.  65% of fellow SSP devotees agreed with my assessment, so I think I’m on the right track!  Thanks to all of those who voted on my poll.

Overview

The 2010 election is 9 months away, and in politics that is an eternity.  Many things can happen that will either shift the electorate to the Democrats or to the Republicans.  As such, I tried my best to group the vulnerable Democrats accordingly.

The 10 most vulnerable Democratic seats

There are 10 seats that I currently see that will be hard to defend even if 2010 turns out to be a strong Democratic year (keeping in mind that the incumbents in several of these seats are not running for reelection).  These seats are as follows:  LA-03, TN-06, AR-01, TN-08, AR-02, ID-01, KS-03, AL-02, MD-01, and VA-05.

These seats would be hard for us to defend no matter what the political environment entails. Important to note that 7 of these seats are in the South, 2 other seats are in Red States (ID-01 and KS-03), and 1 district where there is a significant Republican advantage (MD-01, although this district has a slight Democratic registration advantage).

The next 9 “Hard to Hold” seats

The next list of seats are districts where we will have trouble holding if the 2010-mid terms are somewhat neutral (i.e. Democrats nor Republicans have a clear advantage).  These districts include MS-01, WA-03, NM-02, CO-04, OH-1, OH-15, PA-07, NH-02, and VA-02.

The make up of this group includes 3 districts where the incumbent is not running for reelection (PA-07, WA-03, NH-02), 4 districts that are R+5 or greater (MS-01, NM-02, CO-04, and VA-02), and 2 districts with freshmen reps (OH-01, OH-15).

An additional 11 “must-defend” seats

The following seats will be tough if the mid-term election is a mildly Republican friendly year.  These seats include IN-09, TX-17, NV-03, NY-20, NY-29, NY-23, FL-08, PA-03, OH-18, AZ-05, and NJ-03.  These seats range from a blood red district (TX-17) to a mild Democratic district (NV-03).  Most of these seats have been gained by the Democrats in the last 2 election cycles.

Another 12 “we better make sure we don’t lose” seats if there is a Republican landslide

These seats will come into play if the Republicans have a clear nationwide advantage over the Democrats.  These seats are NH-01, MI-07, FL-24, NY-24, PA-11, IL-14, MI-09, NC-08, FL-22, OH-16, VA-11, and GA-8.  Of these seats, only 2 seats weren’t held by a Republican before the 2006 election!  PA-11 is in this bucket due to Kanjorski, and GA-8 due to it being a red district that was almost won by the GOP in 2006.

18 seats that may flip if a Democratic nightmare occurs

If we have a mid-term election that is totally brutal (i.e. 1938, 1946, 1966), we might have to defend 18 or more seats in addition to the districts that I’ve previously mentioned.  We should really make sure that we have strong candidates that are not strapped for funds in the following districts:  CT-04, WI-08, AZ-08, CA-11, PA-04, NY-01, SC-05, NY-13, NM-01, NY-25, PA-10, PA-08, OR-05, AZ-01, CT-05, PA-12, NY-19, and VA-09.

GOP seats that could come into play

Due to simple arithmetic, the Republicans will have less seats to defend than the Democrats.  In the current day environment, I only see a handful of Republican seats that will come into play.  They include PA-06, LA-02, IL-10, DE-01, WA-08, SC-02 (Mr. “You Lie”‘s district), MI-11, CA-50, CA-3, CA-44, MN-03, FL-12, and OH-12.  Some other longshots might be added, like AL-05 and AK-01.  

Initial Conclusions

If the current environment still exists in November (and it’s pretty close to a Republican nationwide advantage),  I think we could see us losing all 42 of our seats while gaining only 4-5 of the current Republican held seats.  So a “net” loss of 37 seats cannot be considered out of the question.  However, I don’t believe we will lose all of my 42 seats.  There’s a good chance we will retain 1/2 of these seats, lose a couple other seats not on my radar, and might have better (or worse) luck with winning Republican-held seats.  

Anything can happen, but the Democrats control their destiny.  The DNC, DSCC, and the DCCC are strong and well-funded.  The Democrats have a money advantage over the Republicans.  In the last week I sense that the Democrats are regaining some momentum, so we might fair much better than I previously expected.  

Once again I want to thank everyone for their insight on creating a 2010 mid-term election model.  I value both the positive feedback and the constructive criticism.  I need your input, so please do not hold back!  

Results

My previous model predicted that the Democrats would lose 3 seats in the Senate and 32 seats in the House.  I asked SSP nation to provide feedback, and here are the results:

72.73% voted that my model for the House is realistic.

36.37% voted my model for the Senate is realistic.

Analysis

When I first created this model, I felt that it was realistic that the Dems would lose 32 seats in the House, but I felt that losing 3 seats in the Senate was, should we say, optimistic.  After reviewing the comments from my previous diary, I thought that rdw72777 made a beautiful point that my model was probably skewed too much on data from the 1982 election.  After tinkering with the model, I felt that we should probably lose 4 or 5 seats in the Senate IF we could compare the 2010 mid-terms to historical data.

New Predictions

Based on the current mood of the United States, I predict the Democrats will lose 30-35 seats in the House and 4-5 seats in the Senate.  

Where will the Dems lose 4-5 (net) Senate seats?

This is where we have some fun.  Which seats will switch hands?  Here is in order the seats that I think will switch hands between parties (with aggregate tally (net) of seats changing hands):

(1)  ND.  I’d say the Republicans have a 95+% chance of winning this seat.  Republicans +1.

(2)  AR.  Democrats seem to be toxic to this state.  Boozman may be the next Arkansas Senator.  Republicans +2.

(3)  NV.  Seems like all incumbents, regardless of party, are in trouble.  Reid’s problems are magnified based on his stature and the current environment.  Republicans +3.

(4)  DE.  Coons has potential:  Castle is established.  Delaware is a blue state, but Castle has been around for a long time.  Leans Republican.  Republicans +4.

(5)  CO.  Bennet has not impressed Colorado to date.  He’s also not entrenched, and I think the Republicans smell blood.  Slight edge to the Republicans.  Republicans +5.

(6)  MO.  Blunt is not an attractive candidate while Carnahan has loads of potential.  The state is purple, with a bit more red than blue in the mix.  Slightest edge to the Democrats.  Republicans +4.

(7)  PA.  Sestak vs. Specter.  Sestak vs. Toomey.  Specter vs. Toomey.  This is a true political triangle.  If the Democratic nominee isn’t bloodied too bad from the primary, I see the Dems holding control.  If it’s a nasty primary, I see Toomey defeating either candidate.  Tossup at best.

(8)  OH.  Democrats had a great chance of picking this seat up IF the election was held 6-8 months ago.  Not the case now.  Tossup at best.

(9)  NH.  Ditto OH.  Tossup.

(10)  IL.  Kirk is the nominee, but I wonder if his support is somewhat thin.  His primary victory was unimpressive.  Alexi G. is a good candidate. Leans Dem.

(11)  KY.  If Paul is the nominee, I think the Dems could potentially pick up this seat.  However, KY seems somewhat toxic to the Dems.  Leans Republican.

(12)  IN.  Bayh doesn’t make many of us happy, but he appears popular in Indiana.  Coats is a retread, and I retreads have a history of underperforming the expectations of their party.  Leans Dem.

(13)  NC.  For those who actually who know about Burr, he is not well liked in North Carolina.  However, the Dems didn’t attract a great candidate like Roy Cooper.  Marshall would make a good candidate, but she’s not well known for someone who has been SoS for 13 years.  Leans/Likely Republican.

(14)  FL.  Rubio will most likely win the Republican nomination.  If the Dems have a chance of picking this seat up, their best bet is for Crist to pull a switcheroo.  It might happen.  At this point, Likely Republican.

I don’t see any other seat that’s really worth mentioning.  This might change if NY got a credible Republican to go head-to-head with Gillibrand.  Hasn’t happened yet.  I’m also keeping an eye out on Iowa.  Grassley’s popularity has waned from his previous high marks.

Stay tuned for my House predictions.  I value all input, no matter if it’s critical or positive, so please don’t hold back!  

I want to thank everyone for voting on my January 25th diary.  I’ve received 28 votes (and counting), and without your help my current prediction model couldn’t have been created.  So thank you all for voting!

Results from my January 25th Diary as of January 28th, 2:15 pm EST:

Which past mid-term election is most similar to the 2010 mid-term election?

10 votes for 1982

9 votes for 1978

4 votes for 1966

2 votes for 1938

2 votes for 1994

1 vote for 1946

Interestingly, 1982 was the only mid-term election above where the sitting President was a Republican!  Not sure if this is significant, but would love to hear other opinions.

Creation of Tarheeman1993’s 2010 mid-term election model

I decided to base my formula on the results received from this survey.  Each vote gets treated in the same manner as the results for the respective past mid-term election.  At first glance, the model would look like:

2010 mid-term model predictor= (10/28)*(1982 mid-term election results) + (9/28)*(1978 mid-term election results) + (4/25)*(1966 mid-term election results) + (2/25)*(1938 mid-term election results) + (2/25)*(1994 mid-term election results) + (1/25)*1946 mid-term election results).

However, this in itself could be unreliable.  I first had to see what the weighted average of seats up for re-election that were held by the current President’s party before the mid-terms took place in each given year.  Note: except for 1982, the President in office for the respective year was a Democrat:

Seats up for re-election in past mid-term elections held by that President’s party on the given mid-term election:

Year      House          Senate

           Seats              Seats

1982        192               13  

1978        292               18

1966        295               20

1938        334               30

1994        258               22

1946        242               24

Using my model, the average # of seats can be computed as follows:

House avg=(10/28)*192 + (9/28)*292 +(4/28)*295+(2/28)*334 + (2/28)*258 + (1/28)*242=255.50 seats.  Currently the Dems will have 257 seats up for re-election, a difference of 1 1/2 seats!

Senate avg=(10/28)*13 + (9/28)*18 +(4/28)*20+(2/28)*30 + (2/28)*22 + (1/28)*24=17.86 seats.  Currently the Dems will have 18 seats up for re-election in the senate, a difference of .14 seats.

Since I was satisfied with the above results, I decided to look at the seats that were lost by the President’s party in each given mid-term election.  Here are the actual numbers of seats lost:

Year      House       Senate

           Seats           Seats

1982        27               0  

1978        15               3

1966        48               3

1938        72               7

1994        54               8

1946        55               12

Using my model, the average # of seats lost by the President’s party in the mid-term election (net) can be computed as follows:

House seats lost prediction=(10/28)*27 + (9/28)*15 +(4/28)*48 + (2/28)*72 + (2/28)*54 + (1/28)*55= 32.29 seats.  

Senate seats lost prediction=(10/28)*0 + (9/28)*3 +(4/28)*3 + (2/28)*7 + (2/28)*8 + (1/28)*12=2.89 seats.  

Obviously this model has flaws (specifically that I’m creating it and that I’m only asking fellow SSP members their opinion).  However, since the 2010 election is complex, I’m asking whether the end result, 32 seats lost in the House and 3 seats in the Senate is accurate.

Please vote on this survey and give me your feedback.  I’d appreciate it!

The upcoming 2010 mid-term elections are causing me some mild anxiety, and I don’t know if there is an appropriate historical model for this election.  I’m asking for some insight from the SSP nation on what they see is the best historical model.

Facts

1.  A moderately popular Democratic President currently occupies the White House, although his popularity is not as strong as the day he was sworn in.

2.  The United States’ economy is hopefully in “recovery” mode from The Great Recession.  Most of the events leading to The Great Recession began under the Bush Administration.

3.  The opposition to the Obama administration is energized (note:  I don’t necessarily believe that “opposition” is solely the Republican base.  Certain factions within the Tea Party movement seems to be at odds with both the Obama Administration and the Republicans that were in power during the Bush Administration).

4.  Health Care legislation.  This is not to debate the health care legislation, but instead to compare how the electorate reacted to other administrations’ attempts to pass meaningful health care reform.

5.  Since the 2004 elections, the Democrats have (net) gained 14 seats in the Senate, 54 seats in the House, and the White House.

6.  The United States has 2 wars, 1 in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan.

Mid-term elections in the past

I haven’t included all the mid-term elections in the past, but instead a select sample that we may compare to the current environment:

1930 mid-term elections.  The Stock Market crashed in October 1929, and the Great Depression was sinking into the United States.  Democrats won 8 seats in the Senate, and 52 seats in the House.

1934 mid-term elections.  Combining the results from the 1930 and 1932 elections, the Democrats had already picked up 149 seats in the House and 21 seats in the Senate, plus a new Democratic President.  In the 1934 mid-terms, the Democrats picked up an additional 9 seats in both the House and the Senate.  During this time FDR passed some key New Deal legislation.

1938 mid-term elections. Although in 1936 the Democrats won an additional 12 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate, there was certain opposition to some of FDR’s “court-packing” plan.  In addition, a recession hit the United States around 1937.  In 1938, the Democrats lost 7 seats in the Senate and 72 seats in the House.

1946 mid-term elections.  Harry Truman is now President, but he’s not a popular President.  At the time, Truman was not considered by most to be as presidential as FDR.  Although WWII was over, the Dems becaming the minority party, losing 55 seats in the House and 12 seats in the Senate.

1966 mid-term elections.  After the 1964 elections, with LBJ winning in a land-slide, the Dems had a 295-140 advantage in the House and a 67-33 advantage in the Senate.  The LBJ introduced the Great Society, which included Medicare/Medicaid.  In addition, the Vietnam war had heated up.  The Dems lost 48 seats in the house and 3 seats in the senate.

1978 mid-term elections.  In 1976, the United States elected a Georgian named Jimmy Carter.  Jimmy Carter was considered an honest man who could clean up DC.  Instead, President Carter fought with his own party over various issues.  The economy wasn’t strong, but it wasn’t yet weak from subsequent stagflation.  In the 1978 mid-terms, the Dems lost 3 seats in the Senate and 15 seats in the House.

1982 mid-term elections.  The United States elected former California Governor and former actor Ronald Reagan as President.  However, the economy was in recession with inflation and unemployment high.  Although Reagan is charismatic, his popularity had started to plunge.  In the 1982 mid-terms, the Dems gained 27 seats in the House.  The Senate, in Republican control (54-46) did not change.

1994 mid-term elections.  Bill Clinton was elected 2 years prior with 43% of the vote, and he pushed some ambitious legislation to Congress.  Gun-control legislation passed, but Health-care reform died.  The Dems lost 54 seats in the house and 8 seats in the Senate.  The Republicans are now in control.

As most of you can see, the current 2010 elections are not exactly like any of the above, but all of them have certain similarities to the current environment.  Please vote on which model is the closest to our current situation.  I’d like any additional thoughts to this diary.

In less than 2 weeks, we will determine the winner of three important elections (NJ-Gov, VA-Gov, NY-23).  At one time there was some chatter from the right that November 3rd would be a referendum on the Democrats.  For argument’s sake, I’ll agree with the conservatives and then try to analyze the potential results of these three races.  First, let’s look at the three races:

NJ-Gov  If there was ever a “come from ahead” loss staring at a Republican candidate in 2009, Chris Christie is the first man that comes to mind.  Christie made the mistake of touting a “reformer” image, but his strategy has backfired.  The Corzine campaign has identified flaws in this strategy by refuting it effectively.  Christie should have won this race going away, but Christie’s ethical issues have been the focal point as opposed to Corzine’s tenure as governor.  Chris Daggett’s popularity is the wild card.  At this point I think this race will go to Corzine due to the recent trends in the polls.  Daggett is a wild card, but Corzine should prevail by the skin of his teeth.  

VA-Gov  Creigh Deeds hasn’t caught on fire with the Virginia electorate.  McDonnell has the momentum, and I don’t see how Deeds will pull it off in less than 2 weeks.  I hope I’m wrong.  It has been noted that Deeds is a fast finisher, so I’m not totally writing this race off yet.

NY-23 Bill Owens might become the first Democrat to represent this district in many years.  DeDe Scozzafava is out of money and might actually finish 3rd in this race.  Doug Hoffman is the Conservative Party’s dog in this race, and he’s attacking both candidates from the right.  Owens has some momentum, Hoffman has some momentum (if not even more than Owens), and DeDe is floundering.  This race leans towards Owens at this time.

If the Democrats win 2 of the 3 races, would it be considered a good night for the Democratic party?  If the Republicans only pick 1 of these races, how will they spin the results in their favor?  

For purpose of this discussion, I’ve included the following states as “Southern”.  They are TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, TN, KY, and AR.  I left out some states such as MO,WV, and OK, where some would include as part of the South.  I think they are better suited elsewhere.

After the 1970 House elections, the Democrats had a whopping advantage of 84-29.  Here are the numbers for the following elections:

1972 Dems 79-36 edge

1974 Dems 86-29 edge

1976 Dems 86-29 edge

1978 Dems 81-34 edge

1980 Dems 73-42 edge

1982 Dems 86-37 edge

1984 Dems 77-46 edge

1986 Dems 81-42 edge

1988 Dems 81-42 edge

1990 Dems 81-42 edge

1992 Dems 81-50 edge

1994  GOP 68-63 edge

1996  GOP 76-55 edge

1998  GOP 76-55 edge

2000  GOP 77-54 edge

2002  GOP 81-56 edge

2004  GOP 87-50 edge

2006  GOP 81-56 edge

2008  GOP 76-61 edge

As a note, it’s interesting that under Jimmy Carter’s presidency, we lost (net) 13 seats and under Clinton we lost (net)27 seats.

Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, it was quite acceptable for a Southerner to vote for a Democrat.  Some of it has to do with the old Yellow Dog mentality (or better yet, because of some silly argument that Lincoln ruined the South).  Anyway, when the Dems had a large advantage in the South, there were very few who would be called a true progressive, albeit a liberal.  Yet, they did provide some assistance in some progressive economic issues.  Around 1992, many Southerners truly demonized Bill Clinton, saying that his morals and his big-government friends were going to ruin the US.  The moral majority joined the fray by stressing cultural issues that were imortant to many Southerners.  It’s somewhat ironic that it was under a Southern President’s watch that the GOP gained a stronghold of the South.

There have been plenty of party switching during the last 38 years, with many conservative Dems leaving the party and joining the GOP ranks.  The last time we had a US rep from the South leave the party was in 2004, when Rodney Alexander of LA and Ralph Hall of TX left the party.  I’m hoping the exodus from our party is over.

Currently, we have 21 Blue Dogs that reside in the South:  4 in GA (Barrow, Scott, Bishop, Marshall), 2 in AR (Berry, Ross), 1 in FL (Boyd), 2 in AL (Bright, Griffith), 1 in KY (Chandler), 2 in MS (Childers, Taylor), 4 in TN (Cooper, Davis, Gordon, Tanner), 1 in TX (Cuellar), 2 in NC (McIntyre, Shuler), 1 in LA (Melancon), and 1 in VA (Nye).

Most of these Reps are culturally conservative, but some are willing to help the Democratic party on economic issues.  Even a few (ex. Shuler) will vote for some pro-environment legislation.  Yet, many of us on SSP have mixed feelings about the Blue Dogs.  We like them for being in our ranks and occassionally supporting some progressive legislation, but then we get quite mad on other issues (cultural issues, healthcare, etc.).  So what should we do with the Blue Dogs?

First, if the current Blue Dogs in the South bolted our party, the GOP would have a huge advantage (97-40).  That, my friends, is shocking, since prior to the civil rights act of 1964, there were only a handful of Republicans in the South.  

Anyway, I wanted to open this up to discussion, because the South could end up losing several Democratic Rep seats in 2010.  My questions are:

1.  Are we willing to support Blue Dogs in the South when very vew are willing to support us on key issues (i.e. healthcare)?

2.  Is there a way to triangulate our ideas with the Blue Dogs whereby we can get some meaningful legislation passed without having to “water down” the importance of the legislation?