Tag: 2010 Elections

Seven-term Representative Leonard Boswell is only the 64th most vulnerable Democrat in the House of Representatives, according to Crisitunity’s “vulnerability index,” but Iowa Republicans still like their chances against him. Five candidates have already entered the GOP primary, and two others I’ve never heard of were reportedly collecting signatures on nominating petitions at the off-year caucuses on January 23. The field may expand before the filing deadline in March.

A few recent developments in the Republican primary race are after the jump.

Former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons is way ahead in the money race, thanks to support from heavy-hitters like ethanol baron Bruce Rastetter as well as a number of political action committees. After announcing his candidacy in November, Gibbons raised $207,310, spent $2,240 and ended the year with $205,069 on hand and $2,686 in debts owed. In the fourth quarter, he raised more money than Boswell, who collected $169,377, spent $50,643 and had $462,193 cash on hand as of December 31. (Most of Boswell’s fourth-quarter fundraising came from political action committees.)

Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican blog has been promoting Gibbons’ candidacy for a while now, and he is ready to declare victory for Gibbons in the primary already, based on the fundraising numbers. However, Bleeding Heartland user mirage (a supporter of State Senator Brad Zaun) noted in the same thread, “About $51,000 of Gibbons funds will be restricted (meaning they can’t be used against Zaun in a primary), and about $130,000 came from outside the 3rd district.”

Speaking of Zaun, he raised $30,600 during the fourth quarter, spent $93 and ended 2009 with $30,507 on hand. Presumably he has raised more money since January 1, because he made a television ad buy last week. It’s generic Republican fare with low production values:

Zaun was the first up on television, but as Robinson noted triumphantly, “Even if [Dave] Funk or Zaun raised $1000 everyday between now and the primary, they still wouldn’t match what Gibbons currently has in his campaign account.”

Funk, the IA-03 candidate favored by the Tea Party crowd, raised $22,685 in the fourth quarter, spent $19,553 and ended the year with $16,507 on hand. According to mirage, much of Funk’s remaining money is restricted for use after the primary. I don’t think he’ll be needing that.

Mark Rees, who is running as a more moderate Republican, raised $3,100 and loaned his own campaign $52,647. He spent $3,247 and ended the year with $52,500 and $52,647 in debts owed to himself. I don’t know how much of a moderate GOP base is left in the Des Moines suburbs, but if conservatives divide their support among three or four candidates, Rees could slip through.

Yesterday we learned about an internal poll of the GOP race, conducted by Victory Enterprises, campaign consultants for Zaun. I posted the whole polling memo from Victory Enterprises at Bleeding Heartland. The poll was conducted on January 27 and 28 and surveyed 400 Republicans in Iowa’s third Congressional district who are likely to vote in the June primary.

The poll shows 60 percent of respondents were undecided about whom to support in the primary. Zaun had 26 percent support, compared to 5 percent for Gibbons, 3.6 percent for Funk, 2.1 percent for Pat Bertroche and 1 percent for Rees. In Polk County, the population center of the district, 37.5 percent of respondents supported Zaun. His family has owned hardware stores in the Des Moines area, and he is a former mayor of Urbandale, a large suburb. His state senate district includes Urbandale and part of Des Moines.

About half the respondents hadn’t heard of Zaun. (This poll was in the field before his tv ad went up on January 29.) I was more surprised to see that 67.8 percent of respondents said they had never heard of Gibbons. His supporters have promoted him as almost a celebrity candidate, because he was the last person to lead Iowa State to a national championship in wrestling.

Several of the candidates will gain more name recognition in the coming months as they begin to advertise and hold campaign events around the districts. Gibbons clearly will have the resources for an extensive paid media campaign. National Republicans seem to have picked Gibbons already, which is one reason he’s pulled in so much out of state PAC money.

Robinson brings you the pro-Gibbons spin on Zaun’s internal poll at The Iowa Republican blog:

Zaun’s early activity is similar to that of another former Victory Enterprises client, 2008 2nd Congressional District candidate Peter Teahen. In May of 2008, Victory Enterprises polled the 2nd Congressional District. Teahen, the better known candidate from the largest county in the district, had a big lead in the poll.

In VE’s 2008 poll showed Peter Teahen with 36% of the vote, while Miller-Meeks had 14 percent, and Lee Harder netted 7.5 percent. Forty-one percent of likely GOP primary voters were undecided. Despite the Teahen’s early lead, Miller-Meeks won the primary by 218 votes.

The difference between the 2008 2nd District race and this year’s 3rd District primary is that Gibbons has created a huge fundraising advantage over his opponents. Thus far, Gibbons has not run any ads, sent mail, or paid for phone calls.

The money race between Teahen and Miller-Meeks in the primary was tight. While Miller-Meeks outraised her opponent, Teahen had the ability to loan his campaign a considerable amount of money. Gibbons has already raised more money in his first fundraising quarter than Miller-Meeks and Teahen spent combined in the 2nd District primary.

I agree with Robinson that this race is up for grabs with so many Republicans undecided and most of the candidates lacking name recognition. I also think Boswell will be re-elected, despite the Republican wave that may be coming. None of the GOP candidates seem impressive, and the eventual nominee will have little cash left after the primary.

Cross posted at Daily Kos

Ohio Daily Blog and the Cleveland Plain Dealer are reporting that Lt. Governor Lee Fisher has fired his campaign manager, Geri Prado, and replaced her with Jay Howser, who had worked on the campaigns of Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D?-LA).  

The reason for the Fisher fizzle is no mystery.  Despite raising massive amounts of money and endorsements, Fisher has not caught fire with the electorate, especially the Democratic primary electorate.  With more than one poll showing Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, despite being at an enormous fundraising disadvantage, polling better in the general election against former Bush official Rob Portman, Fisher has seen his poll numbers slide slowly over time as people nationally began to realize that Jennifer Brunner’s grassroots campaign might prevail in the primary.

Fisher has also received numerous critical stories in the Washington Post over what it called a less than impressive campaign and his tapping dry his donor base has lead to a leveling off of his fundraising, the Fisher campaign is struggling to project the inevitable frontrunner status it declared in the fall.

Send a message to the DSCC, who threatened Brunner over her campaign, by donating to elect an authentic and genuine progressive to the cause.  Send a message that a Mary Landrieu-type candidate isn’t what’s needed in Ohio or the U.S. Senate.  Sign up to help Brunner with her grassroots phonebank!

Together we can win this race!

Roxanne Conlin’s campaign for U.S. Senate released partial fundraising numbers yesterday, and they are impressive:

Total cash raised (Nov. 2 – Dec. 31):

$603,575.44

Cash on hand:

$502,832.84

Total individual donors:  1,649 (1,395 Iowans/85% Iowans)

Online supporters signed up:  Over 31,000

Donations $100 and under: 1,332

Donations $250 and under: 1,433

All of Conlin’s campaign contributions came from individual supporters, because she has pledged not to accept contributions from federal lobbyists or PACs. (I wouldn’t have advised her to take that stance, because there are PACs and lobbyists fighting for good things as well as those working against the public interest.) In any event, she has shown that she can raise enough money to staff and run a statewide campaign. Conlin is about a third of the way through a 99-county tour she began earlier this month.

I haven’t seen year-end fundraising numbers from Senator Chuck Grassley yet. At the end of the third quarter of 2009, he had more than $4.4 million cash on hand, so clearly he will still be way ahead in the money race. During the third quarter, when Grassley played a high-profile role in health care reform negotiations, he raised $864,622 total, of which $364,295 came from political action committees.

In other words, Conlin raised more from individual donors in two months than Grassley raised from individuals during the third quarter. That’s a strong pace, and it suggests a lot of Iowans are motivated to take the fight to Grassley. Conlin has already raised nearly five times as much as Democrat Art Small spent during his entire 2004 campaign against Iowa’s senior senator.

I don’t have new fundraising numbers from the other Democrats running against Grassley. Bob Krause raised $7,430 during the third quarter, ending with $3,493 on hand. Tom Fiegen raised $3,781 during the third quarter, ending with $519 on hand. I like many of the statements I’ve heard from Krause and Fiegen, but they have yet to show that they will be able to run a statewide campaign, and therefore appear to be extreme underdogs leading up to the Democratic primary in June. Neither Krause nor Fiegen seems likely to drop out of this race, however. On the contrary, Fiegen called on Conlin to quit the race last month, saying Republican attacks on her would divert attention from Grassley and the “needs of working families.” Yesterday Krause criticized one of Conlin’s tax credit proposals.

Grassley will be very tough to beat. His approval rating has fallen but is still above 50 percent, and he has set a goal of raising $9 million for this race. Even if Democrats don’t manage to defeat Grassley, giving him a spirited challenge is well worth the effort. Driving up turnout among Democrats whom Grassley has alienated can only help our candidates down-ticket.

UPDATE: Rasmussen conducted a one-day poll of this race on January 26. Grassley leads Conlin 59 to 31, Krause 59 to 26 and Fiegen 61 to 25 (margin of error 4.5 percent).

The National Republican Congressional Committee has been trying to get 14-term incumbent Rick Boucher (D, VA-09) to retire, but he disappointed them today:

“I am planning to seek reelection. I have given no consideration to retiring,” Boucher said in a statement Wednesday. “While I never make political announcements this early in the year, due to the press inquires we are receiving, it is time to remove any doubt anyone has about my intentions.”

Holding this R+11 district would be a challenge if the seat opened up, but most election forecasters don’t expect Boucher to have any trouble.

If Republicans do recruit a prominent challenger to run in this district, Boucher’s vote for the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act last June will probably become a major issue in the campaign. Coal interests are big employers in Boucher’s district. He backed the climate change bill after securing amendments to make sure that coal usage would continue to grow between now and 2020 even if the bill became law.

Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) has introduced a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case. (Read the ruling and many reactions and commentaries at the SCOTUS blog.)

Boswell is looking for co-sponsors and explained the case for amending the constitution:

“I have introduced this important legislation because the Supreme Court’s ruling strikes at the very core of democracy in the United States by inflating the speech rights of large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans,” Boswell said in a statement. “The court’s elevation of corporate speech inevitably overpowers the speech and interests of human citizens who do not have the coffers to speak as loudly.”

Boswell said House Joint Resolution 68 would disallow a corporation or labor organization from using any operating funds or any other funds from its general treasury to pay for an advertisement in connection with a federal election campaign, regardless of whether or not the advertisement expressly advocates the election or defeat of a specified candidate.

“Corporations already have an active role in American political discourse through million-dollar political action committees and personal donations to campaigns,” Boswell said. “The legislation I introduced will prevent the Wall Street corporations that received billions in taxpayer bailout dollars from turning around and pouring that same money into candidates that will prevent financial regulation on their industry. No American should have to turn on the TV and see AIG telling them how to vote.”

Five Republicans are running against seven-term incumbent Boswell in this D+1 district. Most Iowa observers consider Brad Zaun and Jim Gibbons the front-runners. Dave Funk has the backing of the Tea Party crowd, and I love his tweets that begin, “Congress needs Funk.” Mark Rees is staking out a moderate position, and I have no idea what Pat Bertroche is doing in this race.

Yesterday Republican front-runner Terry Branstad’s campaign released some information about its fundraising during the last three months of 2009. As I’d feared, they reported big numbers: nearly $1.55 million raised, with $1.36 million cash on hand left at the end of 2009. You can make a lot of contacts in four terms as governor, and Branstad’s campaign had 3,044 individual contributors, representing all of Iowa’s 99 counties. The campaign also noted that 94 percent of the money raised came from Iowans, and 96 percent came from individuals.

Governor Chet Culver’s campaign responded by announcing that it has $2.59 million on hand:

That total is over $1 million more than any incumbent governor has had at a similar point in their reelection cycle. […]

Over the past 12 months, the campaign received contributions from well over 1,000 donors, 85% of which are Iowa residents.  Additionally, more than half the contributions made to the campaign were for $250 or less.

Culver campaign manager Abby Curran told me that the total amount raised during 2009 was $2.145 million. She declined to tell me how much the campaign spent during the year, but it’s not hard to arrive at a ballpark figure. Last January, Culver’s campaign reported having about $1.5 million on hand. Adding $2.145 million to that and subtracting the $2.59 million the campaign has on hand now suggests that the governor’s campaign spent a little more than $1 million during the past year.

I’ve been concerned about the Culver campaign’s burn rate for a while. It appears that as in 2008, the campaign spent roughly half of what it took in during 2009. Presumably a lot of that money went toward running this statewide television ad in October and this one in November. I liked the ads, especially the second one, and I understand why they wanted to spread a positive message when the governor was going through a rough political stretch. But Culver and Jim Nussle raised about $15 million combined during the 2006 campaign, and this year’s race will be more expensive. The Democratic and Republican governors’ associations are likely to spend substantial money here (both organizations have a lot of money in the bank). Even so, Culver needs to raise a lot more money.

Another point of concern is that Branstad has more individual donors. If half of Culver’s donations were for $250 or less, then the overwhelming majority of his money came from donors giving several thousand dollars. Iowa has no campaign contribution limits, so there’s no reason these people couldn’t give again, but Culver has a smaller pool of past donors to tap. In my opinion this reflects the governor’s failure to build strong coalitions and deliver on various issues of importance to Democratic activists who supported Ed Fallon or Mike Blouin in the 2006 primary. The friction between him and organized labor hasn’t helped either.

The good news for Culver is that he can continue to build his war chest while Branstad is forced to spend a lot of money during the Republican primary.

Speaking of which, the other Republican candidates for governor haven’t released their fundraising numbers yet. They must file reports with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board by January 19, so we’ll know more next week. I assume State Representatives Chris Rants and Rod Roberts will have very little cash on hand, and Bob Vander Plaats won’t have nearly as much as Branstad reported. But Vander Plaats should be able to announce a credible number. At this point in the 2006 election cycle he had raised nearly a million dollars. Thanks to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, Vander Plaats received much more publicity among social conservatives nationwide last year than he had in 2005.

Any thoughts about the Iowa governor’s race are welcome in this thread.

I’ve been assuming for the past few months that there’s no way Bob Vander Plaats can defeat Terry Branstad in this year’s Republican gubernatorial primary. Branstad’s statewide connections from his four terms as governor and his support from major donors should give him an insurmountable edge, especially in the eastern Iowa counties. While Vander Plaats would have a great shot at winning a caucus or a statewide convention, I didn’t see any way he could keep Branstad below 50 percent in the primary, especially with Branstad likely to raise far more money.

I’ve started to rethink my assumptions as conservative Republicans have spoken out against Branstad.

Everyone knew the Iowa Family Policy Center’s political action committee would endorse Vander Plaats at some point, but their statement yesterday went far beyond expressing a preference for Vander Plaats. The IFPC made clear that they will not support Branstad in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination.

Follow me after the jump for more on the IFPC’s endorsement and how Vander Plaats could win the primary.

You can read the IFPC’s press release here and watch videos from yesterday’s rally outside the capitol against same-sex marriage rights. The group judged the candidates on the following criteria:

The Iowa Family PAC’s evaluation of the candidates was designed to seek out and promote a statesman and public servant who would commit to uphold the Biblical principle of individual responsibility, who recognizes family as the foundational unit for a stable social structure, who will boldly defend the sanctity of human life and of marriage, commit to limiting the size and cost of civil government, promote high quality education under the authority of parents, encourage an ethical free enterprise system, defend the Constitutional separation of powers, and like our Founding Fathers be guided by the absolute moral truth that comes from a regular reading of the Bible. We believe that Bob Vander Plaats is the candidate who best meets those requirements. We are especially pleased with his pledge to stand up to the Iowa Supreme Court and stay their effort to unconstitutionally legislate same sex “marriage,” until the Iowa Legislature and the people of Iowa act on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

They like Representative Rod Roberts but consider him “to have more of a legislator’s temperament than that of an executive.” The IFPC PAC also sounds concerned that Democrats could win Roberts’ Iowa House district in the Carroll area; they want Roberts to run for re-election there “for the greater good of the State.”

They like the way State Representative Chris Rants pushed for an Iowa House floor vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage last year, and they praised his “spirit and enthusiasm,” but they withheld their endorsement because of “his lengthy legislative record, his history in House leadership, and his past willingness to pursue questionable political pragmatism.”

The IFPC saved its harshest words for Branstad:

With a 16 year record as Iowa’s Governor, much is known about who he is and how he would govern. For instance, Iowa faced financial challenges similar to today’s when Branstad first became Governor. His answers to those problems included growing government, raising taxes, legalizing gambling, and keeping what State Auditor Dick Johnson referred to as “two sets of books.” He did demonstrate pro-family support at times, like helping to de-criminalize home schooling, fighting rampant “no-fault” divorce, and helping produce pro-marriage public service announcements. Still, significant portions of his record cause Christians serious concern, such as approving immoral “Human Growth & Development” sex education (which is used by Planned Parenthood and others to promote abortion and homosexuality), allowing homosexual advances in his Dept. of Human Services, appointing pro-homosexual Supreme Court Justices who unconstitutionally try to legislate from the bench, and opening Iowa to the ravages of gambling.

Branstad also brings with him a loyalty to long term political partners that seems to trump his loyalty to Biblical principles and the people of Iowa. He continues to refuse to publicly distance himself from his former Lt. Governor Joy Corning, even when she blatantly promotes and defends abortion on demand, state sanctioned sodomy, and the evil that has been loosed on the state as a result. When his former Chief of Staff, Doug Gross, chastised those of us who desire to see Biblical principles promoted in politics and public policy, Terry Branstad was silent. He needs to understand that Christians are tired of being poked in the eye by political elites and then being told to “go along and get along.” He appears to lack an understanding of the deeply important principles that current policies threaten, or at the very least seems to lack the fervor necessary to address them.

Traditionally, most issue driven special interest groups wait until after the primary to engage in an election. Pragmatists will argue that should Branstad win the primary, he will be better than the current Governor, and that we ought to position our organization to support anyone but Culver. As a Christian organization we will always be ready to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that God can change anyone. However, should Branstad become the Republican nominee, apart from clear evidence of a fundamental transformation, the Iowa Family PAC will not endorse either Terry Branstad or Chet Culver in the general election.

Last week State Representative Kent Sorenson endorsed Vander Plaats and vowed never to vote for Branstad, but he is relatively new in Iowa politics. Sorenson was first elected to the Iowa House in 2008, and as he likes to remind audiences, he got virtually no help from the Republican Party in that race. He has struck an outsider’s tone before, writing this open letter to Senator Chuck Grassley last summer.

In contrast, the Iowa Family Policy Center’s chairman, Danny Carroll, has long been a Republican insider. He was first elected to the Iowa House in 1994 (while Branstad was governor) and represented district 75 until he lost in the 2006 election. After failing to win back his seat in 2008, Carroll fell just two votes short of being elected chairman of the Iowa GOP in January 2009. At yesterday’s rally, Carroll said, “Now is the time to put principle, biblical principle, before political parties […] I’ve been a part of that Republican machine for too many years, and where [has it] gotten us?”

When someone of Carroll’s stature comes out so strongly against Branstad, it makes me wonder how many other Republicans harbor similar feelings. The IFPC has worked closely with the Republican establishment, most recently during last summer’s special election in Iowa House district 90.

More important, the IFPC can put a lot of boots on the ground for Vander Plaats in the Republican primary. In the early weeks following the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien, the IFPC circulated petitions around the state urging county recorders not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They didn’t persuade any county recorders to defy the court ruling, but one can only imagine what a list-building bonanza that petition drive was for the IFPC.

Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan called yesterday’s endorsement “huge” for Vander Plaats:

“Branstad’s fatal miscalculation is in underestimating the Vander Plaats campaign. Bob Vander Plaats is the former Huckabee for President campaign chair, and he knows how to organize in their communities, at churches, and even at Tea Parties, like the one he’s going to tonight.

“The social conservative movement in Iowa that vaulted Huckabee to the top in the 2008 Iowa caucuses is poised to do the same for Vander Plaats.  Regardless of what the campaign finance reports show next week, it is clear that the grassroots momentum that surprised the nation during the caucuses is on the side of the Vander Plaats campaign and can spur on a legitimate third party candidate.”

Speaking of the Huckabee campaign, Vander Plaats has hired the highly-regarded Eric Woolson as his campaign manager. Woolson was Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager in 2007 and 2008. He also ran Doug Gross’s gubernatorial campaign in 2002, when Gross narrowly defeated Vander Plaats and a state legislator in the GOP primary. Woolson helped Mariannette Miller-Meeks win a three-way GOP primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district in 2008.

Woolson is a very smart guy with lots of statewide connections. That will help Vander Plaats build on his network of support from his prior runs for office. Both Branstad and Vander Plaats have been endorsed by many Republican activists at the county level, as well as a few members of the State Central Committee.

In the coming months I expect to hear more from Vander Plaats campaign co-chair Richard Johnson. Johnson was the state auditor during most of Branstad’s tenure as governor. In the 1994 GOP gubernatorial primary, he endorsed Congressman Fred Grandy against Branstad because of the three-term incumbent’s record of fiscal mismanagement.

Going into this year’s primary, Branstad had two trump cards: he will raise far more money than any other Republican, and he could claim to be the party’s best chance to defeat Governor Chet Culver. Next week we’ll find out how far Branstad has outpaced Vander Plaats in terms of fundraising. I expect Vander Plaats to be way behind but to have raised enough to run a credible statewide primary campaign. He should get some out-of-state money thanks to supporters like David Barton, Chuck Norris and Focus on the Family.

Governor Culver’s recent slide in the polls has severely undermined Branstad’s electability argument. Rasmussen and the Des Moines Register have released public polls showing Vander Plaats with a lead on Culver (albeit a smaller lead than Branstad). Republicans are rumored to have an internal poll showing both Vander Plaats and Branstad way ahead of Culver.

The Des Moines Register is likely to release at least two more Iowa polls before the June primary. If Culver is still underwater, Vander Plaats may be able to persuade a critical mass of GOP primary voters that they shouldn’t settle for Branstad when a more conservative option is available.

I haven’t seen any polls of the Republican primary since Branstad joined the race. Branstad recently robocalled Democrats to ID supporters willing to cross over for the primary, which makes me wonder what their internals show about his matchup with Vander Plaats.

I still consider Branstad the prohibitive favorite in the GOP primary. He will outspend the competition and should be able to roll up big margins in the populous eastern Iowa counties. However, the Vander Plaats campaign has a lot of resources at their disposal. With groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center out there making the case against Branstad this spring, it will be hard for Republicans to present a united front if Branstad is the nominee.

Final note: despite the recent poll findings, I’m not the least bit concerned that Vander Plaats might defeat Culver in the general election. I believe he would get crushed in Polk County and almost everywhere east of I-35.

Any comments about the Iowa governor’s race are welcome in this thread.

Governor Chet Culver’s re-election campaign announced yesterday that Abby Curran has been hired as campaign manager. She replaces Andrew Roos, who departed in November.

Curran first worked in Iowa in 2003 and 2004, as a field organizer for Dick Gephardt in the Dubuque area. In 2006, she managed Baron Hill’s successful campaign in Indiana’s Republican-leaning ninth Congressional district. In 2007, she was deputy field director for John Edwards’ Iowa caucus campaign. In 2008, she managed the campaign of Linda Stender, who fell short in New Jersey’s Republican-leaning seventh Congressional district.

Jesse Harris remains deputy manager for the Culver-Judge campaign, and the Des Moines Register reported some other encouraging news: “Culver retains as his general campaign consultant Teresa Vilmain, a Cedar Falls native and veteran Democratic organizer whose Iowa experience dates back 30 years.”  

Meanwhile, the Iowa Democratic Party launched a new web video yesterday on the coming “showdown” of Terry vs. Terry:

Former Governor Branstad’s record doesn’t square with his campaign rhetoric in many respects. So far he has either glossed over the discrepancies or claimed to have learned from his mistakes. Republican primary voters may accept that explanation, but Branstad’s accountability problem is sure to be an issue this fall if he wins the GOP nomination.

Earlier this week, a Republican state representative and supporter of Bob Vander Plaats for governor vowed never to vote for Branstad under any circumstances.

A whopping eight months since my last Senate roundup, I figured it was high time to survey the landscape again. Overall, things have gotten significantly better for the Republicans in the last year, though not nearly as overwhelmingly so as the drama-prone national media might have you believe.

A continued Democratic majority in the Senate is all but assured after November (and is still quite likely in the House as well). The probable range, IMO, is a Democratic caucus in the 112th Senate of between 54 seats at the low end and 58 seats at the high end.

Read a race-by-race analysis (with pretty maps) below the fold…

This is the playing field in 2010: Democratic open seats in North Dakota, Connecticut, and Delaware; Republican open seats in Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Kansas. And here is my (early) results projection:

I am fairly certain of Republican pickups in North Dakota, Arkansas, and Nevada at this time, while the true tossup races for now are in Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Delaware, and New Hampshire. The Democrats remain very slight favorites to hold Illinois and Pennsylvania, and the Republicans retain edges in Florida, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

As always, seats are ranked by likelihood of flipping:

1. North Dakota (open) – Byron Dorgan (D) retiring after 3 terms

Outlook: Very Likely Republican pickup

Dorgan’s retirement is indeed a huge blow to the Democrats, though perhaps canceled out by Dodd’s bowing out in Connecticut. Gov. John Hoeven (R) is in and will almost certainly be the junior Senator from North Dakota.

2. Arkansas – Blanche Lincoln (D) seeking third term

Outlook: Likely Republican pickup

Lincoln’s numbers are getting uglier against all opponents (the best she does is an eight-point deficit) and show no signs of recovering. Barring an eleventh-hour miracle, her Senate career is over, it seems.

3. Nevada – Harry Reid (D) seeking fifth term

Outlook: Leans Republican pickup

Reid has such a fundraising advantage and some time left to up his approval ratings, but few longtime incumbents recover from these dismal numbers. Many Democrats are probably quietly hoping that Reid “pulls a Dodd” in the next few months.

4. Colorado – Michael Bennet (D) seeking full term

Outlook: Tossup

Bennet faces a tough challenge in the Democratic primary from former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, and neither candidate seems secure against ex-Lt. Gov. Jane Norton or any of the other Republican prospects. The Democrats definitely have a good chance to hold this seat, with neither candidate carrying much prior baggage, but I sense that this race will go however the national climate goes, and at this moment, that means it will go to the GOP.

5. Delaware (open) – Ted Kaufman (D) retiring after partial term

Outlook: Tossup

I know that most polls have shown longtime Rep. Mike Castle (R) leading state Attorney General Beau Biden (D), but I for one am fairly convinced this race will tighten and the trends go Biden’s way once he declares and the state’s Democrats start “coming home.” Interestingly, Castle will be 71 years old on election day, to Biden’s 41, so there will likely be a noticeable contrast in tone and style between these two highly familiar candidates.

6. Missouri (open) – Kit Bond (R) retiring after four terms

Outlook: Tossup

Polls here have been close but consistent, with Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) barely ahead of Rep. Roy Blunt (R), always within the margin of error. Still, considering the GOP-friendly trends elsewhere during the last several months, this seems a promising sign for the Show Me State Democrats. For now, this is the Dems’ best opportunity for a pickup.

6. Ohio (open) – George Voinovich (R) retiring after two terms

Outlook: Tossup / Leans Republican hold

Even with nationwide Republican advances of late, former Rep. Rob Portman (R) has never built a convincing lead against either Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) or Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D). Fisher is favored to win the primary, and at the point I expect the race to become a tossup. If the election were today, Portman would win.

7. New Hampshire (open) – Judd Gregg (R) retiring after three terms

Outlook: Tossup / Leans Republican hold

Former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) has a slight lead over Rep. Paul Hodes (D) — grain-of-salt-worthy pollster ARG has her ahead 43-36, hardly a game-ending advantage. Like Ohio, Hodes should close the gap over the spring and summer, and if he doesn’t, we should be worried.

8. Pennsylvania – Arlen Specter (D) seeking sixth term

Outlook: Leans Democratic hold

Specter is in for a close fight (if he makes it to the general election) against former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), the hardline conservative who nearly unseated him in the GOP primary back in 2004. In the meantime, Rep. Joe Sestak is giving Specter reason to watch his left flank. But Specter has been careful to compile a fairly progressive record since switching parties last spring, and my own prediction is that this gives him a clear edge for the nomination. At that point, disaffected Democrats and moderate-minded Independents will gradually line up behind the incumbent in big enough numbers to carry him to victory over Toomey, especially if the winds shift back to the Dems over the summer.

9. Illinois (open) – Roland Burris (D) retiring after partial term

Outlook: Leans Democratic hold

The polls have been unclear about who has the advantage in a race between Republican Rep. Mark Kirk and Democratic state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, while (due to name recognition) Kirk polls well ahead of lesser-known Dems David Hoffman and Cheryle Jackson. Considering the state’s recent history, it’s hard to imagine Kirk winning on any but an exceptionally fortunate night for the GOP.

10. Florida (open) – George LeMieux (R) retiring after partial term

Outlook: Leans Republican hold

Gov. Charlie Crist has long been the favorite for this seat in a general election, as his cross-partisan popularity remains high, but his biggest problem will be winning the GOP primary against conservative former state House Speaker Marco Rubio. If Rubio beats Crist, as many now expect (though his momentum could always stall), expect a competitive and expensive race between Rubio and Rep. Kendrick Meek (D).

11. North Carolina – Richard Burr (R) seeking second term

Outlook: Leans Republican hold

I’ve been surprised by the sporadic polling in this race. Burr faces a reputable challenger in Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D), even if this is a Southern state in a GOP-leaning election cycle. Burr is far from universally popular or even universally recognized, but for now the DSCC clearly has to prioritize defense.

12. Kentucky (open) – Jim Bunning (R) retiring after 2 terms

Outlook: Leans Republican hold

The Democratic primary between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and state Attorney General Jack Conway has been nasty, while “small government conservative” Rand Paul has by several accounts taken the upper hand in the GOP primary against Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the establishment choice. Considering Kentucky’s traditional balance of social conservatism with economic liberalism, Paul would seem an unorthodox general election choice, but polls show he would do well against the Democrats. Definitely a primary to watch, even if either Republican is clearly favored in November.

Just below competitive:

– California for the Democrats (Boxer clearly ahead of Carly Fiorina, but not quite out of the woods)

– Gillibrand (New York B) for the Democrats (against anyone but Rep. Peter King, who might keep the race competitive, Gillibrand should win easily, assuming she wins the primary)

– Louisiana for the Republicans (Vitter leads Rep. Charlie Melancon, but his personal issues make it hard for me to rate him as “safe”)

The Democrats should be fine in Connecticut (Blumenthal trouncing Simmons/McMahon/Schiff), as should the Republicans in Kansas (either Tiahrt or Moran). Meanwhile, Republican incumbents seem solid (in the general election, at least) in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. Democratic incumbents should win without trouble in Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

I don’t know why Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post keeps suggesting that Representative Leonard Boswell is a retirement risk for Democrats. True, Republicans have been trying to pressure him to call it quits, but I haven’t heard any Democrat around here express concerns about it.

According to Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson, Boswell told a “small group of reporters” on Monday, “I’m running.”

Five Republicans have already announced plans to run in Iowa’s third Congressional district, and three of them have started hiring campaign staff.

It seems we’ll get a mini-test of the “tea party” phenomenon in the IA-03 Republican primary. Two contenders have significant backing in the Republican establishment: various elected officials are supporting State Senator Brad Zaun, while a bunch of major donors are supporting Jim Gibbons.

Long-shot candidate Dave Funk was the first Republican to step up against Boswell, and he just hired Iowa Tea Party Chairman Ryan Rhodes as his political director. I assume that Funk will not be able to raise enough money to compete with Zaun and Gibbons, and that there aren’t several thousand central Iowa teabaggers for him to pull out of his hat.

Whoever wins the June primary, the GOP will need something better than the tired rhetoric they’ve thrown at Boswell lately to win this D+1 district.