It goes without saying that the wave election of last November was an extremely rare spectacle in modern politics–going beyond a mere “six year itch” that Ken Mehlman and friends would like you to believe. Due to the deeply fortified structural advantages that Republican incumbents had going into the 2006 cycle (a limited number of competitive seats due to shrewd gerrymandering, the standard powers of incumbency that were as salient as ever, etc), the intensity of this “wave” is rivaled only by that of 1994’s Republican coup. With that in mind, it’s worth noting what usually happens in the cycle after wave years. From the Hotline archives:
1974: +49D
1976: +1D
1980: +34R
1982: +26D
1994: +52R
1996: +3D
Waves don’t come in pairs for the same party–at least not historically. I suppose, however, that if the GOP managed to nominate a McCain-esque Iraq War cheerleader, it would almost make a second mini-wave (a ripple?) possible. But that’s a hypothetical that we shouldn’t count on at this point.
The point is: we have a number of potentially vulnerable House freshmen and even a few incumbents who probably will lose in 2008. We should get used to this idea, even as we fight our hardest to prevent it from happening. Where do we make up for it? Of course, judiciously targeting vulnerable Republican incumbents (think MI-07’s Club For Growth stooge Tim Walberg, for example) and scandal-plagued members in tippable districts (PA-18’s Tim Murphy would make a good target). The other thing we have to hope for is a strong crop of open seats left vacant by retiring Republicans in winnable districts.
So far, the open seat picture is largely speculative at this point, but I’ve made an attempt to track the number of definite and potential vacancies up for grabs in 2008. The first chart tracks definite retirements, listing each district by its incumbent, PVI, and their age on election day in 2008.
Definite House Retirements
District |
Incumbent |
PVI |
Age |
Notes |
|---|
CA-24 |
Gallegly (R) |
R+4.8 |
64 |
Botched a retirement attempt in 2006 |
CO-02 |
Udall (D) |
D+8.1 |
58 |
Running for Senate |
IL-04 |
Gutierrez (D) |
D+30.7 |
54 |
Retiring |
Obviously, that’s a pretty small list at this point, as I’ve restricted it to only confirmed retirements (Gallegly has stated that this term will be his last). This list will grow considerably. There are lots of reasons for retirement: age, health issues, depression due to being in the minority, scandals, vacating the seat to pursue other career aspirations, etc. I’ve done a little bit of research into this question and have come up with a shortlist of potential retirements in districts with a PVI of less than R/D+10 (unless district history leaves me compelled to bend the rules). I could have compiled an extremely thorough list detailing including all of the members with advanced age issues (and let’s face it, we have more than our share of cryptkeepers in Congress), but I think this would be better focused on vacancies with the potential to tip the political balance. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far (and remember, just in case there’s any confusion, “age” here means age on election day, 2008):
Potential House Retirements
This is by no means a complete list. There could very well be some left-field retirements that leave both parties scrambling to put up viable candidates, and I haven’t taken into consideration the potentiality of scandal-induced retirements. Additionally, maybe there have been some retirement rumblings surrounding incumbents in swing districts that I haven’t heard about. So, I invite you to join the discussion in the comments. Who do you think is likely to retire in 2008?
On the face of it, I’d say that the potential open seat picture favors Team Blue more than it does Team Red.
