Tag: 2008 Elections

Hot on the heels of the back-to-back-to-back retirement announcements of Republican Reps. Hastert (IL-14), Pryce (OH-15), and Pickering (MS-03), the speculation has run rampant of a potential “flood” of Republican House retirements in the coming months.  As we noted last Friday, there have actually been fewer Republican retirement announcements this year than at this point in the ’05/’06 cycle.  However, the announcements of Pryce and Pickering–both relatively younger incumbents who could have potentially enjoyed long careers in the House–were legitimate bombshells within Washington.

David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report (sub. required) takes a look at the retirement picture, and finds that while the dam hasn’t broken for Republicans yet, things are still looking grim:

Still, if history is any guide, we should expect a significant number of Republican lawmakers to call it quits in 2008 and a considerably higher incumbent retention rate for Democrats. In the vast majority of cases over the past century, when a party has suffered a major (25+ House seat) loss in a midterm election, a higher percentage of the losing party’s members have opted to step down in the succeeding presidential year. This pattern confirms the obvious: that new-found minority status provides House members less incentive to stay put.

After the last party takeover of Congress in 1994, wave-riding Republicans saw 21 in their ranks make plans to step down, while the minority Democrats saw 28 in their ranks bid farewell. Ultimately, Republicans picked off 10 open Democratic seats in the 1996 House elections, while Democrats picked up just four open GOP seats. Although Democrats held a vast advantage in scoring incumbent defeats, Republican net gain of six open seats seriously impeded Democrats’ efforts to rebound into the majority that year.

Even though the cumulative total of open seats remains fairly low at this point, Republicans are concerned about last week’s developments for reasons much broader than the emergence of three new pieces of turf to defend.

For one thing, although the August recess is one of the more popular times for members of Congress to return home to districts and announce plans, it’s no coincidence that retirement announcements to date have disproportionately come in states with some of the earlier primary filing deadlines in the country (Illinois, home to Hastert and LaHood, has a first-in-the-nation filing deadline of November 5, 2007). And, while Hastert and LaHood’s departures were at least somewhat foreseen, Pryce and Pickering’s departures were bombshells. Republicans express nervousness that additional delegations could see multiple retirements as their filing deadlines draw nearer and that additional members of the conference could drop reelection plans without much warning.

It’s also difficult to diminish the fact that the Republicans who announced retirements in the past month have been some of the most widely admired and respected members of the GOP conference during their tenures in Congress. As the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House, Hastert was the unity choice of Republicans for the top post following the Gingrich-Livingston post-impeachment debacle of 1998. And as Republican Conference Secretary, Vice Chair, and Chair, and a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, Pryce was one of the most prominent behind-the-scenes leaders of moderate House Republicans throughout her congressional career. How many of their best friends and allies in the House will decide to follow their lead? Republican campaign chiefs will have to work hard to keep this number to a minimum.

One such delegation with multiple retirements could easily be Ohio, where the smart money says that Reps. Regula and Hobson will retire in 2008.  In our last edition of the House Open Seat Watch, we offered many more possibilities, but it is worth noting that Pryce and Pickering were not even a blip on our radar a few weeks ago.

Another factor that might be of relevance is the $15 million ad campaign paid by a White House front group, targeting mostly Republican incumbents in the House and Senate and admonishing them to stay the course in Iraq.  By placing its team members between a rock (public opinion) and a hard place (the iron boot of Republican loyalty), could Ari Fleischer and friends actually inspire more incumbents to say “screw this” and jump ship?  Just a thought.

Many will remember that there was a time when Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) looked vulnerable. His SUSA numbers were dipping, internal polling showed he was beatable, and a majoirty of Alabamians disapproved of his unwavering support for President Bush and the Iraq War. Not only was Sessions vulnerable, but there was also a viable challenger in Alabama Ag Commissioner Ron Sparks.

However we all know how the rest of this story goes. Sparks considered and declined a challenge to Sessions, explaining his decision as a logical one since he had been told that he could expect substantial primary opposition from State Senator Vivian Figures of Mobile. Sparks believed that it would be impossible for a Democrat to emerge from a divisive primary and then, bloodied and broke, have a decent shot at defeating Sessions.

Since Sparks' announcement in late June, Figures has been seen as dragging her heels in launching a campaign. Figures had planned a campaign announcement for July 14th, but that date came and past without any word from her. However, Figues has now made it official that she plans to challenge Sessions.  Considering that she's never held (nor run for) statewide office and is absolutely unknown outside of her district, Figures will have a tough time of it. Most likely, she'll be best remembered as a politician who let her own personal ambition get in the way of Democratic chances of picking up a US Senate seat in the Deep South.

Oregon’s Speaker of the House, Democrat Jeff Merkley, is wasting no time in making a mark in his bid to topple faux-moderate Republican Sen. Gordon Smith next year.  From an e-mail release issued this morning:

My fellow Americans,

“I don’t recall.”  “I don’t remember.”  “I don’t know.”

Is it really possible that Alberto Gonzales is that checked out from the day-to-day operations in the Justice Department?  He may have been the President’s personal attorney back in Texas, but he’s the Attorney General now – and he’s failing the American people.

He’s become an embarrassment.  And worse, he’s become the single strongest example of political corruption and abuse of power in the Bush Administration.

Under Gonzalez’ embarrassing stewardship, they’ve fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.  He’s authorized illegal wiretaps of American citizens.  He even tried to strong-arm then-Attorney General John Ashcroft into authorizing the illegal wiretapping program while he lay gravely ill in a hospital bed.  And now he won’t tell Congress the whole truth about what’s happening on his watch.

It’s time for Alberto Gonzales to be fired.

If the President won’t fire him, then the Congress should impeach him.

As mcjoan pointed out today, no one in the Senate has been this bold in calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzalez.  This move by Merkley is not just crashing out of the gate–it’s screaming out of the gate.

If this is the kind of campaign that Merkley has in store for us–bold and aggressive–count me down as a fan.

On the tubes: Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate

[Crossposted @ DitchMitchKY.com]

When the Washington Times is running stories about Senator Mitch McConnell‘s extreme vulnerabilities in Kentucky, you know the buzz on him is not good inside the Beltway.

Take a look at the comments in this article by Larry Forgy, a Lexington lawyer and former Republican gubernatorial candidate who came within a hair of being elected governor in 1995.  He’s adopting a very Pat Buchanan-esque populist Republican message.  I think he’s taking the possibility of a run against McConnell very seriously.  What does he have to lose?  The McConnell branch of the Kentucky GOP already hates him, and the Fletcher and Nunn branches of the party would rally around him (and thus Forgy would have a ready and energized base).  He’d humiliate McConnell in the process by at least taking 30 percent of the votes (hell, you’d better believe I’d switch my registration to Republican to vote against McConnell in a primary), and in a perfect storm the little bugger might actually win that primary.

McConnell’s unspectacular performance under the national spotlight shone on him in his capacity as Senate Minority Leader has only brought Washington elites to question whether McConnell’s deficiencies aren’t also largely to blame for the severe problems now rocking the Kentucky GOP that he fathered.

McConnell’s sort of a Senate equivalent of Karl Rove: mostly blow and very little substance.  For the better part of a decade now, there’s been a cult around McConnell in Republican circles in Kentucky and Washington.  He’s revered for his supposed tactical mastery of procedure and narrative, ruthless partisanship, and money-grubbing ability.

Yet, once the Kentucky GOP that Mitch built became pretty much the only show in town, McConnell’s mean and massive machine started to sputter, fast and hard.  It all fell apart in scandal, amateurishness, and incompetence. 

McConnell quickly cast the blame on the nascent Fletcher wing of the party, but it was McConnell who handpicked his minions. 

I’ve said it many times before: even if Mitch McConnell somehow survives reelection in 2008, he will nevertheless inherit the legacy that he rightly deserves (and that’s not a good thing for McConnell).  History will record that he was feckless and ineffective as a leader, that he was instrumental in bringing the corrupting culture of money-grubbing and influence-mongering to our nation’s capital, and that he cultivated the hyper-partisan atmosphere there that has totally paralyzed our institutions of government at a time when the American people most need them to be providing answers and solutions.

McConnell’s base of support erodes

August 20, 2007

By Ralph Z. Hallow – Sen. Mitch McConnell’s close backing of President Bush on immigration and the Iraq war is costing him support among Kentucky Republicans, and, according to some party members, hurting his chances for re-election next year.

He even could face a primary challenge from former Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Forgy, who contends that Mr. McConnell’s in-state problems are compounded by job losses to producers beyond America’s borders.

“The average Kentuckian feels we are giving away this country with both hands – jobs are going, essentially the primacy of the people who made this country great is going, and Mitch McConnell is lumped with the Washington types on this,” Mr. Forgy said.

“And the war in Iraq is less troublesome in Kentucky than in many other places, but it is not popular here, and Republican voters see Mitch’s views as too close to the president’s on the war,” said Mr. Forgy, a Lexington lawyer.

It’s a troublesome assessment for Mr. McConnell, who as minority leader has found himself having to defend unpopular Bush administration policies.

“The immigration issue is trouble for everyone in central Kentucky,” Republican state Sen. Tom Buford said. “The Iraq war is always difficult for all incumbents, even if they support pulling the troops out. It is a no-win situation when elections are at risk.”

Mr. McConnell registered a 48 percent approval rating last month in a SurveyUSA poll.

A county party chairman who supports Mr. McConnell but asked not to be identified said Mr. McConnell’s re-election next year is uncertain – despite the Capitol Hill clout he brings Kentucky – unless he shows the folks back home he understands their distrust of Washington on enforcing immigration laws.

The chairman said he has tried to tell Mr. McConnell that he needs to assure the party’s base that he opposes Mr. Bush’s immigration bill.

The Kentucky Republican Party, torn by the immigration issue, was further fractured when critics claimed Mr. McConnell had acted behind the scenes to back an ultimately unsuccessful primary challenge by former Rep. Anne Northup against Gov. Ernie Fletcher earlier this year. The Fletcher faction of the state Republican Party is backing the “draft Forgy” campaign.

Despite his role as Republican leader in the Senate, Mr. McConnell withdrew himself from much of the fight among fellow Republican senators over the Bush-backed immigration bill supported by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, among others. Besides border-enforcement provisions, the bill provided a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and a new worker program for foreign workers.

Constituent pressure began to peel other Senate Republicans from their support of the bill, and Mr. McConnell wound up voting against it, though he voted for a similar bill last year.

“His vote against the bill at the end showed his thinking and that he knew the bill was not going to be good policy for Kentucky or the country,” said Fred Karem, a Lexington businessman who went to law school with Mr. McConnell.

Mr. Karem said it’s impossible for him to imagine Mr. McConnell facing re-election difficulty. “Shortly into his new term after he is re-elected next year, Mitch will be the longest-serving U.S. senator in Kentucky history. He has been the heart and soul and leader of the Republican Party in this state,” he said.

Republican leaders in the state agree that immigration is a big issue with the party’s core voters, but some say it won’t hurt Mr. McConnell.

“I don’t know anyone who is more in touch with his constituency than Mitch McConnell,” said Jack Richardson of Louisville, party chairman in Jefferson County, the state’s most populous county and home to Mr. McConnell.

Mr. McConnell recently acknowledged grass-roots discontent over immigration.

“During the immigration debate, and ever since, countless well-informed Americans spoke up about the need to enforce our borders and our laws,” he said. “Their voice was heard in the Capitol and the White House. The billions we’ve added to the homeland security funding bill for border security and interior enforcement, and the administration’s enhanced commitment to cracking down on illegal immigration are necessary steps toward securing our nation – and living up to the expectations of our constituents.”

Another McConnell supporter, Bourbon County Chairman Andre Regard, said, “I would be surprised if McConnell faces a challenge because of immigration. I think we should give everyone amnesty and start over.”

Other party leaders in the state privately made it clear that supporting Mr. McConnell is important because of the benefits he brings Kentucky through his seniority – he is completing his fourth term – and as the Republican leader in the Senate.

Ballard County party Chairman Charley Martin said: “I know immigration is a very emotional issue with Republicans, but it’s not the fundamental issue. The party wants to continue the conservative views of Senator McConnell – the views he stood for through the years.”

After a number of requests in previous diaries here it is. The same style diary, the same methodology and the same layout so as to allow you dear reader to compare us to them!

So below the fold to see how the Repubs are doing in House candidate recruiting for 2008!

A hint – They are doing really crap.

249 House races have confirmed Republican candidates – yep only 249!!! So as not to give any Repub trolls any hints this diary is very light on for analysis.

However it goes without saying that from these numbers the Repubs are really struggling to find candidates for House races in 2008. Wonder why? Just look at the number of unfilled races in California and New York.

Before we crack open the bubbly however a few cautionary notes.

– It is harder to find Repub candidates because they don’t have a central fundraising hub like ActBlue.
– I didn’t trawl through Repub blogs as much as I would through ours (try it yourself and you will see why!)
– Very few State Repub Party sites had up to date lists of candidates. More Dem State Party sites did.
– The Repubs don’t have a Swing State Project or 2008 Race Tracker wiki so again it is harder to find their candidates.
– Expect a lot more of their 2006 candidates to step up as sacrificial lambs later in the cycle.
– I am sure I have missed some candidates but not many as I FEC searched all 2006 candidates as well as checking out their websites for updates.

*** Despite all that hedging we are soooo far in front of them!!!***

So here is where we are at (Democratic Districts):
Districts with confirmed candidates – 47
Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 1
Districts with rumoured candidates – 18
Districts without any candidates – 167!

1) The Democratic held districts with confirmed Republican challengers are as follows:
AL-05,
AZ-07,
CA-05,
CA-09,
CA-10,
CA-11,
CA-23,
CA-37,
CA-47,
CT-02,
CT-05,
FL-02,
FL-11,
FL-16,
FL-22,
FL-23,
GA-08,
GA-13,
IL-08,
IN-01,
IN-02,
IN-08,
IN-09,
KS-02,
KS-03,
KY-03,
ME-01,
MD-04,
MD-08,
MA-04,
MA-05,
MA-06,
MI-05,
MN-01,
NH-01,
NY-19,
NY-20,
NC-11,
OH-10,
OH-18,
PA-04,
PA-07,
TX-22,
TX-23,
TX-29,
VA-08,
WV-03,

2) The following Democratic districts have candidates that are expected to run but are yet to confirm:
NC-07,

3) The following Democratic districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!
AZ-05,
AZ-08,
CA-06,
CA-12,
CA-20,
CO-02,
GA-12,
MI-01,
MN-08,
NH-02,
NY-24,
ND-AL,
PA-08,
PA-10,
PA-11,
RI-01,
WA-09,
WI-08,

4) And last but not least the following districts have not a single rumoured GOP candidate:
AL-07,
AZ-04,
AR-01,
AR-02,
AR-04,
CA-01,
CA-07,
CA-08,
CA-13,
CA-14,
CA-15,
CA-16,
CA-17,
CA-18,
CA-27,
CA-28,
CA-29,
CA-30,
CA-31,
CA-32,
CA-33,
CA-34,
CA-35,
CA-36,
CA-38,
CA-39,
CA-43,
CA-51,
CA-53,
CO-01,
CO-03,
CO-07,
CT-01,
CT-03,
FL-03,
FL-17,
FL-19,
FL-20,
GA-02,
GA-04,
GA-05,
HI-01,
HI-02,
IL-01,
IL-02,
IL-03,
IL-04,
IL-05,
IL-07,
IL-09,
IL-12,
IL-17,
IN-07,
IA-01,
IA-05,
IA-03,
KY-06,
LA-02,
LA-03,
ME-02,
MD-02,
MD-03,
MD-05,
MD-07,
MA-01,
MA-02,
MA-03,
MA-07,
MA-08,
MA-09,
MA-10,
MI-12,
MI-13,
MI-14,
MI-15,
MN-04,
MN-05,
MN-07,
MS-02,
MS-04,
MO-01,
MO-03,
MO-04,
MO-05,
NV-01,
NJ-01,
NJ-06,
NJ-08,
NJ-09,
NJ-10,
NJ-12,
NJ-13,
NM-03,
NY-01,
NY-02,
NY-04,
NY-05,
NY-06,
NY-07,
NY-08,
NY-09,
NY-10,
NY-11,
NY-12,
NY-14,
NY-15,
NY-16,
NY-17,
NY-18,
NY-21,
NY-22,
NY-27,
NY-28,
NC-01,
NC-02,
NC-04,
NC-12,
NC-13,
OH-06,
OH-09,
OH-11,
OH-13,
OH-17,
OK-02,
OR-01,
OR-03,
OR-04,
OR-05,
PA-01,
PA-02,
PA-12,
PA-13,
PA-14,
PA-17,
RI-02,
SC-05,
SC-06,
SD-AL,
TN-04,
TN-05,
TN-06,
TN-07,
TN-09,
TX-09,
TX-15,
TX-16,
TX-17,
TX-18,
TX-20,
TX-25,
TX-27,
TX-28,
TX-30,
UT-02,
VT-AL,
VA-03,
VA-09,
WA-01,
WA-02,
WA-03,
WA-06,
WA-07,
WV-01,
WI-02,
WI-03,
WI-04,
WI-07,

And don’t forget 2 races will probably become uncontested when the special elections are done in CA-37 and MA-05.

Woo hoo to the Democratic Party we are implementing the 50 State Strategy in spades whilst the GOP are playing rats jumping off a sinking ship.

Last month, we had a lively open thread discussion wherein SSP readers ranked the 2008 Senate races based on each seat’s likelihood of flipping party control.  For the hell of it, let’s try it again, only for House races.  Below is a list of 50 potentially competitive House seats, 30 of which are held by Republicans, and 20 held by Democrats.  Open seats are in italics, and the links are to the 2008 Race Tracker wiki for more background.  Of these 50, create a list of the top 10, 20, 30, or even 50 (if you’re very dedicated) seats that are likeliest to change party hands next year.  I know that I’m missing some other potentially competitive races, so please don’t interpret this post as my view of 2008’s House “playing field”.  Some of these races are extremely unlikely to change hands, but I’d still like to see other takes.

R	R	R	D	D
AK-AL AZ-01 AZ-03 CA-04 CA-26 CO-04 CT-04 FL-13 ID-01 IL-10	IL-14 IL-18 MI-07 MI-09 MO-06 MS-03 NC-08 NJ-07 NM-01 NV-03	NY-25 NY-26 NY-29 OH-01 OH-02 OH-14 OH-15 OH-16 WA-08 WV-02	AZ-05 AZ-08 CA-11 GA-08 GA-12 IA-03 IN-02 IN-08 IN-09 KS-02	MN-01 NH-01 NY-19 NY-20 OH-18 PA-04 PA-10 TX-22 TX-23 WI-08

I hope you have your crystal balls in hand.

*****This diary serves as an update of Democratic Party House candidate filing. To provide a comparison I will post the equivalent diary for the Republicans tomorrow as requested in the comments thread of previous house diaries.*****

Well 6 more districts now have candidates:
FL-14,
GA-10,
IL-16,
IL-19,
NY-13,
VA-01,

But 1 is now back to uncontested:
NY-23, (our candidate withdrew).

Once again go and take a look at the 
2008 Race Tracker Wiki.
Below the fold for all the news.

326 races filled! This of course includes 233 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 93 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):
Districts with confirmed candidates – 93
Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 1
Districts with rumoured candidates – 30
Districts without any candidates – 78

1) The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:
AL-01,
AL-03,
AL-04,
AK-AL,
AZ-01,
AZ-02,
AZ-03,
AR-03,
CA-04,
CA-24,
CA-26,
CA-40,
CA-41,
CA-42,
CA-44,
CA-48,
CA-50,
CA-52,
CO-04,
CT-04,
FL-01,
FL-08,
FL-09,
FL-10,
FL-13,
FL-14,
FL-15,
FL-24,
GA-09,
GA-10,
ID-01,
IL-10,
IL-14,
IL-16,
IL-19,
IN-03,
IN-04,
IN-06,
IA-04,
IA-05,
LA-01,
MD-01,
MD-06,
MI-07,
MI-09,
MN-06,
MO-06,
MO-09,
MT-AL,
NE-02,
NV-03,
NJ-05,
NJ-07,
NJ-11,
NM-01,
NM-02,
NY-13,
NY-25,
NY-26,
NY-29,
NC-03,
NC-08,
NC-09,
OH-01,
OH-02,
OH-07,
OH-14,
OH-15,
OH-16,
OK-05,
PA-03,
PA-09,
PA-15,
PA-16,
PA-18,
TX-04,
TX-08,
TX-10,
TX-11,
TX-13,
TX-26,
VA-01,
VA-05,
VA-06,
VA-10,
VA-11,
WA-04,
WA-08,
WV-02,
WI-01,
WI-05,
WI-06,
WY-AL,

2) The following 1 GOP held district has a candidate that is expected to run but is yet to confirm:
SC-04,

3) The following GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!
AL-02,
AZ-06,
CA-03,
CA-45,
DE-AL,
FL-06,
FL-12,
GA-01,
GA-03,
GA-06,
GA-07,
GA-11,
ID-02,
IL-11,
IL-18,
KY-05,
MN-02,
NE-03,
NV-02,
NJ-02,
NJ-03,
NJ-04,
NY-03,
NC-05,
OK-03,
OK-04,
PA-06,
TN-07,
TX-02,
UT-03,

4) And last but not least the following  districts have not a single rumoured candidate:
AL-06,
CA-02,
CA-19,
CA-21,
CA-22,
CA-25,
CA-46,
CA-49,
CO-05,
CO-06,
FL-04,
FL-05,
FL-07,
FL-18,
FL-21,
FL-25,
IL-06,
IL-13,
IL-15,
IN-05,
KS-01,
KS-04,
KY-01,
KY-02,
KY-04,
LA-04,
LA-05,
LA-06,
LA-07,
MI-02,
MI-03,
MI-04,
MI-06,
MI-08,
MI-10,
MI-11,
MN-03,
MS-01,
MS-03,
MO-02,
MO-07,
MO-08,
NE-01,
NY-23,
NC-06,
NC-10,
OH-03,
OH-04,
OH-05,
OH-08,
OH-12,
OK-01,
OR-02,
PA-05,
PA-19,
SC-01,
SC-02,
SC-03,
TN-01,
TN-02,
TN-03,
TX-01,
TX-03,
TX-05,
TX-06,
TX-07,
TX-12,
TX-14,
TX-19,
TX-21,
TX-24,
TX-31,
TX-32,
UT-01,
VA-02,
VA-04,
VA-07,
WA-05,

Praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Thats 18 states with a full slate, and 6 states with one race to fill! That is almost half the states full or nearly full 17 months before election day, an impressive feat indeed!

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 CA-42, TX-11, VA-06, and WI-06; 4 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006!

We are well on track to beat the 425 races we contested in 2006.

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

With retirement fever becoming an epidemic on Capitol Hill this week, I thought it would be useful  to take a look back at how the open seat picture unfolded in the 2006 election cycle and compare it to where we stand today.

At this point in 2005, Republicans were dealing with nine open seats of an eventual total of twenty.  Interestingly, only two of these nine were straight-up retirements, whereas the bulk of these early announcements were made by House members seeking a promotion to a statewide office.  While the rumors and speculation are rampant, only five Republicans have announced retirements this year:

However, of these five, four are “straight-up” retirements, while the fifth (Duncan Hunter) may as well be, too.  Additionally, retirements by Rick Renzi (AZ-01) and Ralph Regula (OH-16) seem all but official, and many are convinced that Dave Hobson (OH-07) will throw in the towel, as well.  I don’t expect that we’ll see too many Republican House members (if any) bothering to try their hand at statewide races next year, but I do expect, with the shocking retirement announcements of Pryce and Pickering, that many more Republican members will test the winds during the August recess and make similar decisions (if not announcements) around Labor Day.  I believe that this rings especially true when one considers that most the “true” retirements of 2006 (i.e. the desire to end one’s political career) came in the fall/winter of ’05 and ’06.  And in a Presidential cycle, perhaps many potential retirees will feel obligated to give their would-be successors more of an opportunity to build their campaigns before the media cycle is utterly dominated by the top of the ticket.

So who’s next to grab a life preserver and bail?

According to Roll Call, Republican Rep. Chip Pickering, long considered a potential successor for either Senator Thad Cochran or Trent Lott, has decided to call it quits:

Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) has decided not to run for re-election in 2008, a knowledgeable source confirmed Thursday afternoon.

Pickering’s office did not return requests for comment Thursday. But a second source said Thursday afternoon that Pickering was scheduled to meet with his staff in his Pearl, Miss., district office at 4 p.m. Central time, apparently to discuss his political future.

[…]

Several viable candidates are expected to seek the GOP nomination to replace Pickering, including termed-out Mississippi Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck, a former Democrat who is scheduled to leave office at the end of this year.

Pickering, only 44 years old, could easily wait another four or six years for a Lott or Cochran retirement.  But perhaps he’s grown tired of waiting after being teased by potential Senate retirements for two cycles in a row.  Or maybe he’s just tired of not raking in the big bucks.  In 2003, Pickering openly mused about leaving Congress in order to take a massive annual paycheck as a telecommunications lobbyist.  It’s possible that Pickering feels, with life in an enduring House minority and no Senate promotion in immediate sight, that now is the time to cash in.

While Democrats held this district for over 100 years before Pickering claimed this open seat in 1996, it has a solid Republican advantage with a PVI of R+14.  Bush twice dominated this district by 64%-35% and 65%-34% margins in 2000 and 2004, respectively.  If there is a glimmer of hope for Democrats, it is that Rep. Gene Taylor, a conservative Democrat, holds a district even redder (R+16, with a 37-point margin of victory for Bush in 2004).  However, it would be a tall order for Democrats to be able to recruit someone with Taylor’s political skills to contest this seat.

To sum it up, we’ve seen three Republican retirements in a week: Hastert, Pryce, and now Pickering.  (Plus the raging rumors surrounding Dave Hobson.)  I wonder how many more surprises are in store for us.

UPDATE: The Clarion-Ledger confirms.  Pickering is outta here!

UPDATE 2: Will it be a retirement or a resignation?  First Read is “getting conflicting signals”, but suggests that “with Pickering heading to work on K Street, he might want to leave Congress before the lobbying/ethics reform legislation is signed into law”.

In the 2006 election cycle, the DCCC employed a two-pronged approach against long time Republican incumbents in an effort to hasten their retirements: a relentless barrage of press releases and paid advertising early in the cycle highlighting their Bush-supporting votes in the House, combined with the recruitment of strong challengers.  Against Nancy Johnson in Connecticut, the DCCC recruited rising star state Senator Chris Murphy.  Against veteran Clay Shaw of Florida, the Democrats turned to popular state Senator Ron Klein.  Both targets, feeling secure in their long-standing incumbency, fundraising prowess, and Majority status, ultimately chose to stick it out, and both ultimately found themselves losing to superior campaigns.

Under the stewardship of chairman Chris Van Hollen, the strategy has not changed.  This week, the committee announced a series of radio ads hitting four incumbents for their recent (and characteristically despicable) votes against children’s health insurance and expanded health benefits for seniors: Tom Feeney (FL-24), Vern Buchanan (FL-13), Bill Young (FL-10) and Jim Saxton (NJ-03).

As CQ notes, the strategy behind targeting Young and Saxton is to free up their bluish districts to revert to the Democratic fold with the help of top-tier challengers.  Saxton’s district, in particular, would be a compelling pick-up opportunity.  While the south Jersey district supported Bush in 2004 by a 51%-49% margin, it delivered its votes for Al Gore by a whopping 11 point (54%-43%) margin four years earlier.  Kerry’s poor performance here (and in several other Democratic-leaning New Jersey districts), I believe, can be attributed to the 9/11 security advantage that Bush still enjoyed in 2004, and resonated fairly strongly in a state strongly in the orbit of New York City.  But today, that advantage has evaporated for obvious reasons.

So who could emerge to be the Ron Klein-like hero to stir some fear into Saxton, a 12-term incumbent?  A few weeks ago, PoliticsNJ reported that state Senator John Adler had recently met with DCCC officials about the possibility of taking on Saxton next year, for the second time in his career:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Adler met with staff at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington last month to discuss a possible run for Congress next year against incumbent James Saxton, according to Democrats close to the five-term State Senator.

Despite his ambition and talent, Adler is a politician with limited political options — something that his friends say he finds exceptionally frustrating.  There was a time when he was viewed as a rising star — he was elected to the Cherry Hill Township Council at age 29, ran for Congress at age 31 (he lost to Saxon by a 58%-39% margin), and at age 32, he won an upset victory for State Senator against a veteran Republican incumbent in a GOP-leaning district in 1991 — the year Democrats lost ten Senate seats and 21 Assembly seats.

After sixteen years in the Senate, Adler seems to have no place to go.  He has nearly $200,000 is a federal campaign account he opened in 2003, when he said he would consider an `08 bid for U.S. Senate if Frank Lautenberg did not seek re-election.  But now, Adler knows that won’t happen — if Lautenberg doesn’t run, another Camden County Democrat, Congressman Rob Andrews, will.

Expect Saxton and the NRCC to gloat about that 58%-39% result if Adler enters the race, but they know perfectly well that Adler has built a fine political career for himself since his first ambitious run at Saxton as a 31 year-old in 1990.  Additionally, you’ve got to bet that Adler would like to put that $200K in his Senate campaign account to good use, and if he were to enter the race, he could easily transfer those funds to a House campaign account.  (And he would need every penny, as Saxton is currently sitting on a very fat $1.33 million cash-on-hand.)

While the DCCC’s saber-rattling didn’t produce many retirements in 2006, perhaps with life in the minority and surprise announcements like Deborah Pryce’s, we can expect such campaigns to yield better results.