Tag: GOP

(Cross-posted on Daily Kos and the Swing State Project)

Beginning in the 1960’s the Republican Party won many elections using their “Southern Strategy”.  The strategy worked pretty well for them for over three decades, but beginning maybe a dozen years ago, it began to have a counter-effect whereby areas outside the South began to increasingly vote Democratic (in part as a reaction to the “Southernization” of the GOP).   This trend accelerated rather rapidly over the last few election cycles, culminating in the 2008 election where the “Southern Strategy” literally blew up in the face of the Republican Party.  The latest polling from Research 2000  –summarized here in a diary from earlier today: http://www.dailykos.com/weekly… — indicates that this realigning trend has perhaps reached new and unprecedented levels.

Looking at simply support for President Obama and support for the Republican Party will give you an idea of what I’m talking about …

Obama:

Northeast – 81% favorable; 13% unfavorable

Midwest – 62% favorable; 33% unfavorable

West – 60% favorable; 36% unfavorable

“non-South” – 67% favorable; 28% unfavorable (for the “non-South” I combined the data for the three regions above, adjusting for population proportions)

South – 27% favorable; 68% unfavorable

As you can see, the numbers for the South vs. the “non-South” are almost exactly the reverse of each other !  If you look at this as a net plus/minus aggregate, the difference between the South and the non-South is an astounding 80 points !

It appears that, despite the fact that President Obama’s overall numbers have gone down over the last several polls, he is still VERY popular in the “non-Southern” area of the country which encompasses 70% of our population.

The Research 2000 polling also included data based on race/ethnicity.  I played with the numbers here a bit to try to extrapolate (an educated “guesstimate”) what the proportion of “Southern whites” thinks about the President.  For this purpose I assumed that blacks and Hispanics, regardless of whether they live in the South or not, would generally have a similar opinion of President Obama (blacks: 86% favorable, 5% unfavorable; Hispanics: 63% favorable, 30% unfavorable).  My extrapolated numbers for Southern Hispanics may be off a bit as the largest concentrations include both the relatively more Democratic population in Texas, as well as the relatively more Republican population in Florida; nevertheless, the Hispanic numbers here don’t play as large of a role as the numbers for the black population, so I feel my final extrapolated numbers are quite accurate.  After crunching all the numbers I “guesstimated” the following:

“Southern Whites” (approx. 21% of the U.S. population):

Obama – 5% favorable; 91% unfavorable

“everyone else” (non-Southerners of all races and Southern blacks and Hispanics; approx. 79% of the U.S. population):

Obama – 68% favorable; 26% unfavorable

The net difference between the two groups above is an amazing 128 points !

I repeated the entire process to analyze support for the Republican Party:

GOP:

Northeast – 6% favorable; 91% unfavorable

Midwest – 10% favorable; 81% unfavorable

West – 11% favorable; 77% unfavorable

“non-South” – 9% favorable; 83% unfavorable

South – 46% favorable; 40% unfavorable

“Southern Whites” – 64% favorable; 18% unfavorable

“everyone else” – 9% favorable; 84% unfavorable

The favorable number above for “everyone else” is really only a bit over 8.5% (which I rounded to 9%), so among the 4/5 of the U.S. population that isn’t “Southern white” the opinion of the Republican Party is, in effect, a 10 to 1 unfavorable to favorable ratio !  These numbers clearly support the assertion made by many over the last number of months that the Republican Party is becoming a rump, regional entity.

The purpose of this diary is not to bash Southern whites.  I simply find it very interesting how disparate the numbers are when comparing that particular population with the rest of the nation.  Much of this may already seem like “common knowledge” but the numbers from the Research 2000 polling are still mind-boggling to me.  

Perhaps the point to all this is that when looking at aggregate national poll numbers that measure the “popularity” of President Obama, the Republican Party, or health care for that matter, we should always keep in mind that they are just an average, and the overall “toplines” should not necessarily be used to measure the country as a whole.  Instead, greater consideration should be given to how the numbers play out regionally.  A good example of this includes when we’re trying to figure out how the 2010 Congressional elections will play out.  The GOP may indeed capture seats from us next year — but where will those seats be ?  With 46-40 favorable/unfavorable numbers in the South, it seems quite conceivable that a number of Southern seats may be lost; on the other hand, with a 6-91 numbers in the Northeast, it’s a much steeper hill to climb for the GOP in that region (btw, this poll also provides Generic Congressional Ballot preference numbers, though with decidedly larger numbers of undecideds; for ex. the generic GOP candidate in the South beats the generic Democrat by a 2 to 1 ratio, while in the Northeast the generic Democrat wins by a ratio of 5 to 1).  All politics is local, ofcourse, but understanding the current state of regional political differentiation in this country at this point in our history will go a long way towards planning strategy, whether the battle is winning Congressional elections or the health care debate.

One thing does seem certain here, though.  The GOP’s Southern Strategy is dead, and it appears to have taken the party down with it.  Whether the GOP can rise from the ashes is another question.  But if it rises, it will not be through the resurrection of the Southern Strategy.

UPDATE:

Reader KTinOhio (from the Daily Kos version of this diary) makes a really good observation re. the realignment process.  I am adding KTin’s comment below as I think it’s very relevant to this discussion:

First, the most recent polling – especially the Gallup tracker that gives Obama a +7 favorability rating – matches the election results closely.  Gallup had Obama up 50-43.  Last fall’s vote was 53-46, and very few of those 46% will support the president now.

Second, in comparing the Research 2000 regional favorability ratings as posted on Kos to the election results, it is odd that Obama is doing better now than he did in the election in three out of four regions.  Any guesses as to which one is the exception?

NORTHEAST

Popular Vote:  Obama 16,955,765 (59.44%), McCain 11,163,386 (39.14%), Total 28,524,587.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 117, McCain 5.

Research 2000:  81% Favorable, 13% Unfavorable.

MIDWEST

Popular Vote:  Obama 17,790,208 (52.98%), McCain 15,253,735 (45.43%), Total 33,576,392.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 97, McCain 34.

Research 2000:  62% Favorable, 33% Unfavorable.

WEST

Popular Vote:  Obama 15,720,655 (55.94%), McCain 11,765,120 (41.86%), Total 28,104,554.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 96, McCain 28.

Research 2000:  60% Favorable, 36% Unfavorable.

SOUTH

Popular Vote:  Obama 19,032,324 (46.14%), 21,767,161 (52.77%), Total 41,251,078.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 55, McCain 106.

Research 2000:  27% Favorable, 68% Unfavorable.

TOTAL

Popular Vote:  Obama 69,498,952 (52.87%), 59,949,402 (45.60%), Total 131,456,611.  Electoral Vote:  Obama 365, McCain 173.

Research 2000:  55% Favorable, 40% Unfavorable.

So, if we compare the election results to the current favorability polls, which are obviously not the same thing, but the election was a much a referendum on Obama as anything else, Obama has gone from +7 to +15 nationally, +20 to +68 in the Northeast, +8 to +29 in the Midwest, +14 to +24 in the West, and – 7 to -41 in the South.  Somehow, a lot of McCain voters in the Northeast now give Obama a favorable grade, as do a smaller number of McCain voters in the Midwest and West.  But in the South, the opposite is true; large numbers of Obama voters seem to have turned against him.

Thank you KTinOhio for crunching the numbers and for your very relevant and insightful analysis.

Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter today, making her the third woman and first Hispanic ever nominated for the High Court.  Folks rarely vote over judicial nominations (evangelical voters aside), but she could generate a lot of ripple effects.  Already, the conventional wisdom from several pundits is that this will put Republicans in a bind – they’d be opposing history if they try to block Sotomayor’s appointment.  Yet, as SCOTUS blog points out, there are too many right-wing activists that have devoted too much money to let her slide.  Already, her comment that the high court is “where policy is made” is raising the ire of the right.

It’s also proving to be a diving issue for primaries as well; in Florida, Rubio is more likely going to oppose her while Crist’s support for her may cost him further with the base.  There will likely be more GOPers (and moderate Dems) who will feel pressure from the base to either support or oppose.  There’s also the issue of the nomination’s timing.  This is a critical session for the Democrats – healthcare and energy reform are both on an the front burner, along with backlogged executive appointments, a 2010 appropriations bill, and transportation – and the spectacle of a Supreme Court nomination battle could put a huge damper on the Democratic party’s agenda, giving incumbents less to go home and brag about for 2010.

Thoughts?  Will Sotomayor impact the 2010 elections in any way, or will she just be a blip on the screen by then?  As an aside, what do you think this will portend for the MN Senate recount (my money is on Coleman appealing to SCOTUS for sure now to keep Franken from voting her in).

To help get these clowns out of Congress, chip in to help their eventual Democratic challengers.

And in other news, the sun came up this morning.

When I (James) went on MSNBC two weeks ago to talk about immigration reform, I didn’t think that I had anything that outlandish to say. Contessa Brewer, the daytime host, asked Republican strategist Ben Porrit and me if we thought we were going to get immigration reform passed and I said frankly that we won’t, because there is a segment of the Republican party that is racist and will stand in the way of real reform. Simple enough, right?

Well, after my turn at the 1:25 mark, when I said that within the Republican Party there is a segment of that group that is very anti-immigration, and essentially racist, Contessa and Ben reacted as though I had insulted one of their mothers (or both). When I finished, I immediately called Max Bernstein, who co-chairs dotPAC with me, to ask if I had said something really out of line because I got cut off and everyone had their mouths agape with shock that I could say such a thing. He certainly didn’t think so, and with good reason.

Yes, total shock at the idea that there is a racist segment of the Republican Party. The distribution of the Barack the Magic Negro song by a candidate for the RNC Chairmanship and former leader of the Tennessee Republican Party? The SoCal mayor who made and sent a postcard of the White House lawn with watermelons sprouted all over it? Macaca? The 24 hour news cycle makes for unbelievably short memories, clearly.

Those examples aside, there is a segment of the GOP that brings that attitude to the immigration debate, and it’s made up of House members, not the aforementioned marginal figures in the Party. To start, here’s Dana Rohrabacher, the Congressman from the pristine beach communities in Southern Los Angeles and Northern Orange County on Real Time with Bill Maher:

“ROHRABACHER: It’s bad for the American people to have so many people coming in from overseas, bidding down the wages of our average person, taking – and at the same time, a lot of employers aren’t giving the same kind of benefits. So we end up with less tax revenue. We end up with our education system under – collapsing under this pressure. Our health care system collapsing under the pressure.

MAHER: You’re blaming all that on the Mexicans?

ROHRABACHER: Yes, I am. Yes, I am.”

Next up, we have Houston congressman John Culberson. Culberson is known for being on the cutting edge of his use of technology and social networking, but when it comes to the viewpoint behind the tweeting and Qik-videoing, he falls somewhere between the age of internment camps and the McCarthy era. Observe:

“A concern that I continue to see is that a lot of those scientists from communist China, my impression is, and correct me if I am wrong, come here and learn as much as they can, and then leave. And I’m not really all that much into helping the communists figure out how to better target their intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States. They basically steal our technology for military applications. And they are red China, let’s not forget.”

We can’t forget this one either:

“A large number of Islamic individuals have moved into homes in Nuevo Laredo and are being taught Spanish to assimilate with the local culture.”

The context here is how, to quote the Twittering idiot, “Al Qaeda terrorists and Chinese nationals are infiltrating our country virtually anywhere they choose from Brownsville to San Diego.” Yes John, those brown people just learn Spanish and all of a sudden no one can tell them apart, as they assimilate with the rest of the local brown culture.

Then we have James Sensenbrenner, who authored a piece of paranoid legislation that had it become law would have subjected all Hispanics in America to ritualistic profiling and relentless eligibility and citizenship tests in all aspects of their everyday lives. If you have 15 minutes and feel like losing your appetite, go read the bill.

And we can’t forget Michele Bachmann of Minnesota:

“One amendment [to a MN legislature budget] was offered that said that drivers license tests should be in English only, and that amendment failed. It’s an outrage, it’s unthinkable…”

Nevermind that this was in response to a tragic and fatal car accident where the perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant with a phony license, and having an English requirement for a drivers license would send the fake ID business through the roof. Bachmann’s unmatched abilities to match bigotry with mere poor logic were also on display last September when she plamed the entire subprime mortgage crisis on the fact that banks didn’t just stick to lending money to white folks.

So yes, Ben and Contessa. There is a segment of the Republican party that is clearly racist and will block real immigration reform by appealing to the xenophobic wing of their constituency that keeps them edging past their opponents every two years.

That’s why dotPAC is raising money for each of these bigots’ eventual Democratic challengers on ActBlue, and running ads in each of their districts on Facebook highlighting their indecency. Give a few bucks to the eventual Democratic nominees and show these bigots that they have no place in mainstream politics, let alone the halls of Congress.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is finally making national news after four years as a do-nothing GOP wallflower. But… it’s probably not the knid of publicity that will help him come 2010.

Yesterday, the House passed a bill that would give the FDA power to regulate tobacco products by a vote of 298-112. Next, the bill will head to the Senate, where one senator has threatened to filibuster it. That senator is… Richard Burr.

I can understand Burr’s opposition to the bill. North Carolina is the number one tobacco-producing state in the country, and the congressional district Burr represented from 1995 to 2005 includes Winston-Salem, the home of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

But Burr’s opposition to this bill has been reported in virtually every news story on this bill, including these stories from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press. This is bad politically for Burr for several reasons:

1. It will empower national Democrats to defeat him in 2010. Burr’s decision to filibuster this bill, which many Democrats and liberals support, turns him from just another Southern Republican into a specific opponent. He is making himself more vulnerable because he is giving Democrats a real reason to strongly dislike him besides the fact that he is a Republican. They will want him out because of this action.

2. It doesn’t really help him a lot back home. Although North Carolina has long been known for it’s tobacco (people used to joke that the state motto was “Tobacco is a vegetable”), the tobacco industry no longer commands the influence it once had. The NC House just approved a bill to ban smoking in most businesses and restaurants, and polling showed that roughly two-thirds of North Carolinians supported the ban. By being so vocal, Burr will alienate urban and surburban voters in RTP and Charlotte who want tobacco to be more regulated. Most tobacco farmers would probably have voted for him anyway, so he will potentially lose more votes than he will gain from this. This

3. It furthers his image as an obstructionist. The Senate GOP has fallen in love with the filibuster, and Burr has been no exception. He has very few accomplishments he can point to other than being an ultraconservative, partisan Republican who opposed the Democrats who have controlled Congress for most of his term. The one time he gets a lot of national exosure, it is for opposing rather than supporting something.

In my opinion, Burr is the most endangered Republican incumbent in 2010 other than Jim Bunning. And unlike in Kentucky, it is unlikely that the GOP leadership will try to get Burr to retire or defeat him in a primary.

So I think this race is being overlooked by many national pundits, and it will prove to be one of our best pickup opportunities next November.

(Cross-posted from Kansas Jackass

Two bits of news out of the Republican Primary for the United States Senate seat Sam Brownback is vacating in 2010.

First, Congressman Todd Tiahrt announced the formation of his campaign steering committee.  It includes such Republican notables as State Representatives Kasha Kelly, Lance Kinzer, and Peggy Mast, along with former Speaker of the Kansas House Doug Mays, and Sharon Meissner, who we surmise is the wife of twice-failed Kansas State Board of Education candidate Dr. Robert Meissner.

Lovely, right?  I do appreciate they sent the press release directly to the blog, though.

In the news that actually matters, the Washington Post is today reporting a poll commissioned for the campaign of Congressman Jerry Moran includes much better news for him than it does good ol’ Todder.

Rep. Jerry Moran starts as the frontrunner for the GOP Senate nod in Kansas, according to new polling done for his campaign. Moran, who has held the massive central-western 1st district since 1996, holds a 41 percent to 25 percent edge over fellow Rep. Todd Tiahrt in a poll conducted by Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies.

“While it is still very early in the primary campaign, it is currently a lot better to be Jerry Moran than it is to be Todd Tiahrt,” Bolger wrote in the polling memo.

I’m sure people will read that and scream, “But it was a internal poll, so it’s just bullshit.”  While I’m sure campaign-released polls always only include selective information (like, for instance, we bet Moran isn’t telling anyone who he matches up against Gov. Kathleen Sebelius…), just because it’s an internal poll doesn’t immediately make it invalid.  A polling firm won’t get much work if their poll are routinely proven wrong in the press.

So, there you go- while Tiahrt’s busy naming his committee, Moran’s busy winning the election.  Long way ’til August 2010, but the pollster is right- I’d much rather be Jerry Moran today.

This year, NC voters were confronted witha Republican ticket headed up by a 72 year old white man running for President and a 72 year old white woman running for the US Senate.  I guess they call that diversity but it was pretty indicative of the seven incumbents (plus McCain)

Republicans running for Federal office in North Carolina (I’m excluding Sarah Pallin as she was essentially a tag a long).

The Congressional loser for the Republicans was 63 year old Robin Hayes.  Hayes was bested by 57 year old Democrat Larry Kissell.  That’s part of the story as 47 year old Barack Obama and 55 year old Kay Hagan whipped the aging Dole and McCain, each 72.

The Congressional winners for NC Republicans included 77 year old Howard Coble, 67 year old Sue Myrick, and two 65 year olds in Walter Jones and Virginia Foxx.  Foxx looks a good deal older than her age having the traditional old grandma look.  Only Patrick McHenry, 33, is younger than the traditional retirement age and even he got an age “Schock.”  McHenry is no longer the youngest House member being badly overtaken by 26 year old wunderkid/brat Aaron Schock of Illinois.

By contrast, two North Carolina Democrats are also clearly agingin 68 year old David Price and 67 year old Bob Etheridge.  GK Butterfield is getting there at 61.  and so is Mel Watt at 63.  Larry Kissell (57), Brad Miller, Mike McIntyre (52) and Kay Hagan (55) are in what would seem prime age for a legislator.  Heath Shuler at 36 is still young and hardly has the ambitious brat reputation of McHenry.

Makes one think of the two curmudgeons from Alaska (Don Young (73?) and Ted Stevens (84).

Ohio Republicans appear to have won a major court “victory” that could throw this year’s election into chaos.  A Federal Appeals Court in Cincinnatti ruled 9 to 6 that the Secretary of State must provide detailed localized lists of newly registered voters whose Motor Vehicle IDs and/or Social Security numbers provided for voter ID don’t match centralized lists.  Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimates that at least 200,000 of the 666,000 voters registered this year would fall in this category.

Newspapers in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnatti and Akron reported this matter of factly, largely relying on the AP feed.  Brunner felt that the decision was too late, relied on an incorrect reading of the Federal HAVA (Help America Vote Act) law, and planned to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

It is totally clear that much of the same obstructionist policy implemented by Ohio Republicans under Ken Blackwekk would return in 2008.  More Republican challenges.  Hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots.  :ong lines and lots of problems in Democratic districts.  Easy times and no challenges in predominantly Republican districts.  

These votes are primarily Democratic and many were triggered by the high intensity Ohio primary.  Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) said that it had 100,000 new voters with 34,000 coming after the primary and the rest coming earlier.

CNN reported that many of these voters participated in the heated Ohio primary.  That would tend to make those results at least suspect.  CNN suggested in its broadcasts that the fairest result would be to clean this up after the 2008 elections are held.

Here’s the ad that wins the Election in Ohio.

And it’s crucial that we get this ad on the air right now, because voters – particularly persuadable voters – just started voting yesterday in Ohio.

The ad is tough, aggressive, and hard-hitting against the GOP’s failed economic policies.  But we need your help to get it on the air by Friday.

This ad highlights the report released by the Ohio Democratic Party on Monday, Ohio’s Eight Years of Economic Pain. You can download the full report at www.ohiodems.org/economicpain

The ad’s facts are simple: Under George Bush, 1,087 factories and companies in Ohio have shut down or had mass layoffs due to the failed Republican policies in Washington – an average of nearly three per week in Ohio each and every week for the past eight years.

These shutdowns or layoffs have put more than 180,000 Ohioans out of work, devastating their families and our communities.

These aren’t just numbers – they are our neighbors.

John McCain cannot win without Ohio and the race in Ohio will come down to only a handful of votes. So we need you to be part of the momentum that puts Barack Obama over the top in Ohio on November 4.

There is no time to wait. The time for real change is now. And delivering Ohio to Obama will deliver him the Election.

Ohio and America cannot afford another four years. Please donate as much as you can afford TODAY. And then send this message to your friends.

Donate online at www.ohiodems.org/donate.

Thank you for your support!

Todd Hoffman
Director of Internet Operations
Ohio Democratic Party

Twelve states still have open filing (or will have open filing).  Then there’s Virginia with its filing date (passed) and the party congressional district conventions.  This does not include states like Massachussetts and hawaii with an entirely Democratic delegation.  In the remaining states, New York has the most Republican members of congress (6) but Oklahoma has the most who have not announced retirement (4).  In total, these states have 36 GOP representatives with eight retirements.

Alaska has a June 2 filing deadline.  The case for a Don Young retirement is simple.  It will allow him to spend all his remaining cash on hand on his legal defence.  The seat already has an announced Republican who has filed, Sean Parnell.  Young still has a huge cash advantage over his opponents and would, at the least, stand a good chance at defeating Parnell.  We’ll know by June 2.

My second ranked retirement choice would be a surprise but given the flak he’s taken, it seems like an interesting personal choice.  Tom Cole has a safe seat in Oklahoma (June 4 deadline) but has receiveds merciless criticism, particularly from Boehner.  Given that the last NRCC head ts retiring this year, this job takes a lot out of its current place holder and gives little in return (Tom Davis was, after all, shoved out of the US Senate race in VA).  Maybe he’ll decide to chuck it, do his best, and say sayonara.

None of the other Oklahoma incumbents (Sullivan, Lucas, and Fallin) seem even remotely likely to leave.  Others have been on rumor lists in the past so they migh seem like possible retirement choices.

Colorado is the next state out of the chute and Marilyn Musgrave was frequently mentioned as being pressed to drop out.  There is no talk of that, Doug La,born is a first-term true believer and Tancredo is the one leaving.  No change.

Wyoming is next and Barbara Cubin has already announced she’s departing.

No, next on my list is someone who is independently wealthy, 65 years old, but who is unopposed.  That would be Jim Sensenbrenner in Wisconsin.  If Sensenbrenner.  Sensenbrenner would have the added benefit of being able to basically name his successor.  (other Wisconsin Republicans are Tom Petri and Ryan).

Fourth and fifth on my list are two Washington Republicans, Cathy McMorris Rogers and Doc Hastings.  McMorris Rogers missed a lot of time while giving birth.  She may prefer spending more time in a more stable environment than being a member of the House representing a district coveriong Spokane.  Hastings is a member of the Republican class of 1994.  He lost a lot of clout when the Democrats took power and was frequently mentioned early on as a possible retiree.  Dave Reichert spent seemingly 20 years hunting the Green River Killer.  I don’t see him giving up on a House seat he holds (if barely) this soon in his career.  Lose, yes.  Retire, no.

6 and 7. John McHugh won easily in 2006 and faces an opponent, in Mike Oot, with a slim $15,415 in the bank. OTOH, McHugh was mentioned on this site IIRC as possibly stepping down and running for a State Senate set recently taken by Darrell Aubertine.  McHugh is not exactly rolling in cash with a paltry $261,698.It’s a toss up district (R+0.2)in a Democratic state where the GOP seems to be doing its best to disappear.  Randy Kuhl has the safest Republican district in the state (R+5, NY-29).  Kuhl has a volcanic temper, though, and trails Eric Massa in cash on hand by $365 K (Kuhl) to $565 K (Massa).  My guess is that Kuhl is far more likely to lose this seat than give it up.  Still, since another candidate might well do better, retirement is possible.  (Peter King is safe in the other activer NY seat as he has money ($802 K) and lacks a challenger.

8. Mike Castle.  Castle has plenty of money but he earlier suffered a stroke (which he and his staff covered up).  Health problems are the only thing that could drag Mike from defending this D+7 seat.

9. Marilyn Musgrave.  Musgrave was pushed to retire early as she has badly underperformed her district.  Instead, the feisty conservative has tried to position herself as more bi-partisan.  I think it’s a crock but it does show she’s running again.  Doug Lamborn has a primary opponent but he’s already running again.  (The Colorado system shows some districts earlier than others based on the district assembly date for the party.)  Tom Tancredo has long since announced his retirement.

10.  John Shadegg.  Shadegg already retired once and has a pile of cash.  He’s running.  Bur Jeff Flake is running for a leadershio position and Trent Franks has shown no inclination to join the retirees.  Rick Renzi is awaiting his defence and retirement.

Nothing happening:  KS (Moran and Tiarrht); LA (the newly elected Scalise, Alexander, and Boustany); MN (Kline and Bachmann).

Don Young may realistically retire.  Anybody else seems highly unlikely.

Well, it looks like Boehner is starting to take matters into his own hands and rectify some of Tom Cole’s incompetence.

More after the fold…

Full article from cq politics:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp…

It’s not uncommon for congressional leaders to steer fundraising assistance to party candidates who are in difficult races and in need of extra campaign cash. One such effort is the House Republicans’ “ROMP,” an acronym for Regain Our Majority Program, which has released its latest list of Republican candidates who will benefit from additional aid because they are politically vulnerable and/or have been targeted by the Democrats for defeat.

“ROMP 2008,” presently overseen by the political operation of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, was recently established in papers filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These records identify the 10 newest recipients of the program’s assistance.

These candidates make up the first batch of ROMP candidates named this year, and the third since the current election cycle began in the 2007-08 cycle. The new recipients’ election contests are outlined below.

7/10 of the candidates were incumbents we ousted in the last election cycle.

• Michele Bachmann , Minnesota’s 6th District (North and east Twin Cities suburbs; St. Cloud). Bachmann was first elected in 2006 to succeed Republican Mark Kennedy, who lost his campaign for the U.S. Senate to Democrat Amy Klobuchar . The Democratic nominee for November’s election will be either Bob Olson, a lawyer, or Elwyn Tinklenberg, a former state transportation commissioner. The latter candidate initially campaigned for the Democratic nomination in 2006 but later deferred to Patty Wetterling, a child safety advocate who lost to Bachmann after also losing as the Democratic nominee against Kennedy in 2004.

• Vito J. Fossella , New York’s 13th (Staten Island; part of southwest Brooklyn). Fossella is the only House Republican who represents part of New York City. He saw his re-election percentage drop from 70 percent in 2002 to 59 percent in 2004, and then again to 57 percent in 2006 even though Democratic challenger Steve Harrison didn’t raise much money. Harrison, a lawyer, is seeking a rematch, though he faces a well-funded primary opponent in New York City Councilman Domenic Recchia.

• Sam Graves , Missouri’s 6th (Northwest – St. Joseph, part of Kansas City). Graves’ campaign for a fifth term may well be the toughest of his career. His Democratic opponent, former Kansas City mayor Kay Barnes, is well-known and well-funded.

• Ric Keller , Florida’s 8th (Central – most of Orlando). Keller won a fourth term in 2006 by a 7 percentage-point margin over Democrat Charlie Stuart, a marketing executive who is one of several Democrats seeking the 2008 nomination.

• Anne M. Northup, Kentucky’s 3rd (Louisville Metro). Northup, who served in the House from 1997 through 2006, is challenging Democratic freshman Yarmuth, who unseated her by a margin of less than 3 percentage points. Northup hadn’t planned a bid to reclaim her seat this year, but she jumped in after the Republican she had been backing, lawyer Erwin Roberts, dropped out of the race to fulfill his military obligations. Northup sought a quick political comeback last year but lost a primary challenge to then-Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who subsequently lost the general election to Democrat Steve Beshear.

• Erik Paulsen, Minnesota’s 3rd (Hennepin County suburbs – Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Plymouth). Paulsen, a state representative, is the presumed Republican nominee in this suburban Minneapolis district, which retiring Republican Jim Ramstad is giving up after nine terms. The Democratic nominee will either be state Sen. Terri Bonoff or Ashwin Madia, a lawyer and Iraq War veteran.

• Bill Sali , Idaho’s 1st (West – Nampa, Panhandle, part of Boise). The strong Republican leanings of this district are indisputable, as President Bush took 68 percent of the vote there in his 2004 election. But Sali underperformed in his 2006 election for the then-open 1st District seat, in which he defeated Democrat Larry Grant by the underwhelming vote of 50 percent to 45 percent. Grant is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination along with Walt Minnick, a businessman who lost as the party’s losing Senate nominee against Republican Larry E. Craig in 1996. Sali is opposed in the May 27 Republican primary election by Matt Salisbury, an Iraq War veteran.

• Jean Schmidt , Ohio’s 2nd (Eastern Cincinnati and suburbs; Portsmouth). Schmidt, who is seeking a second full term in a district that usually exhibits strong Republican leanings, faces a rematch of her exceptionally close 2006 race against Democratic physician Victoria Wulsin. Schmidt won that contest by a margin of about 1 percentage point. In the primary elections that took place March 4, Schmidt was renominated with 57 percent of the Republican vote and Wulsin won with 58 percent on the Democratic side.

• Tim Walberg , Michigan’s 7th (South central – Battle Creek, Jackson). Walberg, a freshman, was elected in 2006 over Democrat Sharon Renier, a little-known and underfunded Democrat who lost by just 4 percentage points. The unexpectedly close outcome was influenced by a bitter Republican primary fight in which the very conservative Walberg unseated one-term GOP moderate Joe Schwarz. Renier is running again this year, though Democratic officials are rallying behind state Sen. Mark Schauer, a better-known and better-funded candidate.

• Darren White, New Mexico’s 1st (Central – Albuquerque). White is the sheriff of Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque and which is the population base of a politically competitive district that Republican Heather A. Wilson left open to pursue a U.S. Senate bid. White is opposed in the June 3 primary by state Sen. Joseph Carraro. The four Democratic primary candidates are Michelle Grisham, a former state health secretary; Martin Heinrich, a former Albuquerque councilman; Robert L. Pidcock, a lawyer; and Rebecca Vigil-Giron, a former New Mexico Secretary of State.