Tag: House

In a post last week, OH-16: State Senator John Boccieri: AG Dann should resign immediately State Senator John Boccieri expressed his “outrage” over the the behavior of Attorney General Marc Dann. On May 6, 2008, Senator Boccieri stated:

“I am outraged that the Attorney General of the state of Ohio has neglected the duty and honor of public service,” Senator Boccieri said. “The cronyism and lack of attentiveness to protocol and detail in Attorney General Dann’s hiring practices has led us to this tragic moment in Ohio’s history. I feel for his wife Alyssa and his children, who must endure the embarrassment he has caused to them, and the people of the state of Ohio.

“We support the ongoing investigation to determine whether any criminal lines have been crossed. However, after combing through the sordid details of the investigation transcripts, it is clear that ethical and moral lines have been disregarded. For this reason, I call upon Marc Dann to resign immediately.”

I was proud of Senator Boccieri for being thorough, reading the transcripts, and getting the facts straight before jumping to any conclusions. After he was sure of the facts, he made his initial call for Dann to resign immediately. Over the course of the week, Dann has tried every play in the book to avoid resignation, even while knowing the “dirt” would continue to pile up on the entire office and staff. Boccieri was chided for being slow to jump on the “Dann Bandwagon”, but was simply applying a reasonable fact checking methodology.

Today, May 13, 2008, just one week later, State Senator John Boccieri, candidate in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District, issued the following statement from his Senate office today:

“I fully support the actions taken by both the Ohio House and Senate today. As I have said before, Marc Dann cannot continue as Attorney General of the State of Ohio. It was my hope last week that he would recognize that reality, resign the office, and bring this shameful ordeal to an end. Because that has not yet happened, members of the Ohio House today brought articles of impeachment against Marc Dann, an action with which I agree completely.

“Also today, a motion was introduced to initiate an Inspector General’s investigation of the Attorney General’s office. I support that move also, and I would urge the Inspector General’s office to be swift and judicious in their work. A lengthy investigation will benefit no one – least of all the citizens of this state.

“As I have previously stated, I am outraged and disappointed by Marc Dann’s behavior. I am dismayed that he has refused thus far to resign his office and accept the findings of an Inspector General’s investigation. Marc Dann has again chosen to do the wrong thing and is attempting to negotiate the details of his departure. Marc Dann should be given absolutely no latitude to negotiate a more favorable exit from office on the heels of his admitted wrongdoing.

“It is my sincere hope that either through resignation or impeachment, this sordid episode will be concluded quickly, allowing us to move forward with the important business of the state. There is too much work to be done in Ohio for us to be distracted by such scandals. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the legislature and our statewide elected officials as we move forward with the people’s business.”

At every turn, State Senator John Boccieri has shown the deliberate pragmatism of true leadership through thorough examination of the available facts and his strong desire to do the bidding of his constituency even in the face of adversity. State Senator John Boccieri shows the thoughtful leadership skills the electorate of Ohio’s 16th Congressional District deserve to have represent them in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. Our District is fortunate to have State Senator Major John Boccieri offer his service at the next higher level of representation.  

Unity is the Key in 2008:  As I’ve been meeting with people since the primary election, I can tell that Democratic voters in the 5th district are unifying behind our campaign and identifying with our message.  Before the primary election, I felt certain if the Democratic candidates made our campaigns about the important issues and trusted the voters to make their choice on election day, it would be easy for Democrats to unite behind the winner for the general election campaign.

During the time I was out campaigning and seeking support, I spoke with many people who were up front and informed me of their support for either Rick Vilello or Bill Cahir.  Early on, I made the decision to spend an equal amount of time with everyone, regardless if they were supporting me, one of my opponents or were still undecided.  I even took the time to speak with voters who identified themselves as Republican, Independent or were registered with other parties.

While there were many important strategic decisions I had to make with the direction of the campaign, I feel this was possibly the key that will keep our momentum going throughout the summer.   We were able to quickly move on from the primary campaign, unify the Democratic base and be ready for the real challenge – electing a Democrat in the 5th Congressional District on November 4th.  I also feel the foundation has been laid to attract those crossover votes we need to win this race.

On the national level, we need to have the same unity behind our nominee for President.  Everyone needs to realize the problems facing our country must be solved and we have to elect a leader at the top who can handle the challenge.  Our democracy is at a critical point and important decisions must be made starting in January of 2009.  

We’ve seen the last 2 presidential elections produce very controversial outcomes that have weakened our faith in the process and caused other countries to doubt our democratic form of government.  In 2000, we watched as ballots in Florida were counted, recounted and eventually uncounted and the only result history will remember is 5-4 from the Supreme Court.  Then, in 2004, our party’s nominee was “Swift Boated” and we watched as the final outcome from Ohio was only slightly less controversial than the Florida 2000 result.  

In 2008, we must not allow the other side to manipulate the process to their advantage.  We have to be unified on all levels so we can elect people who will solve the problems facing our country.  Waiting another 4 years is not an option.

The Week in Review:  This week saw trips on Monday to DuBois for the DuBois City Democratic Committee Meeting and on Tuesday to Coudersport for the Potter County Democratic Committee Meeting.  Additionally, I’ve had several meetings this week with people who will be taking key roles with the campaign as we move forward.  Things are going to start getting busy over the last 2 weeks in May with events in State College and Clearfield this week and Tioga County the following week.  Then, there will be several important events around Memorial Day and we get real busy in June, July and August with county fairs, parades and a regular diet of corn dogs and funnel cakes.

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

Some notable changes. Most prominant right now is that Cook has changed NY-13 from Leans Republican to Tossup. Read below the fold.

House Editor David Wasserman foresees a photo finish in the MS-01 special election scheduled for Tuesday:  If it is true that “time heals all wounds,” Republicans would not be panicking over next week’s north Mississippi special election. Yet, two weeks after Greg Davis (R) finished in second behind Travis Childers (D) in the initial round of balloting, private polls suggest that the needle has not moved and that the party’s chances of holding the seat in the runoff are 50/50 at best.  Click here to read more.

· House Ratings Changes:

AK-AL   Young     Lean Republican to Toss Up

CA-11   McNerney  Lean Democratic to Toss Up

CT-02   Courtney  Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

FL-21   L. Diaz-Balart  Solid Republican to Likely Republican

FL-24   Feeney   Likely Republican to Lean Republican

KS-02  Boyda     Lean Democratic to Toss Up

KY-03  Yarmuth   Likely Democratic to Lean Democratic

IN-02  Donnelly  Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

IN-07  Carson    Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

MI-07  Walberg   Lean Republican to Toss Up

MI-09  Knollenberg  Likely Republican to Lean Republican

MO-06  Graves  Likely Republican to Lean Republican

NY-13  Fossella Likely Republican to Toss Up

NC-11  Shuler  Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

OH-02  Schmidt  Lean Republican to Likely Republican

OH-14  LaTourette  Likely Republican to Solid Republican

As we move the campaign from Democratic primary to general election mode, I am going to make some changes to the weekly progress report.  Over the last few months I’ve used this weekly report give updates on the events we’ve participated in over the past week.   I’ll continue to keep you informed on where we’re at and what we’re doing but I’m going to provide comment on issues of interest to the citizens of the 5th district.   We’ll also keep you updated on what is going on inside the campaign.

Truckers Converge on Washington – Fuel Prices Are Hurting Everyone:   Last week, truckers converged on Washington to protest the high price of diesel fuel and to show members of Congress the negative effects on the transportation industry that is so vital to our nation’s economy.   In response to the trucker’s rally, Congressman John Peterson issued a press release stating the following: “For the past year and four months, the House Democrat leadership has done absolutely nothing to reduce the price at the pump. Their unwillingness to address the energy crisis at it’s roots “supply and demand” will only further enhance the economic burden on every man, woman, and child in America.  The protest today, by blue collar, working class truckers, further emphasizes how out of touch the Democrat-controlled Congress is with the American people.”.

I have to take issue with Congressman Peterson’s statement placing blame on the policies of the Democratic Congress over the past 16 months.   In fact, this crisis has been building in the 6 years prior while the Republican Party had total control of the White House and Congress and no meaningful legislation was offered to avert the impending crisis.   Additionally, it must be recognized that the instability of the Middle East, brought on by President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, is a factor in OPEC’s ongoing policy to drive oil prices to record highs.  

It should also be noted that President Bush has done little to influence OPEC policies either.   I can remember in the 90’s when OPEC would begin to drive up the price per barrel of oil, President Bill Clinton would immediately order a release of strategic oil reserves to put more oil on the market which would stabilize oil prices.

Frankly, blame must lie on both sides of the aisle in Washington.   Back in the 1970’s, our nation received a wake up call but leaders in Washington ignored it for the last 30 plus years.  While other nations invested in alternative fuels and worked to decrease their dependence on oil from the Middle East, government leaders in the United States continued to allow the powerful petroleum industry to dictate our energy policies.  

Now, we are at a critical point again.   Families are struggling to afford gas and heating oil.  Truckers are feeling the pinch of higher diesel fuel prices which will be passed on in higher prices to the consumers.   Everyone is hurting, except who?  Who is making record profits?  The same powerful petroleum industry that our government leaders allowed to dictate our energy policy for the last 30 plus years!   And, does anyone really believe the solution is to allow the petroleum industry access to traditional oil reserves.   No, we need to move away from “Big Oil” controlling our energy policy and move towards renewable and alternative fuel technologies.  The wake up call has returned, the alarm clock is ringing and we better not hit the snooze button again.

I’ve made it clear from the start of this campaign that I’m not running against Congressman Peterson.   He has been very helpful and supportive to Clearfield County and our county commissioners have built a very positive relationship with him throughout his service as our congressman.   The point I’m making is the oil crisis we are facing is truly a threat to our economy, our national security and our way of life.   There is no time for partisan finger pointing.  Congressman Peterson is correct in this regard.  We need our leaders in Washington to address this issue NOW.   Congress needs to forget it is an election year and get to work on plausible solutions in a bipartisan manner because the people they claim to represent are suffering.  They can’t wait for January 2009, they need help now.  

Campaign Organization Changes:  Over the next few weeks, we will be announcing some important changes and additions to the McCracken for Congress campaign committee.  The changes will put organization in place throughout the 5th Congressional District.  We know going forward, the race will be tough and we need to work to earn votes in every county in the district.   It will be important to have organized campaign teams in every county to work at the local and county level to spread our message.  It will also help to have people we can count on at the local level who know their communities and will help me learn more about the issues important the people they know.

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

(Excellent work.  From the diaries – promoted by James L.)

You may recall I did a few diaries last month where I explored the relationship between representatives’ voting records and the lean of their districts (see here and here). One other question I had wanted to work into my discussion was the role of the various ideological Congressional caucuses.

There are pretty clear differences between the voting records of members of the different caucuses, but does membership in particular caucuses correlate with a particular kind of district? And is any particular caucus generally ‘out-of-whack,’ where the members as a whole tend to overperform or underperform their districts? In particular, I was wondering about the Blue Dogs, who tend to get the lion’s share of the abuse from the left blogosphere. It’s well understood they’re the most conservative members of the House Democrats… but are they also the most underperforming?

For those who aren’t familiar with the caucuses, there are three major ideological caucuses for the House Democrats: the Progressive Caucus, which comprises many of the House’s most liberal members (and, generally, those from the most urban districts), the New Democrat Coalition, which, although it’s a lineal descendent of the Democratic Leadership Council, tends to represent the ideological midpoint of the Democratic caucus, and the Blue Dog Coalition, representing the most conservative Democratic House members (and, not coincidentally, most of the ones from the most rural districts). Also within the Democratic party are the Congressional Black Caucus, which has significant overlap with the Progressive Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which tends to range across the Democratic spectrum. Likewise, although it receives less attention, there is a similar schism on the Republican side, between the Main Street Partnership, comprised generally of more moderate representatives in suburban districts, and the more conservative Republican Study Committee.

Here’s an instance where a picture is worth a thousand words: this chart has a box for each representative (grouped in rows of 10), arranged from most liberal voting record at top to most conservative at bottom, color-coded according to caucus membership. (For record, I’m using Progressive Punch Chips are Down scores, circa March 2008.) As you can see, there’s a pretty clear stepping downward from Progressive to NDC to Blue Dogs to Main Street to RSC. (You’ll notice a lot of squares where there are two, or in one case three, colors jammed in there. A number of people are members of multiple caucuses.)

Notice that this chart is a pretty good match for the following one, which arranges each representative from most Democratic-leaning district (as measured by PVI) at top, to most Republican-leaning district at bottom. In other words, in general, you can see the same basic clustering of Progressive (and CBC) members at top, NDC members below that, and a whole lot of RSC at the bottom. The swing-district middle is a bit more muddled here, split largely between Blue Dogs and Main Streeters with a lot of odds and ends.

While these two graphs show that, in general, there’s a pretty good correlation between voting record, district lean, and caucus membership, they aren’t connected and thus don’t show individual outliers who are either underperforming or overperforming their district leans. For that, let’s turn to a scatterplot that was originally put together by plf515 (from this diary). The vertical axis is how liberal the representative is (here measured by National Journal composite scores from 2007); the horizontal axis is the district lean. I’ve added the same caucus-based color-coding as the previous two graphs. (Note that this graph only covers Democrats.)

The diagonal line represents essentially the center of gravity for all the points on the graph. Dots close to the line represent those for whom voting record and district lean are a predictable fit. The further away from the line a dot is, the more of an outlier the representative is. Above the line, the far-away dots are representatives who are voting more liberally than one would expect based on the district (overperforming the district), while the dots far below the line are representatives who are underperforming the district lean with their voting records.

As you can see, the outliers aren’t consistent with any one caucus or any particular type of voting record: there are some Congressional Black Caucus members who are lagging their extremely Democratic districts (Bill Jefferson in LA-02, as well as Artur Davis in AL-07 and Kendrick Meek in FL-17, two of the four members of both the CBC and the NDC), and there are some Blue Dogs whose conservative records are low even in relation to their moderate or conservative districts (Jim Marshall in GA-08, Dan Boren in OK-02, John Barrow in GA-12, and Jim Cooper in TN-05). (The other two marked outliers are Jose Serrano, of the Progressive and Congressional Hispanic Caucuses, but located in the nation’s most Democratic district… and the purple one is, of course, Dan Lipinski of IL-03, who is unaffiliated although voting like a Blue Dog in a D+10 district.)

More generally, looking at the placement of the dots, they seem to follow the same general pattern: more Progressives and CBC members at the liberal ends of the spectrum, more Blue Dogs at the conservative end, a cluster of NDC members near the very middle. Looking at them in relation to the diagonal line, though, you can see some differences in where they are, relative to the overall center of gravity. The mass of the Blue Dogs tend to cluster below the diagonal line; eyeballed as a whole, they’re underperforming, albeit slightly. The same goes with the Congressional Black Caucus, which clusters below the diagonal line at the other end of the graph, where they tend to occupy the most Democratic districts in the country and are liberal but don’t necessarily have the most liberal voting records to match.

Clustered above the diagonal line tend to be the Progressives — or I should say the “Progressives only,” since many of the Progressive/CBC double-dippers tend to fall below the line — who tend to fall in the D+5 to D+20 range but also in the uppermost tier of liberal voting records. (The Massachusetts delegation alone seems to make up a sizable portion of this clump, along with a few stalwarts like Maurice Hinchey in NY-26 and Tammy Baldwin in WI-02.)

So… as the charts show, caucus membership corresponds pretty well with both voting record and district lean, although, naturally, there are lots of individual deviations. Here are some more data on the caucuses:

All Blue Dogs (49)

20 from South, 7 from Northeast, 12 from Midwest, 10 from West

Median PVI: R+3

PVI Range: D+13 (Baca) to R+17 (Matheson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 86.43

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 95.65 (Loretta Sanchez) to 68.22 (Barrow)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 57.87

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 83.52 (Mike Thompson) to 29.82 (Marshall)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 76.06

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 93.76 (Arcuri) to 60.39 (Cramer)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 54.1

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 77.8 (Loretta Sanchez) to 43.5 (Marshall)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 40 (81.6%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 34 (69.4%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 14 (28.6%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 9 (18.4%)

Bad Votes on SCHIP override: 1 (2.0%)

Median Rural % of District: 39

Rural % of District Range: 69 (Michaud) to 0.0 (Harman and Loretta Sanchez)

Blue Dogs Only (24)

12 from South, 2 from Northeast, 8 from Midwest, 2 from West

Median PVI: R+4.5

PVI Range: D+10 (Mike Thompson) to R+17 (Matheson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 85.43

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 94.07 (Mike Thompson) to 72.99 (Marshall)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 53.96

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 83.52 (Mike Thompson) to 29.82 (Marshall)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 72.84

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 88.95 (Charlie Wilson) to 60.39 (Cramer)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 51.8

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 75.8 (Mike Thompson) to 43.5 (Marshall)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 21 (87.5%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 18 (75%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 10 (41.7%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 8 (33.3%)

Bad Votes on SCHIP override: 1 (4.2%)

Median Rural % of District: 45.25

Rural % of District Range: 69 (Michaud) to 11.3 (Cooper)

Blue Dogs + NDC (20)

7 from South, 5 from Northeast, 4 from Midwest, 4 from West

Median PVI: R+2.5

PVI Range: D+12 (Schiff) to R+15 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 86.01

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 95.65 (Loretta Sanchez) to 68.22 (Barrow)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 53.37

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 81.4 (Loretta Sanchez) to 31.61 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 80.18

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 93.76 (Arcuri) to 64.94 (McIntyre)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 55.9

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 77.8 (Loretta Sanchez) to 45.8 (Barrow)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 14 (70%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 9 (45%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 4 (20%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (5%)

Median Rural % of District: 16.6

Rural % of District Range: 55.4 (Carney) to 0 (Harman and Loretta Sanchez)

[Note: There are also one Blue Dog/CBC member (Sanford Bishop), four Blue Dogs/CHC members (Cardoza, Costa, Baca, and Salazar), and one Blue Dog/New Dem/CBC member (David Scott).]

All New Democrats (59)

17 from South, 17 from Northeast, 8 from Midwest, 17 from West

Median PVI: D+5

PVI Range: D+38 (Greg Meeks) to R+15 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 93.52

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 98.29 (Capps) to 68.22 (Barrow)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 73.94

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 93.26 (Capps) to 31.61 (Lampson)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 85.42

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 94.75 (Courtney) to 64.94 (McIntyre)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 67.5

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 94 (Capps) to 45.8 (Barrow)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 29 (49.2%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 16 (27.1%)

Bad Votes on ENDA: 6 (10.2%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (1.7%)

Median Rural % of District: 6.8

Rural % of District Range: 56.9 (Kind) to 0 (6-way tie)

New Democrats Only (33)

6 from South, 11 from Northeast, 4 from Midwest, 12 from West

Median PVI: D+7

PVI Range: D+28 (Crowley) to R+4 (Mitchell)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 93.99

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 98.29 (Capps) to 75.03 (Altmire)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 75.84

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 93.26 (Capps) to 38.2 (Altmire)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 87.72

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 94.75 (Courtney) to 75.03 (Altmire)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 70

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 94 (Capps) to 51.3 (Altmire)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 13 (39.4%)

Bad Votes on FISA: 5 (15.2%)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (3.0%)

Median Rural % of District: 5

Rural % of District Range: 56.9 (Kind) to 0 (4-way tie)

[Note: There are also three New Dem/CBC members (Artur Davis, Kendrick Meek, and Greg Meeks), two New Dem/CHC members (Gonzalez and Cuellar), and one New Dem/Progressive (Tom Udall).]

All Progressives (68)

9 from South, 21 from Northeast, 17 from Midwest, 21 from West

Median PVI: D+20

PVI Range: D+43 (Serrano) to R+1 (John Hall)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.24

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.26 (Baldwin) to 92.18 (Kucinich)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 89.11

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 97.19 (Baldwin) to 74.72 (Hare)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 94.82

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.49 (Ellison) to 83.74 (Kaptur)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 84.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (6-way tie) to 66.3 (Kucinich)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 1 (1.5%)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 3 (4.4%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (1.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.65

Rural % of District Range: 61.8 (Welch) to 0 (25-way tie)

Progressive Only (33)

2 from South, 14 from Northeast, 6 from Midwest, 11 from West

Median PVI: D+15

PVI Range: D+36 (Robert Brady) to R+1 (John Hall)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.23

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.26 (Baldwin) to 92.18 (Kucinich)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 89.14

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 97.19 (Baldwin) to 74.72 (Hare)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 94.98

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.03 (Hirono) to 83.74 (Kaptur)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 84.5

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Schakowsky, McGovern, and Baldwin) to 66.3 (Kucinich)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (3.0%)

Bad Votes on Stem Cells: 1 (3.0%)

Median Rural % of District: 4.4

Rural % of District Range: 61.8 (Welch) to 0 (5-way tie)

Progressive + CBC (26)

7 from South, 5 from Northeast, 10 from Midwest, 4 from West

Median PVI: D+30

PVI Range: D+43 (Rangel) to D+10 (Bennie Thompson)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.26

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.03 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 93.97 (Eddie Bernice Johnson)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 89.52

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.07 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 77.38 (Corrine Brown)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 96.23

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.49 (Ellison) to 87.51 (Corrine Brown)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 84.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Conyers and Gwen Moore) to 67.7 (Corrine Brown)

Bad Votes on Iraq Supplemental: 1 (3.8%)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (3.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.05

Rural % of District Range: 37.2 (Bennie Thompson) to 0 (14-way tie)

Progressive + CHC (8)

2 from Northeast, 1 from Midwest, 5 from West

Median PVI: D+23.5

PVI Range: D+43 (Serrano) to D+10 (Grijalva)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 97.73

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.14 (Linda Sanchez) to 95.66 (Gutierrez)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 90.43

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.61 (Linda Sanchez) to 80.98 (Gutierrez)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 94.59

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.23 (Grijalva) to 91.13 (Gutierrez)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 89.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Linda Sanchez) to 75.3 (Pastor)

‘Bad’ Votes on ENDA: 1 (12.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 0

Rural % of District Range: 16.4 (Grijalva) to 0 (6-way tie)

All CBC (39)

17 from South, 8 from Northeast, 10 from Midwest, 4 from West

Median PVI: D+27

PVI Range: D+43 (Rangel) to D+2 (Sanford Bishop)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 96.75

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.03 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 91.77 (Artur Davis)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 87.01

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.07 (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to 65.17 (Artur Davis)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 92.11

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.49 (Ellison) to 74.36 (Sanford Bishop)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 83.05

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (3-way tie) to 61.3 (Artur Davis)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 5 (12.8%)

Bad votes on FISA: 1 (1.3%)

Bad votes on ENDA: 3 (7.7%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.1

Rural % of District Range: 52.3 (Butterfield) to 0 (17-way tie)

CBC only (8)

6 from South, 2 from Northeast

Median PVI: D+24.5

PVI Range: D+41 (Towns) to D+9 (Butterfield)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 96.48

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 97.57 (Alcee Hastings) to 95.14 (Jefferson)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 85.76

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 89.53 (Alcee Hastings) to 80.35 (Jefferson)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 89.52

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 92.19 (Al Green) to 86.54 (Jefferson)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 85

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 89.2 (Alcee Hastings) to 73 (Jefferson)

Bad votes on Iraq supplemental: 2 (25%)

‘Bad’ votes on ENDA: 1 (12.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 2.1

Rural % of District Range: 52.3 (Butterfield) to 0 (Towns)

All CHC (21)

6 from South, 3 from Northeast, 1 from Midwest, 11 from West

Median PVI: D+13

PVI Range: D+43 (Serrano) to R+6 (Salazar)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 95.66

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 99.14 (Linda Sanchez) to 85.24 (Cuellar)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 80.98

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.61 (Linda Sanchez) to 50.56 (Cuellar)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 87.38

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.23 (Grijalva) to 70.05 (Ortiz)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 76.7

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 95 (Linda Sanchez) to 50.5 (Cuellar)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 10 (47.6%)

Bad votes on FISA: 4 (19.0%)

‘Bad’ votes on ENDA: 1 (4.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 0.5

Rural % of District Range: 39 (Salazar) to 0 (9-way tie)

CHC only (7)

4 from South, 1 from Northeast, 2 from West

Median PVI: D+9

PVI Range: D+23 (Roybal-Allard and Sires) to R+4 (Rodriguez)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 92.65

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 97.26 (Napolitano) to 90.48 (Ortiz)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 71.91

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 88.7 (Roybal-Allard) to 64.63 (Ortiz)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 84.68

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 95.38 (Sires) to 70.05 (Ortiz)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 65

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 92.2 (Roybal-Allard) to 58.5 (Ortiz)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 4 (57.1%)

Bad votes on FISA: 1 (14.3%)

Median Rural % of District: 1.7

Rural % of District Range: 23.6 (Rodriguez) to 0 (3-way tie)

Unaffiliated Democrats (63)

10 from South, 25 from Northeast, 17 from Midwest, 11 from West

Median PVI: D+9

PVI Range: D+36 (Pelosi) to R+18 (Chet Edwards)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 95.39

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 98.91 (Pelosi) to 85.66 (Boyda)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 80.9

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 96.43 (Pelosi) to 55.93 (Boyda)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 88.56

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 98.54 (Tsongas) to 63.46 (Skelton)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 74.85

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 93.3 (Delahunt) to 53.7 (Chet Edwards)

Bad votes on Iraq Supplemental: 23 (36.5%)

Bad votes on FISA: 3 (4.8%)

Bad votes on ENDA: 5 (7.9%)

Bad votes on Stem cells: 6 (9.5%)

Median Rural % of District: 7.8

Rural % of District Range: 66.6 (Stupak) to 0 (8-way tie)

All MSP (37)

5 from South, 10 from Northeast, 15 from Midwest, 7 from West

Median PVI: R+4

PVI Range: D+6 (Castle) to R+14 (Granger)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 20.07

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 39.71 (Gilchrest) to 4.57 (Camp)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 6.74

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 25.29 (Gilchrest) to 1.14 (Calvert)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 14.18

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 31.41 (Shays) to 4.64 (Granger)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 39.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 48.3 (Gilchrest) to 20.2 (Calvert)

Good votes on FISA: 1 (2.7%)

Good votes on ENDA: 20 (54.1%)

Good votes on Min. wage: 28 (75.7%)

Good votes on Stem cells: 24 (64.9%)

Good votes on SCHIP override: 21 (56.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 21

Rural % of District Range: 58.6 (Camp) to 0.4 (Kirk)

All RSC (109)

56 from South, 5 from Northeast, 22 from Midwest, 26 from West

Median PVI: R+11

PVI Range: R+1 (Chabot) to R+26 (Cannon)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 4.18

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 24.75 (Tim Murphy) to 0.62 (Lamborn and Jordan)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 1.32

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 11.86 (Mario Diaz-Balart) to 0 (15-way tie)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 3.8

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 23.96 (Alexander) to 0.62 (Lamborn and Jordan)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 17.05

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 39.5 (Mario Diaz-Balart) to 6.7 (7-way tie)

Good votes on ENDA: 3 (2.8%)

Good votes on Min. wage: 20 (18.3%)

Good votes on Stem cells: 6 (5.5%)

Good votes on SCHIP override: 5 (4.6%)

Median Rural % of District: 25.5

Rural % of District Range: 73.5 (Aderholt) to 0 (Royce and Roskam)

[Note: There are two RSC/MSP members: Dave Camp and Mike Turner.]

Unaffiliated Republicans (54)

22 from South, 9 from Northeast, 15 from Midwest, 8 from West

Median PVI: R+8

PVI Range: D+3 (Saxton) to R+23 (Deal)

Median Progressive Punch 2007-08: 9.14

Progressive Punch 2007-08 Range: 36.43 (Chris Smith) to 0.77 (Boehner)

Median Progressive Punch Chips Are Down: 2.83

Progressive Punch Chips Are Down Range: 16.38 (Walter Jones) to 0 (7-way tie)

Median Progressive Punch Lifetime: 6.76

Progressive Punch Lifetime Range: 24.5 (Paul) to 2.71 (Boehner)

Median National Journal Composite 2007: 25.3

National Journal Composite 2007 Range: 44.5 (Chris Smith) to 6.7 (Boehner)

Good votes on Iraq Supplemental: 2 (3.7%)

Good votes on FISA: 1 (1.9%)

Good votes on ENDA: 11 (20.4%)

Good votes on Min. wage: 32 (59.3%)

Good votes on Stem cells: 7 (13.0%)

Good votes on SCHIP override: 15 (27.8%)

Median Rural % of District: 29.8

Rural % of District Range: 78.7 (Harold Rogers) to 0 (Bill Young and Fosella)

[Note: The Iraq Supplemental vote referenced is HR 2206 Roll Call 425. The FISA vote is S 1927 Roll Call 836. These were the Iraq and FISA votes where party discipline broke down the most; however, there have been a large number of Iraq Supplemental and FISA votes, and a bad vote on one of these by a representative does not mean a consistently bad position. Some ENDA votes have ‘bad’ in quotes to reflect that a handful of very liberal representatives voted against ENDA, presumably, from the left for being inadequate. The Region categories follow the basic 4 Census Bureau regions, with the exception of me counting Maryland and Delaware as Northeast states.]

Candidate filing is sailing along with lots of states now having completed candidate filings and others with a full slate of Democratic House candidate long before filings close.

Below the fold for details and once again go and take a look at the 2008 Race Tracker Wiki.  

***I have included Cook PVI numbers where possible after blogger requests to do so!***

1 more House race now has a Democratic candidate that has filed in the last week:

GA-03 – R+?,

And one race comes off the list entirely!:

LA-06 – R+7, following Don Cazayoux’s superb special election victory last Saturday.

So 414 races filled! This of course includes 235 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 179 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):

Districts with confirmed candidates – 179

Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 0

Districts with rumoured candidates – 5

Districts without any candidates – 5

Filing closed – No Democratic candidate – 11

The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:

AL-01 – R+12,

AL-02 – R+13,

AL-03 – R+4,

AL-04 – R+16,

AK-AL – R+14,

AZ-01 – R+2,

AZ-02 – R+9,

AZ-03 – R+6,

AZ-06 – R+12,

CA-02 – R+13,

CA-03 – R+7,

CA-04 – R+11,

CA-21 – R+13,

CA-24 – R+5,

CA-25 – R+7,

CA-26 – R+4,

CA-40 – R+8,

CA-41 – R+9,

CA-42 – R+10,

CA-44 – R+6,

CA-45 – R+3,

CA-46 – R+6,

CA-48 – R+8,

CA-49 – R+10,

CA-50 – R+5,

CA-52 – R+9,

CO-04 – R+9,

CO-05 – R+15.7,

CO-06 – R+10,

CT-04 – D+5,

DE-AL – D+7,

FL-01 – R+19,

FL-04 – R+16,

FL-05 – R+5,

FL-06 – R+8,

FL-07 – R+3,

FL-08 – R+3,

FL-09 – R+4,

FL-10 – D+1,

FL-12 – R+5,

FL-13 – R+4,

FL-14 – R+10,

FL-15 – R+4,

FL-18 – R+4,

FL-21 – R+6,

FL-24 – R+3,

FL-25 – R+4,

GA-01 – R+?,

GA-03 – R+?,

GA-06 – R+?,

GA-07 – R+?,

GA-09 – R+?,

GA-10 – R+?,

GA-11 – R+?,

ID-01 – R+19,

ID-02 – R+19,

IL-06 – R+2.9,

IL-10 – D+4,

IL-11 – R+1.1,

IL-13 – R+5,

IL-15 – R+6,

IL-16 – R+4,

IL-18 – R+5.5,

IL-19 – R+8,

IN-03 – R+16,

IN-04 – R+17,

IN-05 – R+20,

IN-06 – R+11,

IA-04 – D+0,

IA-05 – R+8,

KS-01 – R+20,

KS-04 – R+12,

KY-01 – R+10,

KY-02 – R+12.9,

KY-04 – R+11.7,

LA-01 – R+18,

LA-04 – R+7,

MD-01 – R+10,

MD-06 – R+13,

MI-02 – R+9,

MI-04 – R+3,

MI-07 – R+2,

MI-08 – R+1.9,

MI-09 – R+0,

MI-11 – R+1.2,

MN-02 – R+2.7,

MN-03 – R+0.5,

MN-06 – R+5,

MO-02 – R+9,

MO-06 – R+5,

MO-07 – R+14,

MO-08 – R+11,

MO-09 – R+7,

MS-01 – R+10,

MS-03 – R+14,

MT-AL – R+11,

NE-01 – R+11,

NE-02 – R+9,

NE-03 – R+23.6,

NV-02 – R+8.2,

NV-03 – D+1,

NJ-02 – D+4.0,

NJ-03 – D+3.3,

NJ-04 – R+0.9,

NJ-05 – R+4,

NJ-07 – R+1,

NJ-11 – R+6,

NM-01 – D+2,

NM-02 – R+6,

NY-13 – D+1,

NY-23 – R+0.2,

NY-25 – D+3,

NY-26 – R+3,

NY-29 – R+5,

NC-03 – R+15,

NC-05 – R+15,

NC-06 – R+17,

NC-08 – R+3,

NC-09 – R+12,

NC-10 – R+15,

OH-01 – R+1,

OH-02 – R+13,

OH-03 – R+3,

OH-04 – R+14,

OH-05 – R+10,

OH-07 – R+6,

OH-08 – R+12,

OH-12 – R+0.7,

OH-14 – R+2,

OH-15 – R+1,

OH-16 – R+4,

OK-05 – R+12,

OR-02 – R+11,

PA-03 – R+2,

PA-05 – R+10,

PA-06 – D+2.2,

PA-09 – R+15,

PA-15 – D+2,

PA-16 – R+11,

PA-18 – R+2,

PA-19 – R+12,

SC-01 – R+10,

SC-02 – R+9,

SC-03 – R+14,

SC-04 – R+15,

TN-01 – R+14,

TN-02 – R+11,

TN-03 – R+8,

TN-07 – R+12,

TX-03 – R+17,

TX-04 – R+17,

TX-06 – R+15,

TX-07 – R+16,

TX-08 – R+20,

TX-10 – R+13,

TX-12 – R+14,

TX-13 – R+18,

TX-19 – R+25,

TX-24 – R+15,

TX-26 – R+12,

TX-31 – R+15,

TX-32 – R+11,

UT-01 – R+26,

UT-03 – R+22,

VA-01 – R+9,

VA-02 – R+5.9,

VA-04 – R+5,

VA-05 – R+6,

VA-06 – R+11,

VA-07 – R+11,

VA-10 – R+5,

VA-11 – R+1,

WA-04 – R+13,

WA-05 – R+7.1,

WA-08 – D+2,

WV-02 – R+5,

WI-01 – R+2,

WI-06 – R+5,

WY-AL – R+19,

The following GOP held districts have a candidate that is expected to run but is yet to confirm:

None at this stage

The following GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!

LA-07 – R+7,

MI-06 – R+2.3,

NY-03 – D+2.1,

OK-03 – R+18,

OK-04 – R+13,

The following districts have not a single rumoured candidate:

LA-05 – R+10,

MI-03 – R+9,

MI-10 – R+4,

OK-01 – R+13,

WI-05 – R+12,

And last but not least the list I did not want to have to include.

The following Republicans will not have a Democratic opponent in 2008:

AL-06 – R+25,

AR-03 – R+11,

CA-19 – R+10,

CA-22 – R+16,

KY-05 – R+8

TX-01 – R+17,

TX-02 – R+12,

TX-05 – R+16,

TX-11 – R+25,

TX-14 – R+14,

TX-21 – R+13,

Finally due praise to those states where we have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennesee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in New York and Wisconsin. Thats 40 states with a full slate, and 2 states with one race to fill!  

There are also 5 states where filing has closed where we do not have a full slate: Arkansas, Alabama, California, Kentucky and of course Texas. Lets hope the last 3 Louisiana, Michigan and Oklahoma fill out.

Please note that in some races others at the racetracker site have confirmed candidates that I haven’t. This is because to satisfy me a confirmed candidate has either filed with the FEC, The Sec of State or has an active campaign website, or even if they come and blog and say yep I am running. Others are not so rigorous.

It is also great to see candidates in AZ-06, CA-42, FL-12, LA-06, MS-03, VA-04, VA-06 and WI-06; 8 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006! The other 2, TX-11 and AL-06, will again go uncontested by Team Blue in 2008.

With 11 uncontested Republicans we will not reach our great 2006 effort of 425 races filled but we will do really well nonetheless.

*** Tips, rumours and what not in the comments please.***

Crossposted from Michigan Liberal

Friends,

First, I’d like to begin by thanking all of you for your support. Because of contributions from people like you, our campaign has just been ranked in CQ’s list of the top ten best funded challengers in the country. The voters in Michigan’s 9th Congressional district are tired of the failed leadership they’ve gotten from my opponent, Congressman Joe Knollenberg, for the past sixteen years, and they’re eager for a real change in Washington.

As a former Lt. Commander in the Navy, I wanted to take a moment to write to you this week as we pass the fifth anniversary of one of the most shameful moments in recent American history. On May 1st, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner and said these words: “My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

More after the break. 

Five years later, another 3,919 brave American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq, the country has descended to the brink of all out civil war, and the Republican candidate for President has suggested the possibility of remaining in Iraq for another hundred years.

Five years later, we have more troops in Iraq today (155,000) than we did back then (150,000).

Five years later, we are spending $1 billion every two and a half days in Iraq – money that we could be investing in jobs, infrastructure, and rebuilding our economy here at home.

Five years later, even though it is tragically clear that the mission was not accomplished, Congressman Knollenberg has continued to vote for President Bush’s failed policies. Our men and women in uniform deserve real leadership and a responsible plan to start bringing them home now.

We have also not accomplished the mission of taking care of our troops and veterans when they return home from combat. The brave men and women who have sacrificed for our country deserve the best health care we can provide – instead we have given them the Walter Reed debacle and a VA system with a backlog of more than half a million benefits claims.

This failure of leadership for our veterans is having terrible consequences. Last week, the VA confirmed a truly appalling statistic – an average of eighteen veterans commit suicide every day. At that rate, over 6,500 brave men and women who served and sacrificed for our country will take their own lives this year. That’s nearly 1,500 more than the total number of soldiers who have been killed in combat in Iraq.

Sadly, the reasons for this situation are all too clear. A recent study by the American Psychological Association reported that over 32% military personnel who had been deployed to war zones said that they suffered a ‘negative impact’ on their psychological well-being – but only 1 in 10 sought treatment for mental health concerns. The rest stayed quiet, out of embarrassment, or fear that, if they asked for help, their military careers would be in jeopardy.

As a veteran, I take this very personally. Quite simply, the failure of our leaders in Washington to care for our veterans may be the greatest, unspoken tragedy of the entire Iraq war debacle. The failure to reach out to those veterans who may not have physical injuries – but whose psychological wounds can be even more severe – is not only a betrayal of the sacred trust between our nation and our veterans, but it has serious repercussions on our long-term military readiness and security.

Care for our veterans is a fundamental, guiding principle of our democracy that our greatest leaders have always understood. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke of our duty to “…care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan….” Three quarters of a century earlier, in 1789, George Washington put it this way: “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated.”

When Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, they started to address the serious failures in our VA and military health care system. Despite the objections of the President, Democrats passed the largest funding increase in the history of the VA. This was a good start, but we still need to do much more to care for our soldiers, veterans, and their families – and that will take electing real leaders to Congress, and replacing Bush Administration rubber stamps like Congressman Knollenberg.

When the House voted on a bill to guarantee that soldiers would have at least as much time at home as they spend deployed overseas, Congressman Knollenberg voted no.

When the House took up a bill that included $3.3 billion to improve military medical care, $1.8 billion for veterans care, and that would have started withdrawing troops this summer, Congressman Knollenberg voted no.  After that bill was vetoed by the President, Congressman Knollenberg voted to sustain the veto.

In Washington, I will work to bring about a responsible end to the war in Iraq and start bringing our troops home now. As a veteran, I will be a voice for a strong foreign policy that keeps America secure and takes the fight to our real enemies, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we keep faith with the men and women who served and sacrificed for our great nation.

Real leadership means taking action to solve our problems – not passing the buck and waiting for someone else to act – and that’s what I will deliver in Washington. Five years after ‘Mission Accomplished,’ it’s long overdue.

I’m not going to do this alone. This campaign to unseat one of the biggest obstacles to change in Congress will take a group effort. We’re doing well now, but Congressman Knollenberg is going to be very well funded by entrenched special interests who don’t want to lose their inside man in the House Appropriations Committee. If we’re going to be able to fight back against the GOP smear machine and the negative attacks ads that we all know are coming, and if we’re going to bring real leadership to Michigan’s 9th District, I will need your help. 

Please visit http://www.petersforcongress.com/ to learn more, or click here to join the effort by contributing on ActBlue.

Since the disaster year of 1994, very few House Democrats have failed to win re-election against Republicans. Below is what I think is a complete list of those who did. If I’m missing anyone, please let us know in comments.

Every Dem who lost in 2002 and 2004 except for Baron Hill was a victim of redistricting. For those with two districts listed, the second one is the seat they were running for after redistricting. (For Sandlin & Thurman, their district numbers didn’t change.) Note that I am not including Dems who lost in primaries to other Dems on this chart.

I must say, that’s a pretty darn good track record – only seven losses not attributable to redistricting through six election cycles. And I think only one of these incumbents (Mike Ward) was a freshman. (Update: Jay Johnson was also a freshman. — JL) What’s more, we’ve regained a lot of these seats (though some of the districts have changed since 2000): KY-03, WI-08, CT-02, and IN-09. Plus, Nick Lampson is back in a district that (TX-22) that partially overlaps his old one.

So what do you know about the names on this list? What lessons, if any, can be drawn from these few elections where Democratic House incumbents lost to Republicans?

Update (James): Looks like we missed one — David Phelps in IL-19.  Thanks to brittain33 in the comments for the catch.

Later Update (James): I added two more redistricting victims (Jim Maloney and Ronnie Shows), thanks to jeffmd in the comments.

The last 4 months have been exciting and rewarding to travel around the 5th district campaigning.  I’ve learned a lot about the district, the people and myself in the process.  It all came to a climax on Tuesday, April 22nd as the voters in the 5th district went to the polls to select who would be the 2 remaining candidates to continue on to the November 4th general election.

From a personal standpoint, I learned that in politics, the best thing you can do is plan your strategy and stay the course.  You have to be honest with the people, explain where you stand on the issues important to the people you want to represent and trust their instincts when they go to the polls.

As Kelly, Amanda and I watched the election returns on Tuesday evening I couldn’t help but wonder if I had done enough to get our message out to the voters in the 5th district.  Kelly was nervous and Amanda’s only concern was “Is daddy winning?”  At the end of the evening, just after 11:00 PM, both of the area TV stations called the election in our favor.  A short time later, both of my opponents called to offer their congratulations and I gave them both thanks for the positive, clean campaigns they both ran.  

Waking up on Wednesday, I have to admit I was still overwhelmed by results from the night before.  The day found many people calling and stopping in the office to offer congratulations.  In the evening, I traveled to Reynoldsville for the monthly meeting of the Jefferson County Democratic Committee.  It was fitting that I was making my first appearance as the Democratic nominee for 5th district at the same meeting I attended as my first event as an official candidate back in January.  

Of course, the reality is that for everything we accomplished on Tuesday, the real work began on Wednesday morning.  It is going to be busy between now and November 4th.  I’ll continue to keep everyone updated on how the campaign is going.  If you know of any events that we should be attending, please email the campaign and let us know.  Also, if you have any ideas to help reach out to the voters please forward them to the campaign.  

I’ll conclude with this.  Most of the media interviews I had on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning all asked “Can you win this seat in November?”  After about the fifth or sixth time I got the question, I finally responded “We can and we will.”

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

“I want to thank all the Democratic voters who came out and voted in the 5th district yesterday. I congratulate Bill Cahir and Rick Vilello for the positive campaigns they ran. As candidates, we ran campaigns that showed respect to each other and to the voters in the 5th district.

I also want to congratulate the winner of the Republican primary Glenn Thompson. Mr. Thompson stayed on course with his message throughout his campaign and I look forward to our competition in the November general election.

Finally, I want to thank everyone who helped with our campaign. There are so many people throughout the 17 counties of the 5th district who were involved in the campaign. What started in January with 12 candidates is now down to 2. There is much work to be done over the next several months. After meeting with people in the 5th district for the last 4 months I am convinced that our campaign’s message is strong and we will prevail in November.”

Mark B. McCracken

Still – Your Candidate for Congress