Dem ’08 Convention to Be in Denver

(What a relief. Will Colorado go blue in 2008? Discuss. – promoted by James L.)

From the New York Times:

Democrats Said to Pick Denver for `08 Convention

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: January 11, 2007

It’s not exactly a “New York: Drop Dead” kind of moment, but the Democratic National Committee has decided to hold the party’s 2008 nominating convention in Denver, according to Democrats familiar with the decision, heading West in rejecting a bid from New York to hold it there.

The announcement will be made by Howard Dean, the party chairman, later today. Democratic officials had been drawn to Denver for political reasons – Colorado is becoming an increasingly hospitable territory for Democrats – but had held back because of concerns over the availability of hotel rooms and ongoing union unrest there. Democrats said they believed both potential problems had been resolved.

The last Democratic convention held in New York was 1992.

NE-Sen: GOP Primary Poll

Thought you all would be interested in this report from Don Walton in yesterday’s Lincoln Journal-Star:

Attorney General Jon Bruning led a December poll measuring the strength of potential Republican  successors to Sen. Chuck Hagel if Hagel chooses not to seek re-election next year.

The survey was commissioned by David Sokol of Omaha, chairman and CEO of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. The results have been making the rounds in GOP circles in Omaha and Lincoln.

Here are some of the matchups in the poll:

* Bruning, 52 percent; [Former Omaha Mayor Hal] Daub, 20 percent.

* Bruning, 54 percent; [2006 nominee Pete] Ricketts, 24 percent.

* Bruning, 38 percent; [Rep. Lee] Terry, 22 percent.

* Bruning, 40 percent; [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry, 20 percent.

* Bruning, 36 percent; Ricketts, 21 percent; Daub, 16 percent, in a three-way race.

Here is what is most interesting about these results, to me:

– They are intentionally skewed in favor of Bruning, using two-way matchups to overstate the actual support that Bruning has among Republican primary voters.
– That said, they do demonstrate that Bruning is relatively strong at this early stage.
– It’s very interesting that despite his horrendous performance in the 2006 general, Ricketts draws anywhere from 21-25% support among Republicans.

Now, there is still no telling who is running in 2008, and a poll 16 months out from the primary doesn’t do us a whole lot of good. But it provides an interesting snapshot – and a very clear indication that Jon Bruning is running for Senate in 2008.

The 60 Most Vulnerable House Republicans

I already posted lists ranking the 132 most vulnerable members of the House and the 60 most vulnerable House Democrats.  Rankings are based on PVI, 2004 incumbent or incumbent party performance and 2006 incumbent performance.  Those who received less than 55% of the vote in 2006 are in bold, and House fresh(wo)men are in italics.  Although these rankings are far from definitive, they do provide one with a sense of how the landscape will appear in 2008.

1 CT-04 (SHAYS) D+5
2 WA-08 (REICHERT) D+2
3 PA-06 (GERLACH) D+2
4 NM-01 (WILSON) D+2
5 NV-03 (PORTER) D+1
6 NJ-07 (FERGUSON) R+1
7 NC-08 (HAYES) R+3
8 PA-15 (DENT) D+2
9 MI-09 (KNOLLENBERG) R+0
10 IL-06 (ROSKAM) R+3

11 FL-13 (BUCHANAN) R+4
12 OH-15 (PRYCE) R+1
13 MN-06 (BACHMANN) R+5
14 MI-07 (WALBERG) R+2
15 AZ-01 (RENZI) R+2
16 MI-11 (McCOTTER) R+1
17 NY-26 (REYNOLDS) R+3
18 NY-29 (KUHL) R+5
19 CO-04 (MUSGRAVE) R+9
20 IL-10 (KIRK) D+4

21 VA-02 (DRAKE) R+6
22 OH-01 (CHABOT) R+1
23 NY-13 (FOSSELLA) D+1
24 IL-11 (WELLER) R+1
25 CA-26 (DREIER) R+3
26 CA-50 (BILBRAY) R+5
27 VA-11 (DAVIS) R+1
28 PA-03 (ENGLISH) R+2
29 MN-02 (KLEIN) R+3
30 OH-02 (SCHMIDT) R+13

31 NY-03 (KING) D+2
32 KY-04 (DAVIS) R+12
33 FL-08 (KELLER) R+3
34 IA-04 (LATHAM) D+0
35 NJ-05 (GARRETT) R+4
36 NY-25 (WALSH) D+3
37 MI-08 (ROGERS) R+2
38 NJ-03 (SAXTON) D+3
39 WY-AL (CUBIN) R+19
40 DE-AL (CASTLE) D+7

41 WV-02 (CAPITO) R+5
42 OH-12 (TIBERI) R+1
43 PA-18 (MURPHY) R+2
44 OH-14 (LaTOURETTE) R+2
45 TX-32 (SESSIONS) R+11
46 FL-15 (WELDON) R+3
47 WA-05 (McMORRIS) R+7
48 NJ-02 (LoBIONDO) D+4
49 OH-03 (TURNER) R+3
50 CA-04 (DOOLITTLE) R+11

51 NE-02 (TERRY) R+9
52 NV-02 (HELLER) R+8
53 NE-01 (FORTENBERRY) R+12
54 AZ-02 (FRANKS) R+9
55 VA-10 (WOLF) R+5
56 IL-15 (JOHNSON) R+6
57 AL-03 (ROGERS) R+4
58 MI-04 (CAMP) R+3
59 NM-02 (PEARCE) R+6
60 NC-05 (FOXX) R+15

The 60 Most Vulnerable House Democrats

I already posted a list ranking the 132 most vulnerable members of the House.  Here is a list of the 60 most vulnerable House Democrats.  Rankings are based on PVI, 2004 incumbent or incumbent party performance and 2006 incumbent performance.  Those who received less than 55% of the vote in 2006 are in bold, and House fresh(wo)men are in italics.

1 WI-08 (KAGEN) R+4
2 KS-02 (BOYDA) R+7
3 IN-09 (HILL) R+7
4 FL-16 (MAHONEY)R+2
5 PA-10 (CARNEY) R+8
6 AZ-05 (MITCHELL) R+4
7 TX-22 (LAMPSON) R+15
8 NY-19 (HALL) R+1
9 IL-08 (BEAN) R+5
10 TX-23 (RODRIGUEZ) R+4

11 PA-04 (ALTMIRE) R+3
12 NY-20 (GILLIBRAND) R+3
13 NC-11 (SCHULER) R+7
14 CA-11 (McNERNEY) R+3
15 MN-01 (WALZ) R+1
16 IN-02 (DONNELLY) R+4
17 NH-01 (SHEA-PORTER) R+0
18 NY-24 (ARCURI) R+1
19 KY-03 (YARMUTH) D+2
20 AZ-08 (GIFFORDS) R+1

21 LA-03 (MELANCON) R+5
22 PA-08 (MURPHY) D+3
23 GA-12 (BARROW) D+2
24 TX-17 (EDWARDS) R+18
25 FL-22 (KLEIN) D+4
26 GA-08 (MARSHALL) R+8
27 NH-02 (HODES) D+3
28 IA-03 (BOSWELL) D+1
29 OR-05 (HOOLEY) D+1
30 UT-02 (MATHESON) R+17

31 CO-07 (PERLMUTTER) D+2
32 OH-18 (SPACE) R+6
33 IN-08 (ELLSWORTH) R+9
34 IA-02 (LOEBSACK) D+7
35 CO-03 (SALAZAR) R+6
36 CT-02 (COURTNEY) D+8
37 CT-05 (MURPHY) D+4
38 VT-AL (WELSH) D+9
39 PA-07 (SESTAK) D+4
40 IA-01 (BRALEY) D+5

41 SC-05 (SPRATT) R+6
42 SD-AL (HERSETH) R+10
43 KS-03 (MOORE) R+4
44 TX-27 (ORTIZ) R+1
45 TN-04 (DAVIS) R+3
46 IN-07 (CARSON) D+9
47 PA-17 (HOLDEN) R+7
48 AR-02 (SNYDER) R+0
49 ND-AL (POMEROY) R+13
50 VA-09 (BOUCHER) R+7

51 KY-06 (CHANDLER) R+7
52 NY-01 (BISHOP) D+3
53 TX-15 (HINOJOSA) D+3
54 IL-17 (HARE) D+5
55 TX-28 (CUELLAR) R+1
56 OR-04 (DeFAZIO) D+0
57 WI-03 (KIND) D+3
58 NC-13 (MILLER) D+2
59 NC-02 (ETHERIDGE) R+3
60 WA-03 (BAIRD) D+0

A list of the sixty most vulnerable House Republicans will be generated shortly.

House 2008: The Vulnerable 30%

Ranking every House seat by PVI, incumbent or incumbent’s party performance in 2004 and incumbent performance in 2006, I have obtained the following list of House seats in order of vulnerablility.  While this list is in no way definitive, it does provide us with a rough sketch of the 2008 landscape.  New members are in italics, and members who received less than 55% are in bold.  Following the name of each incumbent is her or his district’s PVI, which is explicated here.  My calculations also consider the results of special elections and runoffs.

1 WI-08 (KAGEN-D) R+4
2 KS-02 (BOYDA-D) R+7
3 IN-09 (HILL-D) R+7
4 FL-16 (MAHONEY-D) R+2
5 PA-10 (CARNEY-D) R+8
6 AZ-05 (MITCHELL-D) R+4
7 TX-22 (LAMPSON-D) R+15
8 NY-19 (HALL-D) R+1
9 CT-04 (SHAYS-R) D+5
10 IL-08 (BEAN-D) R+5

11 TX-23 (RODRIGUEZ-D) R+4
12 PA-04 (ALTMIRE-D) R+3
13 NY-20 (GILLIBRAND-D) R+3
14 NC-11 (SCHULER-D) R+7
15 WA-08 (REICHERT-R) D+2
16 PA-06 (GERLACH-R) D+2
17 CA-11 (McNERNEY-D) R+3
18 NM-01 (WILSON-R) D+2
19 MN-01 (WALZ-D) R+1
20 NV-03 (PORTER-R) D+1

21 IN-02 (DONNELLY-D) R+4
22 NH-01 (SHEA-PORTER-D) R+0
23 NY-24 (ARCURI-D) R+1
24 KY-03 (YARMUTH-D) D+2
25 AZ-08 (GIFFORDS-D) R+1
26 LA-03 (MELANCON-D) R+5
27 PA-08 (MURPHY-D) D+3
28 GA-12 (BARROW-D) D+2
29 TX-17 (EDWARDS-D) R+18
30 FL-22 (KLEIN-D) D+4

31 NJ-07 (FERGUSON-R) R+1
32 GA-08 (MARSHALL-D) R+8
33 NH-02 (HODES-D) D+3
34 IA-03 (BOSWELL-D) D+1
35 OR-05 (HOOLEY-D) D+1
36 NC-08 (HAYES-R) R+3
37 UT-02 (MATHESON) R+17
38 CO-07 (PERLMUTTER-D) D+2
39 PA-15 (DENT-R) D+2
40 MI-09 (KNOLLENBERG-R) R+0

41 OH-18 (SPACE-D) R+6
42 IL-06 (ROSKAM-R) R+3
43 IN-08 (ELLSWORTH-D) R+9
44 FL-13 (BUCHANAN-R) R+4
45 OH-15 (PRYCE-R) R+1
46 MN-06 (BACHMANN-R) R+5
47 IA-02 (LOEBSACK-D) D+7
48 MI-07 (WALBERG-R) R+2
49 AZ-01 (RENZI-R) R+2
50 CO-03 (SALAZAR-D) R+6

51 MI-11 (McCOTTER-R) R+1
52 CT-02 (COURTNEY-D) D+8
53 NY-26 (REYNOLDS-R) R+3
54 NY-29 (KUHL-R) R+5
55 CO-04 (MUSGRAVE-R) R+9
56 CT-05 (MURPHY-D) D+4
57 IL-10 (KIRK-R) D+4
58 VT-AL (WELSH-D) D+9
59 VA-02 (DRAKE-R) R+6
60 PA-07 (SESTAK-D) D+4

61 OH-01 (CHABOT-R) R+1
62 IA-01 (BRALEY-D) D+5
63 NY-13 (FOSSELLA-R) D+1
64 IL-11 (WELLER-R) R+1
65 CA-26 (DREIER-R) R+3
66 CA-50 (BILBRAY-R) R+5
67 SC-05 (SPRATT-D) R+6
68 VA-11 (DAVIS-R) R+1
69 PA-03 (ENGLISH-R) R+2
70 MN-02 (KLEIN-R) R+3

71 SD-AL (HERSETH-D) R+10
72 KS-03 (MOORE-D) R+4
73 OH-02 (SCHMIDT-R) R+13
74 NY-03 (KING-R) D+2
75 KY-04 (DAVIS-R) R+12
76 FL-08 (KELLER-R) R+3
77 IA-04 (LATHAM-R) D+0
78 NJ-05 (GARRETT-R) R+4
79 NY-25 (WALSH-R) D+3
80 MI-08 (ROGERS-R) R+2

81 NJ-03 (SAXTON-R) D+3
82 TX-27 (ORTIZ-D) R+1
83 WY-AL (CUBIN-R) R+19
84 TN-04 (DAVIS-D) R+3
85 IN-07 (CARSON-D) D+9
86 PA-17 (HOLDEN-D) R+7
87 DE-AL (CASTLE-R) D+7
88 AR-02 (SNYDER-D) R+0
89 ND-AL (POMEROY-D) R+13
90 VA-09 (BOUCHER-D) R+7

91 WV-02 (CAPITO-R) R+5
92 OH-12 (TIBERI-R) R+1
93 KY-06 (CHANDLER-D) R+7
94 PA-18 (MURPHY-R) R+2
95 OH-14 (LaTOURETTE-R) R+2
96 TX-32 (SESSIONS-R) R+11
97 NY-01 (BISHOP-D) D+3
98 TX-15 (HINOJOSA-D) D+3
99 FL-15 (WELDON-R) R+3

100 IL-17 (HARE-D) D+5
101 WA-05 (McMORRIS-R) R+5
102 TX-28 (CUELLAR-D) R+1
103 OR-04 (DeFAZIO-D) D+0
104 NJ-02 (LoBIONDO-R) D+4
105 OH-03 (TURNER-R) R+3
106 WI-03 (KIND-D) D+3
107 NC-13 (MILLER-D) D+2
108 NC-02 (ETHERIDGE-D) R+3
109 CA-04 (DOOLITTLE-R) R+11
110 NE-02 (TERRY-R) R+9

111 NV-02 (HELLER-R) R+8
112 NE-01 (FORTENBERRY-R) R+12
113 WA-03 (BAIRD-D) D+0
114 AZ-02 (FRANKS-R) R+9
115 VA-10 (WOLF-R) R+5
116 MS-04 (TAYLOR-D) R+16
117 IL-15 (JOHNSON-R) R+6
118 TN-06 (GORDON-D) R+4
119 AL-03 (ROGERS-R) R+4
120 MI-04 (CAMP-R) R+3

121 MO-04 (SKELTON-D) R+11
122 WV-01 (MOLLOHAN-D) R+6
123 NM-02 (PEARCE-R) R+6
124 NC-05 (FOXX-R) R+15
125 MO-03 (CARNAHAN-D) D+8
126 OR-01 (WU-D) D+6
127 FL-02 (BOYD-D) R+2
128 IL-13 (BIGGERT-R) R+5
129 OH-16 (REGULA-R) R+3
130 CA-45 (BONO-R) R+3
131 MI-06 (UPTON-R) R+2
132 MN-07 (PETERSON-D) R+6

Lists of the most vulnerable Republican and Democratic House incumbents will be posted shortly.

A “Red State” Project?: Expanding the Playing Field in ’08

( – promoted by DavidNYC)

Last week, David took a look at the “Swing States” for 2008, adding:

Now, as you know, I’m a big believer in the fifty-state strategy, but as you also know, these things take time. As much as I’d like to believe we’ll see an expanded playing field in the next presidential race, I think we all realize that Howard Dean’s plan is the work of many years.

I agree, and it’s important to put our resources where they have the best chance of affecting the outcome, but at the same time, we don’t know how the picture will look, who our nominee will be, who their nominee will be, etc. Speculation is fun, and I’m no stranger to it. But the question that came to me, a resident of a deep-red state, when looking at the playing field, and realizing that the playing field David put out there is probably broader than the playing field we’ll see in 2008, was: What can we do to change it? How can the netroots do what we do best – making races competitive – in 2008? Can we do it in a Presidential race?

Of the 31 states George W. Bush won in 2004, he won 9 of them by less than 10%. Those states total 97 electoral votes. Those are states that we can, conceivably, win in 2008. If we flip 18 or more electoral votes from 2004, we have a majority. But playing offense is our strength, and being ambitious is a luxury we have that the campaign does not.

Of course, there’s only so much we can do on our own. But we can lay the groundwork, build up local successes, do whatever we can do to help elect Democrats in 2008. Maybe, in the process, we can make some of these states competitive on a Presidential level, and force the Republicans to play defense.

So, I’m just kicking some thoughts around here: If you live in a state that went for Bush in 2004, what races, if any, can we focus on? Are there potential Democratic candidates you think could bring the state you live in into play? Are there potential Republican candidates that could? Also, what are the prominent blogs in your state or district?

I think we need to make sure that 2006 was only the beginning. We have an opportunity to elect Democrats all across the country in 2008, we should take advantage.

States Won By Bush in ’04 (swing states in italics, electoral votes and approval rating in parentheses):
Alabama (9) 62.5% (45%)
Alaska (3) 61% (43%)
Arizona (10) 54.8% (41%)
Arkansas (6) 54.3% (38%)
Colorado (9) 51.7% (41%)
Florida (27) 52.1% (42%)
Georgia (15) 58% (45%)
Idaho (4) 68.4% (55%)
Indiana (11) 60% (40%)
Iowa (7) 49.9%(38%)
Kansas (6) 62% (45%)
Kentucky (8) 59.6% (40%)
Louisiana (9) 56.7% (47%)
Mississippi (6) 59% (45%)
Missouri (11) 53.3% (34%)
Montana (3) 59.1% (45%)
Nebraska (5)* 65.9% (46%) – There’s a quirk in Nebraska’s election law that awards electoral votes by Congressional District. NE-02 went 61-38% for Bush in 2004. In 2006, Republican Lee Terry won the district 55-45%, after a 61-36% victory in ’04. Maine is the only other state with this sort of law. The rest of the states are “winner take all.”
Nevada (5) 50.5% (37%)
New Mexico (5) 49.8% (34%)
North Carolina (15) 56% (43%)
North Dakota (3) 62.9% (47%)
Ohio (20) 50.8% (34%)
Oklahoma (7) 65.6% (43%)
South Carolina (8) 57.9% (41%)
South Dakota (3) 59.9% (42%)
Tennessee (11) 56.8% (41%)
Texas (34) 61.1% (41%)
Utah (5) 71.5% (55%)
Virginia (13) 53.7% (44%)
West Virginia (5) 56.1% (40%)
Wyoming (3) 68.9% (49%)

My goal here is simply to get some input from everyone: what can we do in the “red” states? Some of these states, particularly the ones Bush won by less than 10%, are states we can and should win on a Presidential level. Some of these states, clearly, would take an absolute disaster by the Republicans to win. So my question is obviously not limited to the Presidential race, although it’s a big part of the equation. We had a few states in 2006 that weren’t able to capitalize on the wave. We had a few states (like Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) that made significant progress but still couldn’t have much tangible success. What should be our strategy? Is it too soon to start talking about expanding the playing field?

Crossposted at Daily Kos and MyDD

Presidential Polling – Nevada

ARG, Nevada, Dec. 19-23, MoE +/- 4%, 600 likely Democratic Caucus goers (545 Democrats and 55 no party).

Clinton 37%
Obama 12%
Kerry 9%
Edwards 8%
Clark 4%
Dodd 2%
Gravel 1%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Vilsack 1%
Biden 1%
Undecided 23%

No one’s campaigned in Nevada yet, but so far it looks like Richardson has yet to display any regional appeal here. It’s tough enough to accurately identify caucus goers in Iowa, a larger state with top significance – Nevada caucus polling should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I have no other recent poll for this state to compare with.

Note that Nevada still has a mucher higher proportion of undecideds than Iowa. So far, though, Hillary is the one to beat in Nevada by more than 3 to 1 over any other challenger. Out of the 4 states polled by ARG in this batch, this is Edwards’ worst performance and Kerry’s best. It’s also Clark’s best, which isn’t saying much. Obama places second, but has a lot of work cut out for him here. Vilsack is not credible outside Iowa.

GOP numbers,:

Giuliani 31%
McCain 25%
Gingrich 22%
Romney 4%
Undecided 18%
(Less than one percent chose Thompson, Pataki, Hunter, Huckabee, Hagel, Gillmore, or Brownback)

Best state for Giuliani and Gingrich. Worst state for McCain and Romney.

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Presidential polling – Iowa

Research 2000, Iowa, 12/18-12/20, MoE +/-5%, 400 Democratic Caucus Voters:

Obama 22%
Edwards 22%
Vilsack 12%
Clinton 10%
Gore 7%
Kerry 5%
Clark 4%
Kucinich 4%
Bayh 1%
Richardson 1%
Biden 1%
Undecided 11%

ARG, Dec. 19-23, MoE +/-4%, 600 likely Democratic Caucus goers (528 Democrats, 72 no party)

Clinton 31%
Edwards 20%
Vilsack 17%
Obama 10%
Kucinich 5%
Dodd 2%
Kerry 2%
Biden 2%
Gravel 1%
Clark 1%
Richardson 1%
Undecided 8%

Can anyone make any sense of this? These polls were conducted around the same time. OK, side by side comparison time.

Candidates in R2K but not ARG poll:
Gore, Bayh (total 8%)

Candidates in ARG but not R2K:
Dodd, Gravel (total 3%)

Edwards avg: 21%
Clinton avg: 20.5%
Obama avg: 16%
Vilsack avg: 14%
Kucinich avg: 4.5%
Kerry avg: 3.5%
Clark avg: 2.5%
Biden avg: 1.5%
Richardson avg: 1%
Undecided avg: 9.5%

They say that averages are more meaningful than individual polls, but seriously, wtf? There’s a 21 point difference in Hillary’s numbers. The average is outside the MoE for both polls. There’s a 12 point difference in Obama’s numbers. Both are cases of 4th vs. 1st (or tied for 1st).

Oh, but the real cherry comes from R2K – Head to Head numbers!

Obama 42, McCain 39
Obama 43, Giuliani 38
Obama 43, Romney 28

Edwards 42, McCain 39
Edwards 42, Giuliani 38
Edwards 41, Romney 29

McCain 43, Clinton 37
Giuliani 39, Clinton 35
Clinton 40, Romney 30

Of course, the R2K poll seems rather unfavorable to Hillary, so maybe she could beat McCain and Giuliani in Iowa too. I have yet to see a poll demonstrating that, though.

On the GOP side, R2K has McCain by 1%, ARG has Giuliani by 2%.

Next Diary: Nevada (1 poll, ARG)

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

The Ten House Candidates Who Should Run Again

(I don’t agree with every name on this list, but this is a strong diary and good food for thought. – promoted by DavidNYC)

Now it is entirely possible that there are more than Ten  Democratic Challengers who ran this time who  would make ideal candidates against the same opponent in 2008.  It is important to remember that out of 30 Democratic pick ups, just four came in re-matches, and in challenger rematches the two most closely watched, PA 6 and CT 4 were rare loses in an otherwise near East coast sweep.  It is important to remember that simply being the nominee last time should not mean the nomination should be yours for the asking the next time. That said the sheer number of close calls means that some of these candidates deserve another look. It is that sprit I present the Ten who should run again, as well five honorable mentions candidates who should be viewed seriously if not automatically favorably if they declare.

1.  Larrry Kissell NC 8
  The fact that Larry Kissell has already committed to another run makes this choice relatively simple. Still when use lose by  around 4,00 votes against a long term incumbent with that large a spending gap something is happening.  Kissell was supposed to be a third tier nobody and now he is a clear netroots hero.  Congressman Robin Hayes will also find life more difficult with no one there who can tell him exactly how to vote.  The district is winnable by the numbers also. Larry Kissell for congress.

2.  Nancy Skinner MI 9
  This is probably the greatest under-target in the nation and for that very reason Nancy Skinner should be given another shot in this district should she want it.  One huge accomplishment of hers was to run through the considerable about of money Congressman Knollenberg had stored up over years and years. She ran a very good race and needs another chance.  It also be noted this race was missed almost completely by the mainstream blog’s that could have pushed it higher up. We might have missed a win here, as surely as the DCCC did.

3.  Charlie Brown CA 4
This is a somewhat no brainier as the cloud of doubt of Congressman Doolittle continues to grow. Charlie Brown was able  to run an extremely competitive race and He makes a great contrast to John Doolittle. I am excited for round 2

4.  Linda Stender NJ 7
  This was a very close race that and I believe Linda Stender to be the best possible candidate.  Mike Ferguson is the type of member who gets weaker in the minority.  Linda Stender could very well knock him off.

5.  Darcy Burner WA 8
  This race is extremely similar to the race just above. Relatively junior members just hold on and with a change in climate after the midterm, Congressman Reichert doesn’t have all his friends to get his back.  He seems more suitable for the transition than Mike Ferguson, but the district is more democratic. Darcy Burner proved herself as a candidate this cycle.

6.  Dan Seals IL 10
  This was a slight under target and the 53% for Mark Kirk shows that might well have been a mistake. Dan Seals ran a very good campaign with a positive results and there are already rumblings that Mark Kirk is going to try and move up or out.  Dan Seals should go right back to putting pressure on Congressman Kirk

7.  Tessa Hafen NV 3
  Probably one of the more heart-breaking loses in the country as Jon Porter won with only 47% of the Vote. Tessa Hafen got 46% if she  can just find a way to consolidate the Anti-Porter vote. I think she could very well. She certainly earned the right by taking a race others has given up on.

8.  Gary Truaner WY AL
  Barbara Cubin is one of the worst members of Congress by fire.  She ran under 50% last time and is generally not liked. This will potentially make her vulnerable to a Republican primary challenger who would then be more likely to win the general. Gary Truaner did run a great campaign but  Wyoming is just an  extremely difficult place to pull off.

9.  Larry Grant ID 1
  This is probably the greatest shame because it is hard to beat  a Republican incumbent in Idaho. No matter who it is. That Bill Sali won means he is going to be extremely difficult to beat now that he is a Congressman. Still Larry Grant’s tough fight in the state would be a great value too it.

10. Charles Dertinger PA 15
This is probably my most difficult call. Charlie Dent needs a really good challenger. Charles Dertinger did everything right, except he raised no money. He could very well be the next cycle’s Paul Hodes but he also might simply be someone who can’t raise money at all.  He would benefit from a primary challenger who will force him to raise some money, but he should probably be given another shot. No matter what happens this district needs to have a giant bulls-eye on it.

Honorable Mentions
Erica Massa NY 29, Dan Maffei NY 25 John Pavich IL 11  NC 5 Roger Sharpe  Mary Jo Kilroy OH 15
 

The Swing State Project, Take Two

Take a look up at the banner on top of this screen, that big green bar. See the name in the title there? Remember that? Well, believe it or not, this site once focused entirely on the presidential swing states. (It was only after the 2004 election that we branched out to other races.)

So, with the next presidential election a mere 677 days away – ie, sooner than your local Best Buy will have Nintendo’s Wii back in stock – I thought we might take a look at the swing states in play for 2008. Now, as you know, I’m a big believer in the fifty-state strategy, but as you also know, these things take time. As much as I’d like to believe we’ll see an expanded playing field in the next presidential race, I think we all realize that Howard Dean’s plan is the work of many years.

Therefore, I’d like to start with a similar approach to the one I took three years ago, one which served us well, I think. Back then, I considered as a swing state any state where the vote margin between both sides was ±10%. (Specifically, where the margin between (Gore + Nader) – (Bush + Buchanan) was ±10%.) This time, it’s a little simpler because there were no meaningful third-party candidates in 2004, so I’m just going to look at the Kerry – Bush vote.

In any event, this is the list I wound up with, using the numbers found on Dave Leip’s site:




























































































































































State EVs Bush Kerry Margin
California 55 44.36% 54.31% 9.95%
Maine 4 44.58% 53.57% 8.99%
Hawaii 4 45.26% 54.01% 8.75%
Delaware 3 45.75% 53.35% 7.60%
Washington 11 45.64% 52.82% 7.18%
New Jersey 15 46.24% 52.92% 6.68%
Oregon 7 47.19% 51.35% 4.16%
Minnesota 10 47.61% 51.09% 3.48%
Michigan 17 47.81% 51.23% 3.42%
Pennsylvania 21 48.42% 50.92% 2.50%
New Hampshire 4 48.87% 50.24% 1.37%
Wisconsin 10 49.32% 49.70% 0.38%
Iowa 7 49.90% 49.23% -0.67%
New Mexico 5 49.84% 49.05% -0.79%
Ohio 20 50.81% 48.71% -2.10%
Nevada 5 50.47% 47.88% -2.59%
Colorado 9 51.69% 47.02% -4.67%
Florida 27 52.10% 47.09% -5.01%
Missouri 11 53.30% 46.10% -7.20%
Virginia 13 53.68% 45.48% -8.20%
Arkansas 6 54.31% 44.55% -9.76%

Twenty-one states in total: twelve blue and nine red. Four states are new to this list (CA, DE, HI, NJ) and five states were dropped from the previous list (AZ, LA, NC, TN & WV – though NC was only included later, when Edwards was added to the ticket).

Obviously, quite a few of these seem pretty implausible candidates for switching – certainly anything from NJ to CA would be a huge shock. Perhaps less so with the bottom three red states on the list, given our recent electoral successes in each – but of course, presidential politics is a whole ‘nother ballgame, and we often do well in state and local races in red states while getting crushed on the national level.

So the playing field is, in all likelihood, quite a bit narrower than this list would imply. It’s also conceivable that some of the states which are no longer on the list could come into play (in particular, AZ). (By the way, the next closest blue states outside this list IL, CT and MD – if they flip, I’m crunching down on my netroots-issued cyanide capsule.)

Anyhow, which states do you think are most likely to flip – and why? And if your analysis hinges on a particular candidate (or type of candidate) getting nominated for pres or VP, please detail that as well.