Tag: House

Passing along this great program from the National Stonewall Democrats. It is great to see NSD come out with such a strong program supporting so many races.

After a month of voting and 50,000 votes cast, Stonewall Democrats have their final ElectEquality candidates! They are Tim Bishop, David Cicililne, Scott Galvin, Alexi Giannoulias, Paul Hodes, Rush Holt, Kendrick Meek, Patrick Murphy, Ed Potosnak, Steve Pougnet, Carol Shea-Porter and Dina Titus.

You may have noticed that instead of the ten candidates they are throwing our weight behind twelve ElectEquality candidates. The board of directors of National Stonewall Democrats PAC was blown away by the overwhelming support each of these candidates received — and by how tight the race was — and simply couldn’t cull the list down to ten.

Now that selecting the candidates is done, it’s time to take out all the stops and throw our unequivocal support behind each and every one of them  at http://www.actblue.com/page/el…

The fate of pro-equality legislation in the Congress depends entirely on who we elect this fall. Don’t miss this opportunity to do what you can to support the ElectEquality candidates.

There are a few scenarios which could give rise to this map. If control of redistricting is split, then I could see this as a compromise map. As you'll soon see, Mike Rogers' life gets easier while the Second District becomes solidly Democratic (albeit with Bobby Bright is serious trouble in the primary, assuming he's still around).

 Even if Democrats have the redistricting trifecta, the fact that only one of the state's seven districts can be counted on to go Democratic and only one another saw Obama get more than 40% of the vote has got to be worrisome. So, a map such as this can also be seen as a Democratic gerrymander of sorts in that it makes two solidly Democratic districts.

I could even see this as a Republican map, especially if Bobby Bright survives. If that happens, they could concede the Second in return for shoring up their most vulnerable member: Mike Rogers.

Finally, this map could result from a decision by the courts or the Justice Department mandating that Alabama have another black-majority district. 2005 Census estimates put Alabama at 26.7% black. That amounts to just under two districts, and considering that adding another majority black district to Alabama is fairly easy as the heavily black areas tend to be clustered or at least fairly close to each other.

 

First District (Blue)
Old District: 67.8% white | 28% black
Old Demographics: 82% white | 13% black
New Demographics: 81% white | 13% black

The First exchanges heavily black areas in Mobile for rural, white areas along the Florida border. The net result is a significantly whiter and probably more Republican district, as if Jo Bonner needed it.  

Second District (Green)
Old District: 67% white | 29% black
Old Demographics: 44% white | 53% black
New Demographics: 41% white | 55% black

Previous attempts to move the black areas of Mobile to the Seventh District and move extra black areas from the Seventh to the Second were unsuccessful as it left the First and Second underpopulated with nowhere to gain that wouldn’t negate the whole purpose. But moving this area into the Second does work. The Second also picks up heavily black areas from the Seventh and Third and loses whiter areas to the First and Third. As a result, the district is now majority black and, I would assume, pretty solidly Democratic. Bobby Bright would likely have trouble in the primary, though.

Third District (Purple)
Old District: 65% white | 32% black
Old Demographics: 74% white | 22% black
New Demographics: 73% white | 23% black

Things get easier for Mike Rogers. Not only has the district been pushed northward out of the black belt (or at least the blackest parts of it), becoming almost three-quarters white, but Rogers' Democratic opponent Josh Segall is now in the Second District.

Fourth District (Red)
Old District: 90% white | 5% black
Old Demographics: 90% white | 6% black
New Demographics: 88% white | 6% black

The Fourth remains Alabama's whitest and least diverse districts. I tried to make it a heavily rural district, which you may can see in its loss of Fort Payne and Gadsden. That effort may have been futile as I had to put Florence and parts of Tuscaloosa in the district. I would be shocked if Rob Aderholt had any problems here.

Fifth District (Yellow)
Old District: 78% white | 17% black
Old Demographics: 79% white | 15% black
New Demographics: 76% white | 16% black

With this one, I tried to make it more urban (or at least less rural) as well as concentrate the military interests in one district. The new Fifth picks of Decatur and Fort Payne, among other areas, and sheds some more rural areas.

Sixth District (Teal)
Old District: 89% white | 8% black
Old Demographics: 88% white | 8% black
New Demographics: 85% white | 10% black

With the loss of Tuscaloosa County, the Sixth loses much of its former serpentine shape. With the addition of Autauga County, the district becomes more of a Birmingham to Montgomery district.

Seventh District (Gray)
Old District: 36% white | 62% black
Old Demographics: 37% white | 60% black
New Demographics: 35% white | 61% black

Not a whole lot has changed here. It loses some of Clarke County, giving the district a more compact look, as well as parts of Pickens and Wilcox Counties. In return, it gains some Birmingham-area precincts. The story is still the same: heavily black and solidly Democratic.

Here’s a fun chart – it’s a list of all the members of the House who have scored 70% or less in a primary so far this year:

I’ve also included some notes on possible reasons for these poor performances: Dems who voted against healthcare reform, Republicans who voted for the bailout or cap-and-trade, ethical issues on either side, and a few other odds-and-ends. For a complete list of all members of Congress and their primary percentages, click here. So far, 89 (38D, 51R) incumbents have faced primaries while 141 have not (and another 13 open seats have been contested). Of those in primaries, the median vote share has been 74% (76% D, 73% R).

Washington Republicans have been talking up their chances of retaking the House of Representatives for months, and the National Republican Congressional Committee claims many recruiting successes in competitive House districts. However, before this week Republican primary voters had already rejected NRCC favorites in ID-01, KY-03, PA-04 and AL-05.

After last night we can add IA-02 and IA-03 to the list of districts where the NRCC sure doesn’t know how to pick ’em.

In Iowa’s third district, the NRCC tipped its hat to Jim Gibbons, naming him an “on the radar” candidate in February and bumping him up to “contender” status in April. Although Brad Zaun had won elections for mayor in Republican vote-rich Urbandale and Iowa Senate district 32, some Iowa GOP power-brokers tried to dissuade Zaun from running and got many big donors to come on board with Gibbons. The idea was that Gibbons, a former champion wrestler and wrestling coach for Iowa State University, had the name recognition, determination and drive to beat seven term incumbent Leonard Boswell. (Privately some Iowa politics-watchers suggested to me that major GOP donors may have seen Gibbons as more “malleable” if he got elected.)

We never did see a public poll in the IA-03 primary, but an internal poll released by Zaun’s campaign in February showed that Gibbons’ name recognition was not as high as Zaun’s among Republicans in the district. For the first three months of this year, while Zaun was tied up with the Iowa legislature’s 2010 session, Gibbons didn’t capitalize on the opportunity to campaign aggressively around the district. He focused on fundraising, such as a highly-touted event featuring former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Gibbons’ 4Q and 1Q Federal Election Commission filings showed him miles ahead of Zaun; being part of the NRCC’s “young guns” program must have helped him with out-of-state donors and PACs.

Gibbons went up on tv about a month before the primary. His commercials (view here and here) were more polished than Zaun’s, and his ad buys were much larger.

But when the votes were counted last night, Zaun won 42 percent of the vote in the seven-way primary, while Gibbons managed just 28 percent. Tea Party favorite Dave Funk didn’t raise enough money for a significant paid media campaign, but he finished not far behind Gibbons with 22 percent. Gibbons did carry several of the smaller counties in IA-03, but Zaun dominated Polk County, containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs. Zaun’s ground game defeated Gibbons’ superior “air power.”

In the second district, the NRCC put political newcomer Rob Gettemy “on the radar” in April, about six weeks after he declared his candidacy. Gettemy had the backing of various prominent Cedar Rapids area Republicans. Republican National Committeeman Steve Scheffler, who heads the Iowa Christian Alliance, is also said to be close to Gettemy, though Scheffler made no formal endorsement in Iowa’s Republican primaries.

Gettemy got in the race late and faced three Republican rivals with substantial campaign experience. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won a tough three-way primary in 2008 to become the IA-02 nominee against Representative Dave Loebsack. Christopher Reed won the U.S. Senate 2008 primary to face Tom Harkin, and Steve Rathje was also a candidate in that Senate primary.

Gettemy had the most cash on hand going into the final two months of the IA-02 race, largely because of a $100,000 loan from the candidate. He went up on tv in early May, as did Rathje. The Gettemy commercials weren’t bad (view them and transcrips here), but they presented a fairly generic Republican message. Miller-Meeks decided not to run any television commercials during the primary campaign, focusing on direct mail and face-to-face contact with voters.

Gettemy’s internal polling must have shown him trailing Miller-Meeks, because his campaign paid for push-polls criticizing her. Over the final weekend of the campaign Gettemy attacked Miller-Meeks for accepting a donation from the American Medical Association PAC. He claimed that donation cast doubt on her opposition to health care reform, even though the opthalmologist Miller-Meeks has criticized “ObamaCare” since last summer and made her stance clear during the campaign.

When the votes were counted, Miller-Meeks won the four-way primary in dominating fashion with 51 percent of the vote. She led in all of IA-02’s 11 counties. Gettemy finished dead last with 13 percent of the vote. Even in his home county (Linn), he came in third. Gettemy won fewer votes across the district than Reed, who raised very little money and is best known for for calling Senator Harkin “the Tokyo Rose of Al-Qaeda and Middle East terrorism” during the 2008 campaign. All of Gettemy’s tv ads and connections to Cedar Rapids movers and shakers delivered fewer votes than Reed managed with his band of way-out-there wingnut endorsers.

The results in IA-02 and IA-03 raise more questions about the NRCC’s ability to identify candidates with strong potential. The “young gun,” “contender” and “on the radar” lists are important signals to NRCC donors about where their money could be most helpful. People who wrote checks to Gibbons or Gettemy without knowing anything about the local landscape may be upset to have wasted money on candidates who lost their primaries so decisively. Many Iowa observers expected the IA-02 or IA-03 nominations to be settled at district conventions, but Gibbons and Gettemy couldn’t even hold their main rivals below the 35 percent threshold.

Iowa Republicans who recruited Gibbons and Gettemy and talked them up to GOP leaders in Washington also may have lost some credibility with party bigwigs in Washington.

The NRCC is certain not to spend serious money on IA-02, which has a partisan index of D+7. I don’t expect them to make a big play for IA-3 (D+1) either, for reasons I discussed here. There are too many other promising Republican pickup opportunities around the country, and even a Zaun victory in November is unlikely to yield a long-term gain for House Republicans. Because Iowa will lose a Congressional district after the 2010 census, the IA-03 winner will probably be thrown into the same district as Tom Latham (R, IA-04) in 2012.  

The result that caught me by surprise on Tuesday night was PA-12. I wasn’t surprised Critz won, but by nine percentage points in what was supposed to be a Republican year in a district where both Obama and HCR have polled abysmally?

Does this mean that we should start questioning how Republican 2010 going to be? Is even a prediction of a 20-seat Republican gain in the House and and a three seat gain in the Senate too optimistic for the Republicans?

At this point, I think the answer might be a definite “maybe”.

A couple caveats. I’ve heard the argument that Critz benefited substantially by having the election on the same day as a competitive Dem primary. I’m not buying it. Might have been good for one percentage point at best. The best analysis I’ve seen of this issue is (oddly) National Review, where Jim Geraghty strikes this meme down cold.

I also don’t buy the Dems had a registration edge here: that’s no more a factor than it was in the New York districts where the Republican candidates still lost despite a Republican edge. With Obama’s low approvals, this district was tailor made for a Republican win, not a big win for the Democrat.

So below the fold, here’s my thoughts about what PA-12 shows.

1). The enthusiasm gap is a myth (for now)

Most polls have found an enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Dems favoring the former, although the gap has been shrinking in recent weeks. But when push comes to vote, it doesn’t seem like the enthusiasm was there, at least on the Republican side. My theory: disapproval of Obama, unlike the disapproval of Clinton in 1994 or Bush in 2006, is not translating into motivation. My guess is that Obama will hover at 50 percent until November, but he doesn’t seem to inspire the dislike that Clinton and Bush inspired (and of course, if his approval remains at 50 percent it will be higher than either Bush in 2006 or Clinton in 1994). The polls that were picking up a close race or even a small Burns lead were picking up at least some voters who thought they might be motivated to vote for the Republican, but when election day actually came, found better things to do. (minor point: pollsters should not bother to poll congressional districts for special elections. I’m looking at you, PPP). Last thing: the Republican party still has not recovered its reputation, and this is contributing to its problems of getting the vote out.

2).  Candidates and campaigns matter

Critz turned out to have the perfect campaign for this district. He took conservative stands (more conservative than Murtha), including opposing HCR (although also opposing repeal), he talked about how he had helped Murtha bring money to the district, and he painted Burns as a right-wing outsourcer who wanted to raise the sales tax and slash social security. It also helped that his most competitive primary opponent, Barbara Hafer, withdrew, meaning he did not have to endure interparty sniping (see below). One reason why the DCCC has become so adept at winning these special elections is by ensuring the Democrats have only one main candidate who fits the district well (I realize there were minor candidates in PA-12). The one place they weren’t able to do that is Hawaii, which come Saturday is a probable loss. The quality of Democratic candidates, and the campaigns they run, will have a good effect in countering any residual gap in enthusiasm that appears.

3). The Republican civil war is hurting Republican candidates.

Burns not only was running against Critz, but also William Russell, who was so bitter about Burns getting the endorsement for the special election that he refused to say anything supportive of his candidacy. Russell took 43 percent of the vote in the primary, and one can imagine a lot of his voters refusing to vote for Burns in the special. This didn’t cost Burns the election, but it certainly hurt (in contrast, I don’t think either of Critz’s primary opponents actively attacked him). While I don’t think Russell campaigned as a tea party guy, this civil war between Republican candidates, tea party endorsed or not, is playing out across the country, with negative implications for the Republicans across the board. Yes, we also see interparty warfare breaking out among Democrats, but mostly in a few Senate races (and of the ones that are left, only Halter-Lincoln comes to mind as comparable).

So, my thought is that we may need to revise our predictions of Republicans gains, to 1 oor 2 or perhaps even in the Senate and the low teens in the House. The caveat: this could change for the negative, if the economy goes south again (Greece, anyone?), if a terrorist attack occurs, or something else unexpected happens. It’s only May, after all. (I’m not sure it can change for the better – I’d say even in the Senate and low teen gain in the house is about the best we can do).

At long last, we’ve compiled all the House fundraising numbers you need to know from the FEC database for the first quarter of 2010. (Note, as always, that these numbers are in thousands.)

A few quick notes:

• Democratic challengers who out-raised Republican incumbents: Stephen Raby (AL-05), Ami Bera (CA-03), Cedric Richmond (LA-02), and Tommy Sowers (MO-08).
• Republican challengers who out-raised Democratic incumbents: Jonathan Paton (AZ-08), David Harmer (CA-11), Allen West (FL-22), Andy Harris (MD-01), Steven Palazzo (MS-04), Jeff Miller (NC-11), Rich Ashooh (NH-01), Frank Guinta (NH-01), Scott Sipprelle (NJ-12), Steve Pearce (NM-02), Matt Doheny (NY-23), Richard Hanna (NY-24), Steve Stivers (OH-15), and Scott Rigell (VA-02).
• Democratic challengers with more cash-on-hand than Republican incumbents: Ami Bera (CA-03), Tom Hayhurst (IN-03), Doug Pike (PA-06), John Callahan (PA-15), and Suzan Delbene (WA-08).
• Republican challengers with more cash-on-hand than Democratic incumbents: Randy Altschuler (NY-01), Nan Hayworth (NY-19), Matt Doheny (NY-23), Tom Ganley (OH-13), and David McKinley (WV-01).
• The Swing State Project Award in Recognition of Unparalleled Political Malpractice for 2010 (“The Hostettler”): This quarter’s winner is none other than Larry Kissell (NC-08), for the absolutely pathetic first quarter haul of $72 grand. As a frosh incumbent holding a vulnerable seat, you almost have to try in order to raise that little. That’s positively John Hostettler-esque.

Jim Gibbons, a former NCAA champion wrestler and coach, included a heavy dose of wrestling imagery in his first television ad, which goes up in central Iowa today:

Here’s my rough transcript:

(visual of two young wrestlers shaking hands and practicing) Gibbons voice-over: I learned a lot on a mat like this as a wrestler and a coach. Set goals. Make a plan. Be dedicated. Work hard. Lead your team by listening.

(Gibbons steps into frame in front of wrestling mat, speaks to camera) I’m Jim Gibbons, and I used these lessons as I became a financial adviser. (shots of Gibbons advising clients) Help families save for the future, control spending and balance budgets. (Gibbons speaks to camera again) I’m running for Congress to stop wasteful spending, lower taxes and grow Iowa jobs. I’m Jim Gibbons, and I approved this message not because I can still do that (gestures toward wrestling mat), but because I’ll always fight for you.

This commercial strikes me as a lot better than Gibbons’ first web video, which gave the viewer no sense of what the candidate stands for. The production values are also better. I don’t think many financial advisers are helping their clients control spending or balance the family budget, but I get the connection he’s trying to make.

Over at The Iowa Republican, Craig Robinson (a big promoter of Gibbons’ candidacy from the beginning) sees a lot of upside for Gibbons:

Having outraised his primary opponents by a large margin over the last five months, his advantage in the race will now be more apparent to voters. The ad will also allow him to build his name ID across the district, while also defining the issues that his campaign will focus on. It is likely that Gibbons will be on TV from now through the June 8th primary.

Gibbons chief opponent, State Senator Brad Zaun, was the first candidate in the race to run a TV ad. Zaun ran a TV ad back in January, but his buy only totaled about $2,800. TheIowaRepublican.com was told that the Gibbons TV buy is more in line with what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent on ads thanking Congressman Boswell for this vote for President Obama’s healthcare plan.

Being the first candidate in the race to begin a TV campaign has a lot of advantages. Right now, the only political candidate that Gibbons is sharing the TV with is Terry Branstad. As the primary day approaches, more and more candidates will be running TV ads, which means that it will be more difficult to communicate a message due to all of the political clutter. For the 2nd and 3rd congressional candidates, it could get especially cluttered since both districts share some of the Cedar Rapids media market.

The other advantage to running ads now is a significant one. People are already casting their votes for the June 8th primary via absentee ballots and satellite voting locations. Having a positive ad up and running during this period of time may help Gibbons pick up some early votes.

From where I’m sitting, Gibbons needed to get his name out there. I’ve seen approximately 20 yard signs for Zaun for every one for Gibbons. Then again, I live not far from Zaun’s stronghold (Urbandale, a large suburb of Des Moines).

State Senator Zaun and Dave Funk (the tea party favorite) will not be able to afford nearly as much paid advertising as Gibbons. Moderate Republican Mark Rees may be up on the air soon if he hasn’t changed his plan to commit $200,000 of his own money to his campaign.

What does the SSP community think of this commercial and/or the Republican primary in Iowa’s third district (D+1)?

The National Republican Campaign Committee announced more moves in its “Young Guns” program today. Two of the districts affected are in Iowa.

The NRCC added Rob Gettemy to its list of “on the radar” candidates. Gettemy is one of four Republicans running against Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district.

“The NRCC is committed to working with Rob Gettemy as he continues to meet the rigorous goals of the Young Guns program,” said NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions. “Rob is an accomplished, independent leader who will fight to create jobs and rein in government spending. I am confident that Republicans will wage a strong fight against Dave Loebsack, a loyal Democrat who has repeatedly put his partisan agenda before a healthy economy.”

They’ll have to do more than that to convince me that this D+7 district will be competitive in the fall. The real reason for putting Gettemy “on the radar” is to signal to Republican donors that he’s the guy to support in this race. It’s a slap in the face to 2008 nominee Mariannette Miller-Meeks, not to mention the other two Republicans running in IA-02 (Steve Rathje and Chris Reed). Gettemy joined the race last but has the most cash on hand thanks to a $100,000 loan he made to his own campaign.

If no candidate wins 35 percent in the June 8 primary, NRCC support could help Gettemy at the district convention that would decide the Republican nominee. Gettemy already has backing from many prominent Republicans in Linn County (Cedar Rapids and its suburbs).

In the NRCC’s three-tiered system for candidates in supposedly competitive races, the next step up from “on the radar” is “contender.” Jim Gibbons’ campaign announced today that the NRCC has elevated him to that level. Gibbons became an “on the radar” candidate in February. If Gibbons can meet certain benchmarks, the NRCC may later elevate him to the top “Young Gun” level, for candidates deemed to have the best chances of winning Democratic-held House seats.

Getting a pat on the back from the NRCC will help Gibbons raise money, particularly from out-of-district donors who don’t know the political terrain in Iowa’s third district (D+1). Gibbons outraised the other Republican candidates in IA-03 by a substantial margin in the first quarter, and being a “contender” will probably help him extend that financial advantage in the second quarter. The Gibbons campaign press release is not subtle:

By achieving ‘Contender’ status, Gibbons has already proven his ability to build a successful campaign structure and achieve vital fundraising goals.

Gibbons added, “This recognition shows that our campaign is ready to take down Leonard Boswell in the fall.  I am the only candidate in this race that has shown the financial heft and organization structure to compete and win in November.  I am running for Congress to bring Iowa values back to Congress,” said Jim Gibbons.

I have to laugh to see Gibbons bragging about support from Washington party leaders a week after he tried to attack incumbent Leonard Boswell for getting help from the head of the DCCC. From where I’m sitting, Gibbons does not look ready for prime time.

Many people on the ground in IA-03 expect State Senator Brad Zaun to win the Republican nomination. Zaun appears to have an early advantage in name recognition as well as a base in vote-rich Urbandale (a Des Moines suburb). On the other hand, Zaun has raised only a little more than $80,000 for his Congressional campaign, about $50,000 of that in the first quarter. It may not be enough for strong district-wide advertising and direct mail before the June 8 primary. A majority of Republican voters haven’t yet decided on a candidate, according to a recent poll commissioned by Zaun’s campaign.

If no candidate wins 35 percent in the primary, Zaun could be well-positioned to win the nomination at a district convention, having much more background in Republican politics. But Gibbons could point to the NRCC’s backing as an argument in his favor. Party leaders in Washington are less likely to commit resources to this district if Zaun is the candidate.

A final word on Zaun’s meager fundraising. His defenders claim that his fundraising has lagged because he was tied up in the state legislature from January through March. I’m not buying it. Zaun announced his candidacy against Boswell in early December, more than a month before the 2010 legislative session began. If Rod Roberts could raise more than $50,000 in the kickoff event for his gubernatorial campaign, Zaun should have been able to raise much more at his kickoff event in late December (before the legislative session began). Zaun is a former mayor of Urbandale, a community with much more wealth and more Republicans than the Carroll area Roberts has represented in the Iowa House. Zaun should have a large pool of major donors to tap.

Share any thoughts about Congressional races in Iowa in this thread.

With candidate filing now closed in 28 states (as per the SSP election calender)it is time to pause, take a deep breath, and have a look at how both parties are traveling vis a vis candidate recruitment for the House of Representatives.

Below the fold for all the details and hey go check out the 2010 Race Tracker Wiki over at Open Congress for all your House, Senate and Gubernatorial needs.

State      No of CD’s    D    R

Alabama         7CD      4    7

Arkansas        4CD      4    4

California      53CD     51   52

Idaho           2CD      2    2

Illinois        19CD     19   18

Indiana         9CD      9    9

Iowa            5CD      5    5

Kentucky        6CD      6    6

Maine           2CD      2    2

Mississippi     4CD      4    4

Missouri        9CD      8    9

Montana         1CD      1    1

Nebraska        3CD      3    3

Nevada          3CD      3    3

New Jersey      13CD     13   13

New Mexico      3CD      3    3

North Carolina  13CD     13   13

North Dakota    1CD      1    1

Ohio            18CD     18   18

Oregon          5CD      5    5

Pennsylvania    19CD     18   18

South Carolina  6CD      6    6

South Dakota    1CD      1    1

Tennessee       9CD      9    9

Texas           32CD     26   32

Utah            3CD      3    3

Virginia        11CD Parties can nominate candidates until May 15th

West Virginia   3CD      3    3

TOTAL           316      302  313

So the GOP are contesting 11 more House districts than us.

In 2006 We contested 425 and in 2008 421. This year we will be lucky to get to 410. As for the GOP they are well on the way to contesting 430 or so; which would be a record.

What a shame.

This week we’re taking an in-depth, multi-part look at the 1994 election, as a means of divining what the 2010 election may hold for us in the House. To do so, we’re looking at some of the myths that seem to have taken hold regarding 1994; yesterday, for instance, we addressed the idea that 1994 was full of unpredictable, arbitrary wipeouts — which it wasn’t (our House Vulnerability Index did a spot-on job of predicting likelihood of losing compared with other Democrats).

Today, we’re looking at a couple more myths. They’re all interrelated — open seats and freshman status weigh heavily on the House Vulnerability Index — but it lets us slice and dice the data some new ways:

Myth 2) The losses in the 1994 election were disproportionately in the South, as historically Democratic districts that had started going Republican at the presidential level finally flipped downballot too.

No, not true. There’s plenty of reason to think this was the case (as I did until I started doing this research), as the 1992 round of redistricting rejiggered a number of districts in a way that was potentially harmful to moderate white Democrats elected by a coalition of African-Americans and working-class whites. With the creation of odd-shaped VRA-districts in a number of states, starting in 1992, moderate Democrats found themselves with the choice of either primaries against African-Americans in VRA districts, or against Republicans in much more conservative suburban/rural districts.

However, it turns out most of the impact from this occurred immediately in 1992, not 1994. For instance, the two Birmingham-area districts, which supported moderate Dems Claude Harris and Ben Erdreich, got turned into the mostly-white 6th and mostly-black 7th, which thus in 1992 turned into liberal Dem Earl Hilliard and conservative GOPer Spencer Bachus. Similarly, in 1992, long-time Democratic Rep. Walter Jones Sr. retired when he found himself in a now black-majority NC-01; his son, Walter Jones Jr., lost the Dem primary to Eva Clayton. In fact, this gave rise to perhaps the only Dem loss in 1994 that seems directly related to the VRA gerrymander: Rep. Martin Lancaster survived the 1992 election reasonably well despite having lost many of NC-03’s African-American voters to next-door NC-01, but in 1994 faced off against the younger Jones, now a Republican (and whose dad had represented many of NC-03’s voters prior to the redistricting), and lost.

It’s possible that Stephen Neal in NC-05, who got a nastier district in 1992 after having the black parts of Winston-Salem moved into the newly-formed NC-12 and then won by only 7% in 1992, may have felt compelled to hit the exits in 1994 primarily because he didn’t relish the task of trying to hold the district. At R+4 at the time, though, that wasn’t a particularly bad district. Norm Sisisky’s VA-04 also seems to have gotten worse post-1992 because of the gerrymandering of VA-03, but he still survived 1994 unscathed and held that district until his 2001 death. (If you can think of any other examples, please discuss in the comments. For instance, the creation of GA-11 or FL-03 may have had some consequences I’m not thinking of.)

The South (as defined by the US Census with one exception — I’m treating Maryland and Delaware as Northeast) did lose more Democratic seats than any other region of the country, that much is true. But that’s mostly because there were more Democratic seats in the South than any other region of the country; in terms of the overall win/loss percentage, the Democrats actually fared slightly better in the South than in the Midwest or West. In addition, much of what happened in the South was because of open seats; there were certainly more open seats in the South, while the South’s freshmen and veterans tended to fare better than those in the Midwest and West. There may be something of a chicken and egg effect here — old-timer Reps. in the South may have sensed trouble a-brewin’ and gotten out of the way, meaning that the inevitable losses took the form of open seats instead of defeated veterans — but, as we saw yesterday, open seats are the hardest to defend and the mass retirements (15 in the South) seemed to compound the disaster.

The one region where the Democrats performed notably better than the norm was the Northeast (their casualty rate in defensive races was only 11%, compared with 22% overall). That’s largely because there are so many safely-blue districts in the major cities of the Northeast; there were fewer suburban or rural seats there, which were the types that the GOP picked up in 1994. (The Dems faring comparatively well in 1994 in the Northeast helped pave the wave for their near-total dominance there now, as they gradually picked up suburban districts that leaned blue at the presidential level over the following decade.)

Here’s the list of who goes where. Open seats, for our purposes, includes races where the incumbent was knocked off in a primary. (And I’m not listing veterans who won, in the interest of space.)

South open seats won: TX-18 (D+22, ex-Washington), TX-10 (D+8, ex-Pickle), KY-03 (D+3, ex-Mazzoli), TX-25 (D+3, ex-Andrews)

South open seats lost: OK-02 (D+3, ex-Synar), TN-04 (R+2, ex-Cooper), NC-05 (R+4, ex-Neal), TN-03 (R+5, ex-Lloyd), OK-04 (R+7, ex-McCurdy), NC-02 (R+7, ex-Valentine), MS-01 (R+7, ex-Whitten), GA-08 (R+8, ex-Rowland), SC-03 (R+13, ex-Derrick), FL-15 (R+14, ex-Bacchus), FL-01 (R+20, ex-Hutto)

South freshmen won: FL-17 (D+25, Meek), AL-07 (D+21, Hilliard), LA-04 (D+19, Fields), TX-30 (D+19, Johnson), NC-12 (D+18, Watt), VA-03 (D+18, Scott), GA-11 (D+17, McKinney), FL-23 (D+16, Hastings), NC-01 (D+15, Clayton), SC-06 (D+14, Clyburn), GA-02 (D+12, Bishop), TX-28 (D+11, Tejeda), TX-29 (D+11, Green), FL-03 (D+10, Brown), MS-02 (D+9, Thompson), AR-01 (D+7, Lambert), FL-20 (D+3, Deutsch), FL-05 (R+1, Thurman), GA-09 (R+14, Deal)

South freshmen lost: KY-01 (D+0, Barlow), VA-11 (R+5, Byrne), GA-10 (R+10, Johnson)

South veterans lost: TX-09 (D+5, Brooks), NC-04 (D+1, Price), TX-13 (R+5, Sarpalius), NC-03 (R+8, Lancaster), GA-07 (R+11, Darden)

Midwest open seats won: MO-05 (D+13, ex-Wheat), MI-13 (D+4, ex-Ford)

Midwest open seats lost: OH-18 (D+2, ex-Applegate), MN-01 (D+1, ex-Penny), IL-11 (R+1, ex-Sangmeister), MI-08 (R+1, ex-Carr), KS-02 (R+2, ex-Slattery), IN-02 (R+8, ex-Sharp)

Midwest freshmen won: IL-01 (D+34, Rush), IL-02 (D+32, Reynolds), IL-04 (D+19, Gutierrez), WI-05 (D+13, Barrett), MI-05 (D+5, Barcia), MO-06 (D+3, Danner), MI-01 (D+0, Stupak), MN-02 (R+0, Minge), OH-13 (R+1, Brown), ND-AL (R+7, Pomeroy)

Midwest freshmen lost: WI-01 (D+3, Barca), OH-19 (R+0, Fingerhut), OH-01 (R+2, Mann), OH-06 (R+4, Strickland)

Midwest veterans lost: IL-05 (D+5, Rostenkowski), IA-04 (D+4, Smith), IN-08 (R+2, McCloskey), KS-04 (R+6, Glickman), NE-02 (R+8, Hoagland), IN-04 (R+13, Long)

West open seats won: CA-16 (D+12, ex-Edwards)

West open seats lost: OR-05 (D+2, ex-Kopetski), WA-02 (D+2, ex-Swift), AZ-01 (R+9, ex-Coppersmith)

West freshmen won: CA-37 (D+29, Tucker), CA-30 (D+18, Becerra), CA-33 (D+18, Roybal-Allard), CA-06 (D+15, Woolsey), CA-14 (D+11, Eshoo), CA-17 (D+11, Farr), AZ-02 (D+11, Pastor), CA-50 (D+7, Filner), OR-01 (D+4, Furse), CA-36 (R+3, Harman)

West freshmen lost: CA-01 (D+7, Hamburg), WA-09 (D+3, Kreidler), WA-01 (D+2, Cantwell), CA-49 (D+1, Schenk), AZ-06 (R+4, English), WA-04 (R+7, Inslee), UT-02 (R+8, Shepherd)

West veterans lost: WA-03 (D+4, Unsoeld), NV-01 (D+1, Bilbray), WA-05 (D+1, Foley), CA-19 (R+4, Lehman), ID-01 (R+9, LaRocco)

Northeast open seats won: PA-02 (D+26, ex-Blackwell), PA-20 (D+11, ex-Murphy)

Northeast open seats lost: ME-01 (R+0, ex-Andrews), NJ-02 (R+4, ex-Hughes)

Northeast freshmen won: NY-08 (D+28, Nadler), MD-04 (D+24, Wynn), NY-12 (D+22, Velazquez), NY-14 (D+20, Maloney), MA-01 (D+10, Olver), PA-04 (D+10, Klink), NJ-13 (D+7, Menendez), MA-05 (D+2, Meehan), NY-26 (D+2, Hinchey), PA-15 (R+1, McHale), PA-06 (R+7, Holden)

Northeast freshmen lost: NJ-08 (R+1, Klein), PA-13 (R+4, Margolies-Mezvinsky)

Northeast veterans lost: NH-02 (R+5, Swett), NY-01 (R+6, Hochbrueckner)