Pingree (D-inc) 47
Dean Scontras (R) 38

Michaud (D-inc) 45
Jason Levesque (R) 38

Now, there is one caveat to this poll, and that is that both polls are heavily skewed to a population 46 years and older. They’re also likely voter polls, and may very well be understating Dem turnout. But still, nobody had these races on their radars! Besides, they also looked at the gay marriage question (which was on the ballot in 2009), and their numbers match up perfectly with actual 2009 election results.

So right now, both of these seats are winnable. Delving deeper into the polls, it looks like the main problem each of the Republican candidates has is lack of name recognition. Obama is polling roughly even in terms approval in the first, but is 41-54 in the second district (and 53% oppose the health care plan here). In both cases, the incumbent representative’s polling is an anemic 40-40 approval/disapproval. Also, in both cases, the Republican challenger has over 2/3 providing no opinion in terms of favorability.

Based on these results, I think the 2nd district is the better pickup opportunity. Republicans are split 65-14 in favor of Levesque, with 21% undecided. Shore that up, pick off some more of the Republicans for Michaud, and pick up the undecided independents (23%), and he’ll win. In contrast, Scontras has already picked up his base (winning 78-9 among Republicans), and so would have a harder time getting to the 50% tally.

It’s doubtful that the NRCC will send any help their way, so who knows if they can close the gaps? Neither of them are doing that well in the cash department, so if you’ve got any spare change, send it their way. If we can pick off the Maine seats, or even just one of them, imagine how many other seats are in trouble?

The polls come to us courtesy of Ayres, McKinley, and Associates (on behalf of the American Action Forum), We Ask America, and Survey USA. Ayres is a Republican polling firm, and so the results might be slightly skewed in the favor of Reps. However, it shouldn’t be as bad as internal polling. We Ask America is a new firm that’s rather casual in their releases, and presumably skew rightward. However, their Senate polling is generally in line with others, and their poll of PA-12 shortly before the special election correctly showed Critz winning. So I think I can trust them. Survey USA is generally very solid, yet has had several eye-popping results so far this year (most recently their poll showing Rossi above 50% in WA-Sen). So you may need to take all of these polls with a grain of salt. Yet they’re the best we have, and should give us a good idea of the state of the House at the moment.

IA-03 (American Action Forum)
Boswell (D-inc) 41
Zaun (R) 51

Notes: Excellent news. Zaun is well known (71% name recognition), and Obama is not well liked (43% favorable, despite the district voting for him 54-45 in 2008). This is a seat that most of the major organizations rated as Lean Dem, so the fact that Zaun is already above the 50% mark is excellent. Zaun does face a major cash-on-hand disadvantage, so here’s hoping he can maintain that lead.

IN-02 (American Action Forum)
Donnelly (D-inc) 46
Walorski (R) 44

Notes: A bit disappointing, but not too surprising. Of the three IN seats that flipped to Dem in 2006, this one is definitely the hardest to get back. The fact that Walorski is only 2 points behind isn’t too bad of a result, although it’s clear that a lot of work is needed. Again, Obama is highly disliked (36% favorable, despite a 54-45 vote in 2008), but Donnelly isn’t (48-38 favorable). He did vote for Obamacare, so there is that against him, but Walorski needs to define him and define herself quickly if she’s going to win. All the major predictors also have this seat as Lean Dem.

MI-01 (We Ask America)
McDowell (D-OPEN) 29
Benishek (R) 45

Notes: Ugh, the worst thing about WAA polls is that they did it the day after the primary, which probably resulted in boosted name recognition for the Republicans. Still, even if Benishek got a boost, that’s a nice looking lead there. This is especially nice as Benishek is leading 41-18 among Independents. This race will probably tighten up despite the seeming advantages a Rep would have here, as this district has high union and government support.

MI-03 (We Ask America)
Miles (D) 30
Amash (R-OPEN) 51

Notes: This is the only Republican held district that was polled, and Amash as expected holds a comfortable lead. This isn’t too surprising, as this district is very conservative. Thankfully, Amash survived a crowded primary, as he looks like a young, solid conservative. While there was no reason to believe this seat would be troublesome to hold, it’s nice to have confirmation.

MI-07
We Ask America
Shauer (D-inc) 37
Walberg (R) 45

American Action Forum
Schauer 40
Walberg 50

Notes: It’s nice to see some confirmation that both of these polling firms are in the same place. Also nice to see confirmation that Walberg has a decent lead. These two faced each other in 2008, and Schauer narrowly beat the incumbent Walberg thanks to a massive, dishonest media blitz. They both have positive favorability ratings, interestingly enough, which is a bit surprising given that both candidates are well known. Also, as a personal note, I drove through the northern part of this district a few days ago, and Schauer was easily winning the sign war. I’m hoping that’s not a bad omen. C’mon conservatives, where’s your enthusiasm?

MO-03 (American Action Forum)
Carnahan (D-inc) 54
Martin (R) 38

Notes: Easily the most disappointing result today. Fortunately, this one was pretty far down the list of possible pickups (rated as either Likely Dem or Safe Dem by everyone), so it’s not like this was unexpected. Still, seeing Carnahan above the magic 50% so early is not a good sign. Perhaps a poor showing by his sister in the Senate might bring him down somewhat, but I don’t have much faith in it. Interestingly enough, We Ask America also polled this seat a week ago, and saw 48-39 for Carnahan. So whatever else you can say about these two firms, they seem to be consistent with each other.

OH-01 (America Action Forum)
Driehaus (D-inc) 45
Chabot (R) 47

Notes: Ouch. This was supposed to be a slam dunk for Republicans, and yet Steve has only a 2 point lead over Steve? Part of the problem lies with the fact that Obama is viewed favorably (50-42) in this district, which is a bit surprising given the cratering he’s had in Ohio overall. Chabot has a 53-31 favorable rating, so hopefully the undecideds will break for him. This is a rematch of a 52-48 loss for Chabot in 2008, so hopefully he can swing it just a little bit the other way. This is the one race tat AAF and WAA disagree with, as WAA gave Chabot a 51-39 lead a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, a poll for the pro-life SBA List back also had Chabot at 51-41 a few weeks ago. So maybe this is an outlier poll…

OH-13 (American Action Forum)
Sutton (D-inc) 43
Ganley (R) 41

Notes: Yeah, Ganley’s losing, but it’s within the margin of error. He only has 65% name recognition, and thus has space to define himself if needed. This is probably the 4th or 5th best pickup chance in Ohio, and the fact that it’s so close is definitely a good thing (especially with Portman and Kasich likely to win in the upstream races). Ganley’s a self funder, and so should have enough money to get his name out there and push his numbers up.

OH-15 (American Action Forum)
Kilroy (D-inc) 44
Stivers (R) 49

Notes: Yeesh, another race that is closer than it should be. Again, Obama is viewed relatively favorably in this district (49-46), but Kilroy isn’t (43-47). Stivers already has pretty high name recognition, but he still apparently has some work to do in order to cross the finish line. Thankfully, it looks like he’s almost there. Note that this is a D+1 district, so it’s not exactly a red seat, but this is a prime pick up seat nonetheless. For what it’s worth, WAA also had similar numbers a couple weeks ago, with Stivers leading 46-41.

OH-16 (American Action Forum)
Boccieri (D-inc) 35
Renacci (R) 49

Notes: Now that’s more like it. This is something of a second-tier seat in Ohio, and was generally seen as not as likely to flip as OH-01 and OH-15. Yet Renacci is doing quite well here, despite only having 66% name recognition. This poll appears to feature an oversampling of senior citizens, however, so it may be an outlier. Still, it would take an awful lot of college students to cut into Renacci’s lead enough.

WA-03 (Survey USA)
Heck (D-OPEN) 41
Herrera (R) 54

Notes: I promise I will try to get through this without making a pun on the Dem’s last name. Aw, what the heck, I might as well… In any case, despite being a purplish-blue seat, Herrera seems poised to win. And really, this isn’t surprising. Republicans won 54% of the vote here in the jungle primary last week, and these primaries are very good predictors of the final vote. So SUSA appears to be right on target with this one.

WI-08 (American Action Forum)
Kagen (D-inc) 39
Ribble (R-Presumed primary winner) 49

Notes: Wow. Nice. Wisconsin hasn’t had its primary yet, but Ribble is the front runner and should have a lock on the nomination. This seat wasn’t on too many people’s radar, and it’s rated Lean Dem or Likely Dem by just about everyone. But that’s an impressive lead, and certainly puts this race on the map. Ribble has 59% name recognition, so hopefully he can improve even more and make this a blowout. It helps that Kagen has 43-48 favorable-unfavorable ratings, and Obama is 40-54.

(H/T: Campaign Spot for the AAF and SUSA polls)

Note: for all potentially competitive seats, I’ll include in paranthesis which of the big three issues the incumbent voted for (ST: stimulus, CT: Cap & Trade, HC: health care).

Dem held seats – 12
Safe seats – 10
9) Al Green vs Steve Mueller (D+22)
15) Ruben Hinojosa vs Eddie Zamora (D+3)
16) Silvestre Reyes vs Tim Besco (D+10)
18) Sheila Jackson Lee vs John Faulk (D+24)
20) Charlie Gonzalez vs Clayton Trotter (D+8)
25) Lloyd Doggett vs Donna Campbell (D+6)
27) Solomon Ortiz vs Blake Farenthold (R+2)
28) Henry Cuellar vs Bryan Underwood (D+0)
29) Gene Green vs Roy Morales (D+8)
30) Eddie Johnson vs Stephen Broden (D+27)

First of all, it should come as no surprise that those double-digit PVI seats are safe. Just be happy the GOP managed to find someone to run in them; two of those seats were unopposed in 2008. While TX-15 looks competitive on paper, it’s a rematch of 2008, where Zamora only got 32% of the vote. That’s too much ground to make up. The 28th district also looks promising, but it’s heavily Hispanic and the white Underwood has little fundraising and little presence. Dr. Campbell has the same problem in the 25th district, albeit doing a bit better on the fundraising front. But when Doggett has never gone below 65% of the vote, I have a hard time seeing an insurgent victory here. I almost considered the 27th district to be a potentially competitive seat, but Ortiz is a long term Congressman in a heabily Hispanic district who’s been winning by 20 points recently. But if there is going to be a dark horse victory here, that’s the seat it will be.

Competitive seats – 1
23) Ciro Rodriguez (ST, HC) vs Francisco Canseco (R+4)
Quico Canseco is a perennial candidate, although this is his first primary victory. While that doesn’t spell good news, the fact is that he’s Hispanic (hey, it’s demographics; I hate it too…), wealthy, has a decent operation, and solid conservative credentials. He’s big on border control (which should be good for voters along the, y’know, border), and has been hitting Rodriguez on his health care vote and his lack of town hall meetings. A recent internal poll from Quico has him down only 48-45, which isn’t too bad. But the incumbent near 50 already? This one will clearly be difficult. But if Rodriguez can be successfully tied to Pelosi and Obama, and if Canseco can raise his name recognition, he could have a chance here.

Lean Takeover seats – 1
17) Chet Edwards (ST) vs Bill Flores (R+20)
Yeah, you saw that right. R+20. This is the most conservative district in the US that is held by a Dem. And Edwards has held it primarily by distancing himself from the national Dem party. Yet his luck can only last so long. In 2008, he won 53-45 against an underfunded challenger, and he now has a serious challenge from businessman Bill Flores, who’s done well with fundraising and in garnering name recognition. Flores, for his part, is planning on tying Edwards to Obama (who only received 32% of the vote here) and as someone not serious about fiscal discipline. And it may work out: a Republican poll conducted in May has Flores up 53-41. Yeah, it’s a partisan poll, but that’s some serious distance between the two. If not for Edwards’ past skills at winning here, I’d say this one would be in the bag.

Rep held seats – 20
Safe seats – 19
1) Louis Gohmert unopposed (R+21)
2) Ted Poe unopposed (R+13)
3) Sam Johnson vs John Lingenfelder (R+14)
4) Ralph Hall vs Valinda Hathcox (R+21)
5) Jeb Hensarling vs Tom Berry (R+17)
6) Joe Barton vs David Cozad (R+15)
7) John Culberson unopposed (R+17)
8 ) Kevin Brady vs Kent Hargett (R+25)
10) Michael McCaul vs Ted Ankrum (R+10)
11) Mike Conaway vs James Quillian (R+28)
12) Kay Granger vs Tracey Smith (R+16)
13) Mac Thornberry unopposed (R+29)
14) Ron Paul vs Robert Pruett (R+18)
19) Randy Neugebauer vs Andy Wilson (R+26)
21) Lamar Smith vs Lainey Melnick (R+14)
22) Pete Olson vs Kesha Rogers (R+13)
24) Kenny Marchant vs Alex Dunaj (R+11)
26) Michael Burgess vs Neil Durrance (R+13)
31) John Carter unopposed (R+14)

Considering that all the seats have a double digit advantage in PVI, you know there’s not much to be worried about. A few key races: Hall is 85 years old in the 4th district, which is really the only reason you might worry that he won’t make it. In the 10th, McCaul has not been winning by much recently (54-43 in 2008), but this race is a rematch of 2006 where he won by 15 points in a worse year for Reps. Pete Olsen’s a freshman in the 22nd, but he lucked out when the LaRouche advocate Kesha Rogers won her primary. She’ll get no support from the establishment, although maybe running on an “Impeach Obama” platform will help her… And while this is Ron Paul’s first election after gaining national attention and thus may get more skepticism, his opponent doesn’t seem like much. All told, none of the Dem opponents look like top tier candidates (none has raised more than $50k so far), so things should be safe all around.

Potentially competitive seats – 1
32) Pete Sessions vs Grier Raggio (R+8)
This appears to be the token race the Dems are interested in. In all fairness, they could have a decent shot if 2010 is similar to 2008. After all, the demographics are trending away from Republicans very quickly in this district, and it likely won’t be an R+8 seat much longer (if it still is). Raggio is a serious candidate, an attourney who has raised ~$150k so far, and has the backing of the Dem establishment. Sessions, meanwhile, won by 16 points last year to an underfunded and undercampaigned opponent. The Dems would dearly love to pick off the NRCC chair, but he has raised over $1 million, and he did win by 16 in a heavily Dem year. Frankly, I’m not worried.

Final Thoughts
Not much is happening in Texas this year. I think if the Republicans can take TX-17, we should all be happy. After all, it’s already a 20-12 advantage for Reps in a state with a few large cities and a huge Hispanic population. Needless to say, being far far away from the border (well, the Mexican border, that is), it’s hard for me to get a feel for how the immigration debate will affect the results. But I see no reason to disagree with the experts who see Texas as not changing too many incumbents.

Previous analyses
Illinois
Indiana

The big question is whether or not the 2008 election was an anomaly or not. Indiana’s swing left was, if I recall correctly, the largest in the nation. How a state that went from a reliably Republican state surrounded by blue states to voting for Obama (this is despite the fact that he only got ~50% in the primary against Hillary) is beyond me. Even weirder, it happened at the same time that the state was reelecting Mitch Daniels (the mild-mannered version of Chris Christie) as governor by a wide margin. So is Indiana’s experiment with leftism over? We hope so.

During the primary, we had proof that the Tea Party is very active in the state, but unfortunately their presence can be summed up as “close but no cigar.” While Stutzman’s challenge of Coats was well known, two Republican incumbents in the House were nearly picked off, and would have been if the anti-incumbent votes weren’t split. Let us hope they don’t become discouraged by these results, and that there’s still enough enthusiasm in November.

Note: for all potentially competitive seats, I’ll include in parenthesis which of the big three issues the incumbent voted for (ST: stimulus, CT: Cap & Trade, HC: health care).

Dem held seats – 5
Safe seats – 2
1) Peter Visclosky vs Mark Leyva
7) Andre Carson vs Marvin Scott

IN-01 is Gary, IN-07 is Indianapolis, so the chances of winning either one of these is slim. Mark Leyva is the perennial candidate in the first district, and keeps losing 70-30. And while Carson is a freshman, she won 65-35 in 08, and Bush didn’t get above 43% in this district.

Competitive seats – 2
2) Joe Donnelly (ST, HC) vs Jackie Walorski
The second district is the purplest district in Indiana, being the only one that voted for both Bush and Obama. In other words, to win here, Republicans need to bring their A team… and you can’t argue much with who they got. Jackie Walorski is a popular State Rep from South Bend and a blunt, outspoken conservative. She can raise money, articulate conservative values, and attack Donnelly for not being as conservative as he claims to be. Needless to say, claiming to be Pro-Life and voting for Obamacare isn’t going to fly in this strongly Catholic district, regardless of what Notre Dame says. Donnelly is certainly nervous, as he’s apparantly already commissioned two polls this year. Frankly, I wouldn’t have expected this one to be competitive except that Donnelly voted for Obamacare. There were angry town halls here just like the rest of the nation, and I don’t think you can count on the Independents to support the Dems on this one.

9) Baron Hill (ST, CT, HC) vs Todd Young
Hill took his first name to heart when he showed up on Youtube hilariously demanding that he shouldn’t be videotaped in fear of showing up on Youtube. That worked out well, didn’t it? Young, meanwhile, is an attorney who survived a challenging 3 way primary (all three had over 30% of the vote), basically being more establishment that Travis Harkins and more conservative than Sodrel. He’s proven himself adept on the election field, and should give Hill a run for his money if he can get the fractured Rep primary voters behind him. At the very least, his fundraising’s been pretty good, and the demographics favor him. From what I can tell, Hill isn’t all that popular among the left, so while they will defend him, I don’t expect an all out blitz from the netroots to save him. The Cook PVI is R+6, Bush won 59-40 in 2004, and Hill’s nasty attitude and the fact that it’s NOT Sodrel’s 5th attempt to unseat him will hopefully be enough to get his constituents to fire him. For the record, a Sodrel internal poll from way back in March had him tied with Hill, so presumably Young is in the same range as well.

Lean takeover seats – 1
8 ) Trent Van Haaften vs Larry Bucshon (open)
Blue Dog Brad Ellsworth abandoned this seat to run for the Senate, and the Dem party establishment chose Van Haaften as his replacement. Meanwhile, Dr. Larry Bucshon survived a tough primary against Tea Party activist Kristi Risk. This is the reddest seat of the three (Bush won 62-38 in ’04), and it’s an open seat to boot. To give you an idea of just how red it is, Van Haaften was actually courting the Tea Party. Not a bad idea, but after the district got burned by Ellsworth on the health care bill, do you think they’ll trust another “conservative” Dem? I don’t think so. Bucshon appears to be solidly conservative and can raise money, so he’s got a pretty good shot here. The Dems are already running ads against him, so you know they’re worried.

Rep held seats – 4
Safe seats – 4
3) Mark Souder vs Tom Hayhurst
4) Todd Rokita vs David Sanders (open)
5) Dan Burton vs Tim Crawford
6) Mike Pence vs Barry Welsh

If it wasn’t for the fact that this is a Republican year and these are deep Red districts, I’d have a hard time declaring the first three to be safe. After all, the 4th is an open seat, and Souder and Burton performed terribly in the primaries (Souder also perennially underperforms on election day). But if these guys weren’t cut down in 2008, they’re not going to be cut down now. With any luck, Souder and Burton can both be knocked out in the primary come 2012, but I’d prefer they stick around until then. And with 3 other House races, a Senate race, and a very close State House (held by Dems 52-48), I can’t see anyone pouring money into these races.

Final Thoughts
There’s a pretty good chance here that Indiana will swing back heavily to Republicans this year, wiping out all of the gains made by the Dems in 2006 and 2008. I don’t know if all three seats will flip, but it’d be nice to get at least two of them. As long as the competitive primaries didn’t create a lot of bad blood, Indiana will hopefully be fun to watch in November.

Previous analyses – Illinois

The good news? Judging by how the primary went in downstream races, the Tea Party is rather active in Illinois. If that’s true, hopefully the grassroots enthusiasm will continue through November. I count 5 competitive House races here, with 4 of them being held by Dems.

Note: for all potentially competitive seats, I’ll include in parenthesis which of the big three issues the incumbent voted for (ST: stimulus, CT: Cap & Trade, HC: health care).

Dem held seats – 12
Safe seats – 8
1) Bobby Rush unopposed
2) Jesse Jackson Jr vs Isaac Hayes
3) Dan Lipinski vs Michael Bendas
4) Luis Gutierrez unopposed
5) Michael Quigley vs David Ratowitz
7) Danny Davis vs Mark Weiman
9) Jan Schakowsky vs Joel Pollak
12) Jerry Costello vs Teri Newman

The first six of those seats are Chicago. Yeah, guess why the Republicans can’t win there. As much fun as it would be to see Jackson Jr go down, it just isn’t going to happen; the best Isaac Hayes can hope for is to start opening a few eyes. As for the other two, IL-9 is northern Chicago suburbs, so it’s still long shot. IL-12 should conceivably be competitive. It’s only D+3, is located in the southwest corner of the state, and Bush nearly won this district in 2004. However, Costello was winning handily even in Rep years of 2002 and 2004, and Teri Newman looks like a weak candidate.

Potentially competitive seats – 2
8 ) Melissa Bean (ST, CT, HC) vs Joe Walsh
Bean barely eked out a win in 2004 and only won modestly (51-44) in 2006 in this R+1 district North of Chicago. Based on demographics, past voting history, and general trends, Walsh should do well here. So why is it off the radar for most? Well, Walsh’s fundraising isn’t that great (he raised $95k in Q1 this year and is sitting on only $46k, compared to over 1 million for Bean), which doesn’t bode well for an expensive market. He’s got the grassroots activism down (he was the Tea Party choice, beating out better funded establishment candidates), but that may not be enough to help him in this purple district (especially since he seems to have pissed off the establishment). He also appears to be having a wee bit of a campaign implosion. Combine that with the fact that he’s having personal financial problems, and the possibility remains that he just might not be a strong enough candidate. A Feb poll from We Ask America put both candidates tied at 38%, but it’s a new polling firm so I don’t know how much to trust them.

17) Phil Hare (ST,CT,HC) vs Bob Schilling
This one’s not on any of the professional lists, but a couple conservatives have a feeling about this one, and I can’t blame ‘em. This is a fairly purple (yet very bizarrely shaped) district with a very liberal representative. And Schilling is a conservative, Tea Party candidate, giving the purple voters a clear dividing line. The problem? Hare won his first election (in 2006) comfortably, faced no opposition in 2008, and has $750k compared to only $110k for Schilling. And with this race on few people’s radar, he may not get much support. But a grassroots campaign might help, and maybe Brady will have coattails in this district. At the very least, that same We Ask America poll put this one at 39-32 for Hare, so there’s still an outside chance.

Competitive seats – 1
14) Bill Foster (ST, HC) vs Randy Hultgren
The Republicans lost this seat in a special election in 2006 thanks in part to some nasty infighting. Hopefully that doesn’t happen this time, as State Senator Hultgren was the compromise candidate between the nepotist Ethan Hastert and several Tea Party neophytes. With any luck, everyone’s happy with Randy. The district is slightly Republican, with an incumbent who claims to be moderate yet still voting for the health care bill. Bad news, like the rest, is that Foster’s winning the money battle, with over a million in the bank compared to only $100k. The good news is that Hultgren can still fundraise; he just needed it all for the competitive primary. As long as there’s no infighting here, Hultgren should be able to pull this one out. A poll last week by Tarrance Group (R) had Hultgren up 45-44. Sure, it’s an internal poll, but that’s a pretty good number to be at 6 months out.

Lean Takeover seats – 1
11) Debbie Halvorson (ST, CT, HC) vs Adam Kinzinger
Kinzinger is certainly well known among the Tea Party crowd, an Iraq war vet and domestic hero. He’s that wonderfully rare breed of a candidate: a solid conservative with a great personal story, can excite the grassroots, and yet is still supported by the national party. He’s facing a rubber-stamp freshman in a reddish district who had a not-so-impressive win (58-34) over an underfunded second tier last minute replacement candidate. To be blunt, I think Halvorson is a weak candidate and Kinzinger a strong one. Two polls seem to confirm this: a Kinzinger internal poll which puts him up 44-38 in March and a We Ask America poll that has him at 42-30. Sure, they’re not the most trustworthy polling organizations, but a challenger up by 6? That’s big. Yet, once again, he’s underfunded against his opponent, although his fundraising has been pretty good (hopefully he’s spending it all on infrastructure and not wasting it).

Rep held seats – 7
Safe seats – 6
6) Peter Roskam vs Ben Lowe
13) Judy Biggert vs Scott Harper
15) Tim Johnson vs David Gill
16) Don Manzullo vs George Gaulrapp
18) Aaron Schock vs D.K. Hirner
19) John Shimkus vs Tim Bagwell

Almost all these seats look purple based on their PVI, but that could be because of Obama’s home field advantage. Honestly, I don’t know much about these races, but from what I can tell none of the challengers have made much of a splash in terms of fundraising except Scott Harper in IL-13. But that’s a rematch (Biggert won 54-44 in 2008), and anyone who survived the Obama wave in 2008 should do well this time around. In any case, not even the left-wing analyses I’ve seen have any of these seats on their radar. Don’t expect any netroots or party support for these challengers given the other important races in Illinois.

Competitive seats – 1
10) Bob Dold vs Dan Seals (open)
I can’t look at this race without thinking that Bob Dold should refer to Bob Dold in the third person. In any case, Mark Kirk is vacating this seat to run for the Senate, and it’s a rather blue-ish seat (D+6, although part of that is Obama’s home field advantage; Bush lost 47-53 in 2004). It’s the third most vulnerable Rep-held seat, and it’s a tough one. Dold’s trying to walk a tightrope by appealing to the moderate squishes who kept Kirk installed even during the Obama reign while not pissing off the grassroots. Seals, meanwhile, has been a perennial candidate against Kirk and gave him a good run (losing 53-47 in both 06 and 08). So, does the fact that he’s not running against an incumbent outweigh the fact that it’s no longer a Dem year? Hard to tell. The We Ask America poll put this at Seals winning 40-37, and they’re both pretty competitive in terms of fundraising.

Final Thoughts
I saw a pattern here; promising Republican candidates are woefully underfunded. Is that a hint to everyone? Yeah, probably. But besides that, things look good. Of the 5 competitive seats, there’s only one candidate I’m not a fan of (Joe Walsh, but in all fairness I never liked the Eagles much). Hultgren looks like a reasonable politician in IL-14, Kinzinger is exciting in IL-11, and Schilling looks like a worthwhile dark house in IL-17. With the possibility of taking over both the Senate and the Governorship, hopefully Republicans and grassroot activists will be fired up throughout the state. All things considered, a pickup of 2 seats here would be nice, 1 acceptable, and a net of no gain or a loss would be a disappointment.

(In order for the Republicans to take back the House in 2010, they need to net 40 seats. It’s a long shot, but it is possible. By my count, there are 92 Dem-held seats that the Republicans have at least an outside chance of winning. That number will change as we get closer to election time, of course. But for now, I’ll be highlighting some of these seats from time to time.)

There’s a lot of talk about the realignment shift, wherein conservative southern Democrats turn Republican while liberal northeast Republicans turn Democrats. Well, the liberal northeast Republicans have turned, but the southern Democrats are still hesitating. So will Nancy Pelosi be the one to finally be the catalyst to get a southern revolution? Who knows. But sometimes you feel there’s a perfect storm brewing, and if it doesn’t happen now, it never will. That’s probably not the case for all districts, but it just might be the case in West Virginia.

West Virginia 01
Location: The northern third of the state. It doesn’t contain Charleston or any other large cities, but does include WV University. It’s fairly rural, a bit blue-collar-ish, almost purely white, and supposedly fairly conservative.

Incumbent: Alan Mollohan
Alan Mollohan is a long termer, being around since the early 1980s. While he had a couple tough elections early on, he’s since become completely entrenched and hasn’t had to deal with a tough reelection. Heck, he didn’t even have an opponent in 2008, which was more or less the norm for a while. So what keeps him in there? Well, a tradition of voting for democrats and the belief that he brings home the bacon, er, pork. He’s a member of the appropriations committee; of course he’s going to get some juicy stuff. Unfortunately for him, that may be his undoing. Rather than benefiting his district, it looks like he pulled a Murtha and had it benefit himself. A typical income when he first appeared, he’s now one of the richest Congressmen. How? By steering nearly half of his earmarks to groups that he’s connected with. Funny how that works. Also, it appears that some of his earmarks are actually hurting his district as well. Because of this, he’s been under investigation for quite a while, and recently it became clear that the Justice department still isn’t done looking at him. And perhaps because of that, his fundraising has been anemic. He’s only raised $200k so far this cycle, and it looks like most of that has gone to lawyers. Let’s just say it’s not a pleasant time for him, and that it’s no surprise he’s on the GOP’s retirement watch list (to say nothing of the “most corrupted politicians” list). Voting wise, he’s with Pelosi on all the big ones (stimulus, health care, increased debt ceiling, Stimulus II: It’ll work this time, honest!) except, naturally, cap and trade (given WV’s coal based economy).

Cook Partisan Index: R+9
Cook Race Rating: Likely Dem
CQ Politics Race Rating: Safe Dem
Rothenberg Rating: Safe Dem
Larry Sabato: Safe Dem
(Note that, this far away, all these ratings are geared towards the incubent. Take them with a grain of salt)

Previous election results:
McCain 57, Obama 42
Bush 58, Kerry 41
Bush 54, Gore 43
2008 Mollohan 100
2006 Mollohan 64, Wakim 36
2004 Mollohan 68, Parks 32

Confirmed Republican Candidates (and their websites):
Cindy Hall
David McKinley
Scott Smith
Tom Stark
Daniel Swisher
Mac Warner

Most of Scott Smith‘s website doesn’t work, and his Twitter and Facebook hasn’t updated since July. He’s a young coal executive, but given his lack of updates my guess is he’s a long shot. Daniel Swisher is also a businessman and a political neophyte. His website is nice and professional looking, but for the most part all it does is attack Mollohan. Which, in all fairness, I can’t complain about. He’s yet another longshot (his 3rd quarter fundraising was a mere $5k), so why not try out the negative attacks to see what sticks for the real candidate? Cindy Hall is aiming at the grassroots, but all of the talk I’ve heard of her has been pretty dismissive. Her website is amateurish and it seems her campaign is as well, including recruiting a high schooler to run her office.

So let’s move on to the next tier of candidates. Tom Stark is a veteran, Tea Party activist, and small business owner with a detailed website and good, solid ideas. I haven’t seen him get much noise in the media or in the internet, but at least he’s still out there plugging away. He’s certainly the ideologically pure candidate, and his enthusiasm is certainly not questioned, but it remains to be seen if he can build the grassroots into a viable candidacy. Mac Warner has family connections, as his brother was a former state GOP chairman and gubernatorial candidate. His website’s a bit sparse on his positions, but he’s been active at getting his word out elsewhere. From what I can tell, he’s about what you would expect: a conventional conservative. I haven’t heard anything particularly impressive in his campaigning so far, but in all fairness to him, I haven’t looked hard. At the very least, his bio is worthwhile, and he should have the political know-how to run a good campaign.

State Senator Clark Barnes was in the race, despite not actually being from this district. He said he came in initially so that there would be someone running with legislative experience, and said he bowed out because there are candidates now. I’m assuming he’s referring to David McKinley, the newest candidate and probably the front runner (or at least Warner’s top rival). He’s a former state rep, former gubernatorial candidate (lost the primary), and an architectural engineer. What does this mean? He’s got political experience, he’s got political connections, and he’s rich enough to self fund. Unfortunately, since he just filed pre-candidacy papers, he doesn’t have a website yet, so we can’t see his positions. But he did speak at a Tea Party meeting, so you can get what he’s talking about there. Namely, limited spending, pro Constitution, socially conservative. So all things considered, I don’t think he’d be a bad idea.

Analysis
Despite the Presidential numbers above, WV has only recently started looking at Republicans. They voted for Clinton twice and Dukakis before that. Between that, their two blue Senators, governor, etc, it’s obvious that this is a state that has not been on Republicans’ radars. But look at all the problems Mollohan’s having this time around. Fun piece of trivia: there’s currently 6 Republicans running against him. He’s only faced 6 total Republicans his entire career. This is someone who’s never had to campaign in the last 25 years. And suddenly, 6 different people want to take a shot at him? That’s some pretty serious discontent right there. If it’s enough to grab an extra 15-20% in votes, well, who knows? But that’s in line with the swings we saw in Virgina and New Jersey, so it’s possible.

And like I said, it’s nearly a perfect storm. Between the ethics complaints, the potential wave, the poor fundraising, the health care anger, and everything else, Mollohan could find himself swept out of office. One big caveat here: the WV Republican party is broke and incompetent. So whoever the eventual winner of the primary is, they’re going to have to do it alone. By the same token, there’s no upstream races that could help or hurt them. Also, with cap and trade fading, the anger at Democrats (at least in WV) may fade a bit as well. Of course, Mollohan voted against C&T, but apparently he didn’t take any sort of leadership position in opposing it.

So it’s not as if it’ll be easy. And Warner and McKinley both have some negative sides. Warner’s connections with the state GOP party may be a net negative (remember that bit about it being broke and incompetent? Sure, someone else is running the show now, but apparently Warner’s brother wasn’t much better). McKinley’s a bit old and didn’t win a primary in a big race. Still, I have to guess that he’d be the better candidate, given his supposed ability to self fund and his former campaigning experience. This is a seat that I think the GOP will want to target this cycle, and if so then maybe this will be the year that he’s finally kicked out.

Given Mollohan’s ethics problems, that would make me very happy.

Other links of interest
West Virginia Red (looks to be the largest WV-centric rightwing blog)
Parkersburg Tea Party (has videos of several of the candidates’ speeches)
West Virginia Watchdog (good independent news source)

(In order for the Republicans to take back the House in 2010, they need to net 41 seats. It’s a long shot, but it is possible. By my count, there are 92 Dem-held seats that the Republicans have at least an outside chance of winning. That number will change as we get closer to election time, of course. But for now, I’ll be highlighting some of these seats from time to time.)

One of the most important parts of getting a wave election is to attack as many places as possible. Make the other party defend more seats than they want to. Obviously, part of this is simply to spread out the other party’s resources, but on the flip side it spreads out your party too. Given the RNCC’s fundraising so far, that’s not necessarily a good thing. But the other reason to do this is that a long shot still has a chance of winning. With more challenges, you create more momentum. With more momentum, you have a chance to win. I doubt the RNCC is looking much at this seat; nobody seriously thinks they’ll win it. But they seem to have a strong candidate, so why not make the Democrats sweat a bit?

Colorado 07
Location: The suburbs of Denver. It basically surrounds Denver on three sides, and then a long rural section in the northeast. Mostly urban, and supposedly purple.

Incumbent: Ed Perlmutter
Perlmutter was a successful legislator in the Colorado government before winning his first two races for the House. Therein lies the problem for trying to oust him: the guy’s a winner and everything I read suggests that he knows how to win elections. As for his actual job, he’s no blue dog (not that you would expect it in a fairly blue district). He’s a liberal on almost everything, and voted with Pelosi on all the big ones this term (both stimulus packages, cap&trade, health care). He’s recently gotten some specific controversy by slipping in some pretty big loopholes in the recent bank regulation bill, apparently thanks to some campaign contributions (and reamed on it from MSNBC no less). His town hall meeting did get quite a bit of supporters out for it, but plenty of protesters as well (and then he said it was “thuggery“). Smart politician, but has he had to deal with this sort of anger before? I doubt it.

Cook Partisan Index: D+4
Cook Race Rating: Likely Dem
CQ Politics Race Rating: Safe Dem
Rothenberg Rating: Safe Dem
Larry Sabato: Safe Dem
(Note that, this far away, all these ratings are geared towards the incumbent. Take them with a grain of salt)

Previous election results:
Obama 59, McCain 39
Kerry 51, Bush 48
Gore 50, Bush 50
2008 Perlmutter 64, Lerew 36
2006 Perlmutter 55, O’Donnell 42
2004 Beauprez (R) 47, Feeley (D) 47

Confirmed Republican Candidates (and their websites):
Brian Campbell, Sr.
Michael Deming
Ryan Frazier
Jimmy Lakey
Mike Sheely
Lang Sias

I can’t tell if Brian Campbell is still running. Apparently he did some work organizing the local Tea Parties, but his website has been shut down, his blog hasn’t been updated since February, and his Twitter hasn’t been updated since October. So I’ll consider him a non-entity. Sure, the Tea Party bit may help, but what difference does that mean if he can’t even keep a website? Also among the longshots is Michael Deming, a private citizen simply fed up with Congress. The background on his website is the Constitution, so you can guess where he stands. There’s not much else there, but he takes a very common sense approach to Health Care, including attacking Mary Landrieu for getting bribed. But while that’s all nice, there’s nothing to indicate this guy has a chance. Mike Sheely’s a retired engineer who, judging from his website, really likes cowboy hats. He’s a former School Board member as well as a former Congressional candidate (in the 1994 wave) and nearly won despite a low-budget campaign. So he does have some background in politics and experience running a grassroots campaign, but does he still have what it takes? Eh, probably not.

Lang Sias is new to the race, and not much is known about him yet. However, the word is that he’s shaping up to be the moderate in the race, and it’s not hard to see why. He’s an Army vet, an attorney, a McCain senior staffer (I can hear the groans already), and, at least according to a former Democrat and a carpetbagger. Needless to say, he’s not the darling of the conservatives. But because of high-profile backing (yes, the Maverick has already endorsed him), his connections, and his presumably unique positions (his website doesn’t have an issues page, probably as to not scare away any primary voters…), he has to be considered as a front-runner in the primary. Finally, Jimmy Lakey is a humanitarian and Christian rock promoter, which probably gives him a solid base. I don’t really see anything else about him, but he’s fairly new in the race.

Which leaves Ryan Frazier. On the surface, he’s the perfect recruit for the RNCC. He’s got former political experience (city council member), a large base (said city council is Aurora, the largest city in the district), strong crossover appeal, an impressive personal story, and a minority to top it all off. There’s only one thing missing from his resume: it seems he’s NOT a RINO. Oh, I don’t think you’ll find him absolutely pure, but he’s a reasonable conservative. According to his website, he’s pro-business (co-sponsored Colorado’s Right to Work amendment, for example), fiscally conservative, and pro-education reform (including helping to found a charter school). According to one of his constituents, “He’s a Colorado version of Sarah Palin, with probably more experience.” More experienced? He’s, like, 32!

OK, I usually don’t endorse in these posts (it’s not like my endorsements mean anything, anyway), but it should be obvious who I’m rooting for. Frazier’s almost the perfect candidate. He’s not an ideologue, he doesn’t even pretend to be one. Instead, he’s intelligent, thoughtful, principled,and willing to take the best solution no matter what the partisans think about it. This leads some to call him a centrist, which tells you more about the people saying that than Frazier. He’s also young and resourceful, and hopefully a rising star. Hopefully Lang and the other candidates don’t hurt his future (seriously Lang, didn’t McCain’s dreadful performance in Colorado, both in the primary and the general, give you any hints?). He’d be an excellent representative, and seems like an excellent person as well. How many politicians can you say that about?

Analysis
Most of the seats being targeted by Republicans are either deep red or reddish purple. This seat is bluish-purple. Is that the only difference between this seat and the ones that look more competitive? Probably. Nobody else seems to take this challenge seriously. Democrats do have a 38-28 registration advantage (a big jump from pre-2008), although that means there are plenty of independents. There’s a credible challenger, and Perlmutter’s fundraising isn’t amazing. Perlmutter won easily in 2008, but was that just the Obama effect (to say nothing of a very, very weak candidate)? I’m not saying this one will be easy. But I can’t see it being as safe as everyone suggests.

On the flip side, even if it is still safe, it’s worth fighting for. Perception plays a big role in politics, and the more challenges you have, the more you look strong. The more you look strong, the more people will look at you. The more people look at you, the more votes you get. The more votes you get, the more you win! There’s a competitive race for governor AND the senate, and if Republicans can get excited in those races then maybe you’ll see some downstream pickup. At the same time, a strong showing in a Congressional race could help the upstream races too. Or the parallel races, for that matter. Republicans are seriously challenging Betsy Markey in the 4th, and Perlmutter’s already donated money to her. If Frazier (or heck, even Lang) can keep Perlmutter’s eyes on his own race, that can’t hurt. And hey, maybe one of them will win.

Frazier’s fundraising stalled in the last quarter, and that’s definitely something to be concerned about. On the other hand, that was while he was still running for the Senate. Maybe it was just due to everyone pulling support of a long shot in favor of the conventional candidate, and so maybe it’s picked up since then. He’s been touting lots of endorsements, which might help (including a bunch of Hispanic endorsements. I hate race politics, but with 20% of the population being Hispanic, it’s obviously important). If he comes up with a surprise haul in January, then maybe people will take a second look at this race. Maybe the deep seated anger seen in the reddish purple districts can seep in here. Maybe Perlmutter will stumble now that Democrats are on the defensive. I don’t know. If not, it’s no big loss; no one was counting on gaining this seat back anyway. But if this seat does become competitive, well, the Democrats better watch out.

Other Links
Perlmutter Watch – All the latest news on Ed Perlmutter
ColoradoPols – Rounding up all the political news in Colorado. Seems to have a slight left-wing bent, but still a good resource.
Peoples Press Collective – Citizen journalism in Colorado.

(In order for the Republicans to take back the House in 2010, they need to net 41 seats. It’s a long shot, but it is possible. By my count, there are 92 Dem-held seats that the Republicans have at least an outside chance of winning. That number will change as we get closer to election time, of course. But for now, I’ll be highlighting some of these seats from time to time.)

During the 06 and 08 cycles, there was a lot of talk (particularly among the left side of the internet) of the Republicans becoming a regional party. With the last Republican Congressman ousted from New England, it was claimed that before long the only Rs in the nation was going to be in the South. And needless to say, there was a lot of crowing about this. But what was never mentioned was the other side of the coin. With all the partisanship going on, there’s the possibility of Democrats becoming a regional party too. With the hard-left turn the Ds have made in recent time, suddenly there may be a lot of conservative Democrats wondering where their loyalties lie. And there’s a lot of long time Congressional Ds that may be sweating now. Don’t believe me? Just look at the polling.

Arkansas 02
Location: Right in the middle of the state. Contains Little Rock and a bunch of other towns and cities I’ve never heard of. It’s a fairly urban district for Arkansas, and is about 75% white and 20% black.

Incumbent: Vic Snyder
Unlike most of the vulnerable Democrats, Snyder’s been around for awhile, first elected to Congress way back in 1996. Despite being a southerner, he’s never had to act like a blue dog. Looking over his voting record, it’s pretty liberal in all facets, with free trade (of all things) being one of his more conservative areas, as well as foreign policy (somewhat). Social conservative? Small government? Not at all. He votes with his party about 97% of the time, is neither pro-life nor pro-marriage, is rated an F by the NRA, and hasn’t met a spending bill he didn’t like. And yes, he voted for all of the Big Three (stimulus, cap and trade, health care). So despite the fact that he looks like a coastal liberal, he still managed to get reelected for 12 years. Although quite frankly, he hasn’t really had to do much to hold his spot, having never met decent competition. Arkansas, despite being southern, has a pretty terrible Republican state party. One thing I do like about him is that he refuses to fundraise in off years, preferring to focus on his actual job. I have to admire someone who willingly handicaps himself for the sake of integrity, albeit with no serious opposition it may not mean much. And while I admire that, I’m not averse to using it against him.

Cook Partisan Index: R+5
Cook Race Rating: Tossup
CQ Politics Race Rating: Likely Dem
Rothenberg Rating: Not Mentioned
Larry Sabato: Likely Dem
(Note that, this far away, all these ratings are geared towards the incumbent. Take them with a grain of salt)

Previous election results:
McCain 54, Obama 44
Bush 51, Kerry 48
Bush 49, Gore 48
2008 Snyder 77, McFarland (Green candidate) 23
2006 Snyder 61, Mayberry (R) 39
2004 Snyder 58, Parks (R) 42

Confirmed Republican Candidates (and their websites):
Tim Griffin
David Meeks
Scott Wallace

Tim Griffin appears to be the early front runner, being recruited by the NRCC and having the best name recognition. He worked in the Bush administration in 2005 under Karl Rove (the conniptions this brings to certain sides of the internet alone makes this guy an awesome candidate). He’s also in the army reserve, served as a JAG officer, and was a US attorney as well. So other than never holding an elected office before, he’s got a pretty good resume. He’s proven that he can raise cash, collecting over $100k last quarter (both of his opponents did not disclose their numbers). His issues page looks standard, although he’s focusing more on the economy than health care. But it is professional, and I don’t think he’s made any missteps so far. Since he’s the frontrunner, that’s probably a good thing.

David Meeks is also a political neophyte, and is also an unabashed conservative. Unfortunately, information on him is pretty sparse (including his own website), so I can’t really give any specifics. His “issues” page only shows the Constitution, which is certainly a nice thought but doesn’t really tell us anything. Obviously he’d be an anti-vote to Pelosi, but there’s no idea of what he’s FOR if the Reps do end up taking back control of the House. Oh well. He’s an army vet (pre 9/11), and apparently worked at Blue Cross. That could give him an inside advantage if health care ends up being the dominant issue 6 months from now, but whatever. On the whole, he needs more substance, but the race is early. He’s received kind words from his competitor, which isn’t bad. And from what I gather, he hasn’t done too bad in getting some grassroots support, so more power to him. Definitely someone to look out for.

Scott Wallace is also a complete newcomer in elected office (seems to be a trend here…), but has been involved in government in various forms (volunteer Sheriff, for example). His big draw is that he’s a small business owner, and is clearly using that as a springboard when it comes to the economy. His experience there is certainly going to help him articulate just why Congress is hurting the economy, and that will probably get some notice. He also appears to be well connected to the community, volunteering for many organizations, which should at least give him a strong home base to work with. However, I don’t know how he’s doing with the grassroots. One big concern here is his inability to keep his mouth shut at certain times. For one, he was apparently fired from a radio talk show, presumably for electioneering and calling someone a racist. He’s also been slinging mud at Griffin, which doesn’t sit too well with me. Sure, it gets him the title of a straight talker, but going after a guy because he’s a father? Harsh.

Analysis
See that note up on the race ratings about how you should take them with a grain of salt? This is a perfect example of why. Cook is the only one that changed their rating in the past couple of weeks. They’re also the only one who thinks this is very competitive. And how did they come to that conclusion? Why, thanks to Public Policy Polling, which wanted to know if the speculation surrounding Dem problems in heartland were true, and chose this district as a bellwether. And what did they find?

Snyder 44, Griffin 43
Snyder 44, Wallace 42
Snyder 45, Meeks 42

Yep, against all three candidates, Snyder’s within the margin of error. Between that and the complete lack of name recognition any of them have, you can guess that if PPP had polled Snyder vs a moss-covered rock, that too would be a close race. Despite PPP’s massive blunder in NY-23, they’re usually a very reliable firm, and a Dem leaning one as well (meaning no accusation of bias will help Snyder’s case here).

So what does this mean? It means a long time Dem is in very real trouble. His approval rating is 42%, and it’s very hard to get elected like that. Basically, Arkansas is still in the “southern Democrat” world, a holdover from the old days thanks in part to poor Republican organization. Look at those Presidential results above. In both Bush elections, this district was right at the national average. Yet they broke heavily for McCain. Clearly they saw something in Obama they didn’t like. And those feelings are clearly being transferred to Snyder. Needless to say, voting for the health care bill didn’t help him there.

Of course, this could all be temporary anger. Taking a poll right after the health care vote was taken may have inflamed Snyder’s constituents, which may subside in the next 11 months. He’s a long time incumbent, so he’s got to have some goodwill. But there’s reasons to believe he’ll be a weak candidate as well, besides just this poll. He hasn’t had a serious competitor in years, so his campaign skills might be rusty. Likewise, the lack of fundraising this year could come back and hurt him. And if independents keep breaking towards Republicans like they did in NJ and VA, well, what can Snyder do?

I’m also not going to discount the possibility of him retiring. Bad polling, serious competition? He may want to leave while at the top of his game, making sure his overall reputation remains positive rather than risking being kicked out on a sour note. He has a perfect excuse for it too: he’s the father of very young triplets (born early this year). Obviously he hasn’t announced anything of the sort, but if 2010 continues to look like a wave year, you never know.

So with that said, who should be the Republican nominee? Honestly, not a clue. Griffin obviously has the inside track and can fundraise, but his past may come back to haunt him. Is a lawyer who was an insider in the unpopular and free-spending Bush campaign really the best choice for a race that seems to want a small government, Washington outsider? Also, it wouldn’t surprise me to see lots of outside support for Snyder from the netroots if Griffin wins the primary due to the sheer hatred surrounding Karl Rove. Wallace seems like a strong choice (small business owner is a big plus), but I think a Congressman needs a bit more tact. And what about Meeks? There’s nothing wrong with him, but is he experienced enough? It’s a shame that there’s no perfect candidate here, although obviously we can’t have everything. Still, this is the best chance to get rid of Snyder, so it’d be a shame if infighting or a flawed candidate prevents that from happening.

(In order for the Republicans to take back the House in 2010, they need to net 41 seats. It’s a long shot, but it is possible. By my count, there are 89 Dem-held seats that the Republicans have at least an outside chance of winning. That number will change as we get closer to election time, of course. But for now, I’ll be highlighting some of these seats from time to time.)

Illinois is fairly unique in that their filing deadline is very early, being one year before the actual election. In other words, the deadline is passed, and we know exactly who’s going to be available in the primaries for all races. Because of that, there’s a lot less uncertainty for IL races compared to the rest of the nation right now. There’s a few interesting House races, but only one good solid chance of a pickup.

Illinois 14
Location: A long, thin rectangle on the west side of Chicago, stretching from the western suburbs down to the eastern side of Davenport. Aurora, IL, is probably the biggest city in the district.

Incumbent: Bill Foster
Foster won this seat in a very close special election against Jim Oberweis in early 2008 after Dennis Hastert resigned (thanks in part to Obama’s support). And he won a rematch handily later that year. Foster portrays himself as an independent, but voted for the stimulus bill and health care reform (but voted against Cap and Trade), and against the Stupak amendment. I should also note that he’s a physicist, so I guess that means one more scientist against global warming… In any case, because he’s been in Congress for less than one full term, it’s hard to get a feel for how dangerous of a candidate he is. After all, he won a special election in the midst of widespread anger at the Republican party and won a normal election in a state who fielded the winning President. His fundraising numbers are pretty impressive, however, with about $800k cash on hand.

Cook Partisan Index: R+1
Cook Race Rating: Lean Dem
CQ Politics Race Rating: Lean Dem
Rothenberg Rating: Tilts Dem
Larry Sabato: Leans Dem
(Note that, this far away, all these ratings are geared towards the incubent. Take them with a grain of salt)

Previous election results:
Obama 54, McCain 44
Bush 55, Kerry 44
Bush 54, Gore 43
Foster (D) 58, Oberweis (R) 42 (2008)
Foster (D) 52, Oberweis (R) 47 (2008 Special)

Confirmed Republican Candidates (and their websites):
Jeff Danklefson
Ethan Hastert
Randy Hultgren
Jim Purcell
Mark Vargas

Lots of candidates here, so I’m going to take Danklefson, Purcell, and Vargas at the same time. These are all political neophytes who are all involved in the Tea Party movement. As such, there’s not much to distinguish them. They all don’t seem to have any fundraising of any significance yet, they all espouse reliable conservative ideals, they all seem pretty upset about health care and fiscal insanity and the like, and their websites are all devoid of anything specific to elevate one above the others. So right now, the only things that separate them are their bios. Danklefson is a property manager, Vargas is a former Dept of Defense official who hasn’t figured out that all the links on his website are broken, and Purcell is a businessman. Call them the Interchangeable Tea Party Citizen-Politicians.

Am I being too harsh on them? Maybe. But the primary is 2.5 months away, and if any of them want to get elected they need to actually separate themselves from the pack a bit more. There was a primary debate a few days ago (unfortunately, it appears to have been a private affair, and I haven’t found a transcript online). Vargas showed some promise when it came to foreign affairs (given his background, presumably it’s his best area), but who can take him seriously when his website doesn’t even work? Purcell didn’t even show up to the debate. Sure, he says he had a prior commitment, and he gave his own answers on his website, but this was a chance to sell himself and he missed it. Danklefson called global warming a fraud, which may play well but doesn’t exactly show a measured and useful response to cap and trade.

So we have three amateurs fighting over the same demographic while there’s the very large elephant in the room: Ethan Hastert. Needless to say, the son of the former speaker is definitely the establishment choice. He’s done well in fundraising (over $300k so far) and definitely has the inside track. I’m not a fan of political dynasties nor of the GOP establishment, but at least he’s been making all the proper moves. His website only has health care up in his issues section so far, but it hits all the correct tones. He also talks about fiscal sanity (highlighting the national debt), ethics in Congress, and being anti-pork. If you can believe him, he sounds like he’d be a solid conservative, at least fiscally. Since he’s the front-runner, I hope we can believe him.

There’s also Hultgren, who’s currently a state senator and thus has political experience and the best chance of dethroning Hastert. He’s been endorsed by a few pro-life groups and seems to have a reasonably conservative track record in the state senate. Like all the rest, he’s sounding solidly conservative views. One thing I do like from him is that he’s emphasizing small businesses for the economy, and hopefully he can articulate how government regulations hurt small businesses. One thing that should be noted is that his district only partially overlaps the 14th, so he won’t have as big of a base as one might hope for. However, despite his late entrance, he’s doing ok fundraising-wise.

One thing that is important is that there’s a clean, honest primary. Part of the reason the GOP lost this district is that the primary was very contentious with plenty of mudslinging, and there’s still bad blood. Apparantly, Hultgren (and possibly Vargas) were recruited partially to challenge Hastert as revenge for the elder Hastert’s support for Oberweis in the last primary. At the very least, they’re all talking about running a positive primary and all supporting the eventual nominee, which is absolutely required. A NY-23 situation would be disastrous.

So how does the GOP win this one? Well, for starters, Oberweis and Lauzen (who lost the 2008 primary that was so contentious) should shut up and back away. It’s hard to say who the most electable candidate is, as I could see an argument that Hastert’s name recognition could be a net negative compared to Hultgren’s experience. In any case, the four political neophytes to poitics had better run a darn good campaign, not only to win in February but also to prove they can campaign against Foster. And all of them need to endorse the eventual candidate, whoever that may be. Fortunately, whoever wins will get some support from the NRCC thanks to Foster’s health care vote. With a mostly white, middle class electorate, running against the Dem Congress shouldn’t be a bad strategy.

The bad news? Foster outperformed Obama in 2008. If that’s due primarily to the discontent on the GOP side over the harsh primary, then it should be possible to overcome it. But if it reflects Foster’s strength, then a GOP wave may not be enough to win regardless of who the nominee is. Or, for that matter, this may depend entirely on the upstream races. With a potentially close battle for both governor and senator in Illinois, this may end up being a battle of turnouts. You can bet Obama will campaign heavily in his own state. But that didn’t seem to help Corzine out much in New Jersey…

More Information: Report on the Primary Debate

(In order for the Republicans to take back the House in 2010, they need to net 40 seats. It’s a long shot, but it is possible. By my count, there are 85 Dem-held seats that the Republicans have at least an outside chance of winning. That number will change as we get closer to election time, of course. But for now, I’ll be highlighting some of these seats from time to time.)

I’ve got a list of 85 seats I’m looking at. Some are easily obtainable, like ID-3. Some require a decent candidate and a little luck. Some just need a good campaign to reignite the base. And others are long shots. Florida’s 22nd district is one of these long shots. It’s on the blue-ish side of purple, it’s against an incumbent, and the trending demographics are not exactly in the right direction.

Florida 22
Location: Eastern coastline of Florida, ranging from Palm Beach down to nearly Ft. Lauderdale

Incumbent: Ron Klein
Klein first won office in the 2006 wave, taking out a relatively seasoned incumbent 51-47. He then solidified his position in 2008. He tends to be pretty liberal, although can remain moderate under the right circumstances. Pro-bailout, pro-stimulus, pro-cap and trade, pro-public option, pro-gun control, etc. He mostly ducked out of the town hall events, appearing in one where questions from the general audience were not allowed and held a tele-town hall as well. He’s still likely to be a formidable opponent. He’s raised quite a bit of money, and has managed to keep his mouth shut rather than say anything that would turn into an easy commercial. He does face a primary, but it’s probably not going to be tough, and he’s not running for the Senate. All signs point to him as the candidate in 2010.

Cook Partisan Index: D+1
Cook Race Rating: Likely Dem
CQ Politics Race Rating: Safe Dem
Rothenberg Rating: Limited Risk
Larry Sabato: Likely Dem
(Note that, this far away, all these ratings are geared towards the incubent. Take them with a grain of salt)

Previous election results:
Obama 52, McCain 48
Kerry 51, Bush 49
Gore 51, Bush 46
Klein (D) 55, West (R) 45 (2008)
Klein 51, Shaw 47 (2006)

Confirmed Republican Candidates (and their websites):
Allen West
David Brady

A Google search of David Brady turned up nothing on him, nor did any of the typical websites I check. He’s in Florida’s Sec of State website, so I guess he’s in. The fact that he doesn’t have a website or even a single news article about him is pretty telling, however. In fairness, it appears that he just filed his paperwork not too long ago, so who knows? But with absolutely no information on him, he’s apparantly a complete neophyte to politics. And in a Dem leaning district, it’s safe to assume he’s dead in the water.

That leaves Allen West, a retired Army Colonel and the 2008 candidate. Yes, he lost in 2008. But that was a year of strong anti-Republican sentiment. It was also a year that West got no support from the NRCC, which was focused on defense rather than offense. And he only lost 55-45, which isn’t an insurmountable number, and probably better than anyone thought. Difficult, yes, but not insurmountable. West looks to be reliably conservative, which may not be the best strategy for a purplish-blue district, but I’m not campaigning. As one might expect, he looks to be very intelligent and professional (here’s a nice write-up of a speech he gave in 2008), and does a good job of explaining conservative values. He’s written quite a bit about health care, taxes, and spending, which are obviously going to be big issues going into 2010. Apparantly, ~25% of adults in this district are 65 or older, decidedly above-average and may be a key to Republican victory if the health care debate continues the way it currently is going. He’s also strongly against illegal immigration. It should be noted that this is a district that’s 10% Hispanic.

The fact that he already ran once should help him some, as he’s got the name recognition now (don’t know if he had it in 2008) and the organization up and running. His fundraising looks pretty good, with over $250k raised so far (which doesn’t include the last quarter yet), almost half the amount he raised in all of 2008. He also has a decent amount of grassroot support, and has all the social networking deals. He speaks eloquently, and that includes a monthly column in a Florida motorcycle magazine. However, it should be noted that he was very nearly dishonorably discharged from the army for, uh, enhanced interrogation techniques; I don’t know if that will hurt him, or the fact that he was trying to save the lives of his soldiers will be enough to exonerate him in the eyes of the voters.

The other big possibility for this district was Adam Hasner, the FL House Majority Leader. He was interested, then declined. That may be bad news, of course. After all, it could mean that he looked at the possibility, saw no chance, and decided not to risk it. On the other hand, maybe he just wants to play it safe, or maybe he couldn’t raise enough money, or maybe there was something else. No point in worrying about it now that he’s out. The race is still 13 months away, so anything he might have determined now may not be true in the future anyway.

On the whole, this district is hard to predict. Look at the previous Presidential results, for example. No movement at all over the past 8 years. In fact, it may have moved slightly Republican. Is that a good thing? Probably not, since a good chunk of Republican hopes for 2010 rely on the wave of Obama voters dissipating during the midterms. Yet there was no wave in this district. And despite Presidential numbers ticking toward Republicans (relatively speaking), Dem registration has been picking up quite a bit. A new story claims that registered Dems are now tied with registered Reps for the first time this past month, compared to a 37.7% – 37.0% edge in November 08. Not a good sign. Yet with Independents sliding back to the Republican side in national polls, a tied registered advantage may not be enough.

Like I said, it’s a bit of a long shot. Republicans have a solid candidate in West, who’s clearly in it for the long haul. There’s some good signs in the demographics and some bad signs. West may be a sophomore candidate this time around, which should help, but Klein also has an extra 2 years to solidify his support. I’m guessing health care is going to play a big role, given the demographics of the district. If West can keep articulating conservative values and if he gets more financial support, this may be one of the pleasant surprises in 2010.

More Information: Open Congress