It was an earthmoving election night.
“No one could have imagined the tsunami that just crashed on Republicans in Mississippi,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an interview after the victory. “There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates.”
House Democrats now hold a 236 to 199 majority, up from 203 seats they controlled two years ago.
Van Hollen exaggerates. We saw a safe Republican seat in Louisiana’s First District two weeks ago, where the Democrat was held under thirty percent of the vote. There are probably about 100 such safe Republican seats. But there are at least 70 Republican-held seats that should now be considered vulnerable because they have decently funded Democratic challengers and less of an historical Republican lean than Mississippi’s First District. For perspective, every Republican-held seat in Michigan has a PVI rating lower than MS-01’s rating of plus-ten. Can you imagine a Michigan with no Republican House members? Neither can I. And it won’t happen because the Democrats have not fielded well funded candidates in every GOP district in Michigan. But it could come close to happening. There isn’t a district in Illinois with a PVI rating higher than R+8. There isn’t a district in Minnesota with a PVI rating higher than R+6.
When Van Hollen says there are no safe Republican seats he is not off by that much. Even in Indiana, where the Republican districts have enormous PVI ratings, the Democrats are running strong challengers that have a real chance to pick up at least two seats.
I’ll have to do a thorough analysis to come up with a comprehensive list of vulnerable House seats. What I’ll do is look at fundraising and PVI to find viable Democratic challengers in districts that have a PVI of R+10 or less. Then I’ll have to throw in a few wildcards for extremely well-funded Democrats running in even more historically Republican districts. I think the number will probably come out to about 70-80 seats. How many will the Democrats win? My guess is at least half. So, my preliminary analysis is that the Dems are poised to pick up 35-40 seats.
Most of those seats are going to be in the Mid-Atlantic, Upper Midwest, and California. Despite the two recent gains in the Deep South, I do not think the Dems will pick up more than three or four more seats from the region (excluding Florida, where there could be a rout). I do think that it is quite likely that Ronnie Musgrove will win Trent Lott’s old senate seat. And Saxby Chambliss, Lamar Alexander, and, especially, Liddy Dole, should be getting a little bit nervous.
The realignment is coming, and it is coming in force. After it is over, the Republicans will be mostly a southern party. Meanwhile, the Democrats will be a ruling majority party that is quite a bit more ideologically diverse (conservative), but also very much reality-based.
Politically, every day is getting better and better as a democratic sun starts to rise flooding the land with light and joy.
But, and it is a big but, what might that blithering idiot in the white house do facing a situation where the democrats have extra large majorities in the house and senate?
Might there be another 9/11 in the making and a declaration of martial law to handle the new threat? Plus, perhaps, a suspension of the November elections to cope with this new thrust by the terrorists. Maybe, a nuclear attack upon Iran, who as everyone knows, endangers the American position in Iraq.
What a condition I have, The happier I get, the more nervous I become. It’s like the new American angst.
Be a good republican. Hurt somebody.
Calling Begala, how’s that “asshole from Vermont”‘s strategy looking now?
Good post Boo.
I much prefer these political posts than the Clinton/Obama ones.
You say Florida could be a rout. Doesn’t that mean it could be a rout for the Pres. election? Is it in the ‘maybe’ column?
One fact I always amazes me is that the Republicans never had more than 232 seats in the house, and all you heard is ‘never ending majority’ from them and the media. Yet right now the Dems have more than that and look to pick up 30 and what do you hear? Nothing.
nalbar
Florida is a good state for McCain, but on a congressional district level, the Republican seats are mostly competitive, which is bad news for the GOP.
Add this factor: in my mail box came this video from the Democratic Party standard bearer – Barack Obama.
Vote for Change: National Kick-Off May 10,2008. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius – she’s been very active. Wouldn’t surprise to see her in the VP spot.
This brilliant drive plus Obama’s mostly < $200 donor base list is gonna be giving McCain fits. Also, I’m actually warming up to Sebelius pretty quickly. I think she — along with Richardson, Webb and a few others — are going to be looked at very closely. It just depends on what the Obama thinks he needs in a runnig mate and who can best deliver it. Still don’t like Strickland, though… but that’s a whole ‘nother thread.
Richardson is said to have a lot of personal baggage that may prove embarrassing.
Yeah, I’ve heard that, too. And that’s a damned shame. I’d love to see him run as VP. Oh well–I’ll can accept Secy of State.
I’ve wondered whether, a few years or a decade down the road, the Dems might split along progressive/non-progressive lines and the Republican rump would either atrophy away into something like the current Libertarian party or be absorbed into the non-progressive dems.
In other words, if these huge gains come to pass and last for a while (e.g. 8 years of Obama in office), how coherent will the dems be at that point, and how viable will the republicans be?
the Republicans should make a comeback starting in 2010, although their ability to win back the Senate in 2010 is not there, a lot of House seats should flip back.
Call the office of a Republican representative or senator, if you have one as your representative, and they are running for re-election in Nov.
Say, “We are coming for you in November.”
We need a little panic in the Republicans. We need to get them thinking “How do I save MYSELF?”
Let’s stir the pot. Let’s get a campaign going to create fear and concern in the offices of Republicans, especially those in districts that went for Kerry or Gore.
The Morning After: Needed to clinch – 135.5 total delegates includes 25 pledged delegates for a majority.
AP
Clinton’s W.Va. victory does little to slow Obama
Obama gets more Super delegates and three former SEC chairmen endorsing:
Michigan? In 2006 the Democrats supported John McCain’s MI campaing manager (from the 2000 election) rather than fielding/supporting a candidate in the 7th CD. They also abbandoned two other seats they had good chances of winning – Rodgers and Mccotter’s. Just look at the primary fiasco and you’ll see what their chances are. If you’re running in MI bring you own money.
“There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates.”
As I said last night, 275 Dems in the House in the next Congress.
If things get worse for the GOP (and I believe they will) then it could be 300.
That may be true this cycle. But Obama is building a financial infrastructure that is independent of the Democratic Party. If he gains the White House (even if he does not), this structure will be a money raiser for YEARS to those who show him loyalty.
While there are downsides to this (who wants such a thing under the control of one person) it means that in the future candidates have more than one source for campaign money.
IMO (for what that is worth) this is the single most important indicator that Obama is more progressive than he shows. Much of the change needed in this country (health care reform is the prime example) simply cannot be accomplished inside the ‘normal’ campaign financing scheme. But a future might hold an answer to the ‘I can’t vote for that because my money might dry up’ statement. Obama might be able to provide an outside source.
nalbar
This was in response to Fred and his Michigan comment. I hit the wrong button.
nalbar
The South is showing surprising progress in certain pockets, but the real gains are going to be made elsewhere, as you say. My personal interest is more in the Senate races; the House is too volatile. I can’t stand Musgrove, but it’s about 60+ D’s in the Senate for me. Dole may get kicked out. Hagan’s pretty good but she’ll need a lot of money — and that can be done.
I will say too, that economic populism is the key to these battleground states, I think. Things have largely gotten so bad now, that lots of people are seeing the old wedge issues as the diversionary tactics they really are for the very first time, stupid as it sounds. I think that’s what happened in MS-01. Even they’re starting to get it. The ‘Southern Strategy’ for example, has seen better days, and the 50-State Strategy must be there to fill the vacuum. Dean and Obama know what they’re doing and they’re being vindicated with almost every contest. With any luck, the R’s will relegated to a pitiful, not-quite relevant, hissin’ n’ spittin’ regional party doing more damage to themselves than anybody else.
I’m no as optimistic on those numbers, though I would love for you to be right.
There a a couple important distinctions between yesterday’s R+10 election and some random R+5 election in Michigan.
First, there wasn’t an incumbent with a good record for helping bring local jobs and money. You had a republican mayor of a town, where he is popular, but that doesn’t necessarily carry over into other areas of the district.
Second, it was a special election to put someone in office for only 6 months. It’s hard to get voters excited about that, unless they are already excited and energized. A lot more people will participate in the big general election in November.
These elections mean something, the republicans should be scared, and the democrats should be hopeful, but I would be count anything over R+3 as highly likely to switch in November. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the LA and MS seats swing back into the R column.
I just did the research and it will take me some time to write it all out.
Basically this is what I looked for:
Adding it all up, there 77 races for currently Republican-held seats that are at least somewhat competitive. And there another 35 that could become so if we either get a candidate, or the DCCC infuses major cash, or the Dem improves their fundraising.
Some interesting facts:
Florida alone has 13 Republican-held seats at R+10 PVI or less, and eight of them have well-funded opponents.
Michigan has 9 Republican-held seats at R+10 PVI or less, but only 2 of them have well-funded opponents.
While that is all useful, and promising, information, we still have to look at the actual incumbents. Most republicans are in the crapper, but John McCain would almost certainly win re-election in his purple state. A clean, likable, brings-home-the-bacon republican incumbent is not the same as an open seat in a special election.
Quantitative is important, but so is qualitative.
the mississippi loss, combined with the other two recent defeats, kinda got the RAT’s attention:
l don’t think they can run fast, nor far, enough away from chimpy, and their obstructionist activities in the congress to save themselves at this point.