Talk Elections

Senate/House Rankings

---

Senate

Safe D
Arkansas
Colorado (R)*
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico (R)*
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Virginia (R)*
West Virginia

Lean D
Alaska (R)
Oregon (R)
New Hampshire (R)
Louisiana

Toss-up
Minnesota (R)
North Carolina (R)

Lean R
Georgia
Mississippi #2 - Wicker
Kentucky

Safe R
Alabama
Idaho*
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi #1 - Cochran
Nebraska*
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Wyoming #1 - Barrasso
Wyoming #2 - Enzi

---

House

DEM Pickup List

Likely D
1. NY-13* (Fossella)
2. NY-25* (Walsh)

Lean D
3. VA-11* (Davis)
4. FL-24 (Feeney)
5. OH-16* (Regula)
6. CO-04 (Musgrave)
7. AZ-01* (Renzi)
8. IL-11* (Weller)

Toss-up/Lean D NOT COMPLETE BELOW HERE
9. FL-08 (Keller)
24. NM-02* (Pearce)
11. NJ-03* (Saxton)
12. NM-01* (Wilson)
13. OH-15* (Pryce)
14. AK-AL (Young)


Toss-up
9. NC-08 (Hayes)
8. NV-03 (Porter)

16. PA-03 (English)
17. NY-29 (Kuhl)
18. MI-09 (Knollenberg)
15. MN-03* (Ramstad)
[dividing line]
19. MI-07 (Walberg)
21. CT-04 (Shays)
22. OH-01 (Chabot)

Toss-up/Lean R
23. NJ-07* (Ferguson)

25. LA-04* (McCrery)
26. WA-08 (Reichert)
27. IL-10 (Kirk)
28. MD-01* (Gilchrest)
29. FL-21 (L. Diaz-Balart)

Lean R
30. NY-26* (Reynolds)
31. AZ-03 (Shadegg)
32. AL-02* (Everett)
33. MO-09* (Hulshof)
34. CA-04* (Doolittle)
35. KY-02* (Lewis)
36. MO-06 (Graves)
37. IN-03 (Souder)
38. ID-01 (Sali)
39. MN-06 (Bachmann)
40. NE-02 (Terry)

Likely R
41. FL-25 (M. Diaz-Balart)
42. OH-02 (Schmidt)
43. NV-02 (Heller)
44. VA-02 (Drake)
45. WY-AL* (Cubin)
46. FL-13 (Buchanan)
47. WV-02 (Capito)
48. IA-04 (Latham)
49. TX-07 (Culberson)
50. PA-15 (Dent)

Watch List (up to 65)
AL-03 (Rogers)
CA-03 (Lungren)
CA-46 (Rohrabacher)
CA-50 (Bilbray)
IL-06 (Roskam)
IL-18* (LaHood)
LA-07 (Boustany)
NJ-05 (Garrett)
OH-07* (Hobson)
OH-14 (LaTourette)
PA-06 (Gerlach)
SC-01 (Brown)
TX-10 (McCaul)
VA-05 (Goode)
VA-10 (Wolf)

GOP Pickup List

Likely R
1. FL-16 (Mahoney)

Toss-up/Lean R
2. TX-22 (Lampson)
3. PA-11 (Kanjorski)

Pure Toss-up
4. KS-02 (Boyda)
5. LA-06 (Cazayoux)
dividing line
6. NH-01 (Shea-Porter)
7. AL-05* (Cramer)

Toss-up/Lean D
8. PA-10 (Carney)
9. GA-08 (Marshall)
10. WI-08 (Kagen)

Lean D
11. IN-09 (Hill)
12. TX-23 (Rodriguez)
13. PA-04 (Altmire)
14. NY-20 (Gillibrand)
15. CT-05 (Murphy)

Likely D
16. AZ-08 (Giffords)
17. AZ-05 (Mitchell)
18. KS-03 (Moore)
19. KY-03 (Yarmuth)
20. OR-05* (Hooley)
21. CA-11 (McNerney)
22. PA-08 (Murphy)
23. NH-02 (Hodes)
24. MS-01 (Childers)
25. MN-01 (Walz)

Watch List (up to 35)
CT-02 (Courtney)
IL-08 (Bean)
IL-14 (Foster)
IN-08 (Ellsworth)
ME-01* (Allen)
NC-11 (Shuler)
NY-19 (Hall)
NY-24 (Arcuri)
OH-18 (Space)
UT-02 (Matheson)

Kinda surprised this thread hasn't got more action - predictions too reasonable, perhaps???  :P

Bumping anyway.

Yeah, I think that's it, at least for me. Nothing really to quibble with, and it's too early to have a good feel for most of these races yet.

I'm not a crystal ball wielding kind of guy, but I do enjoy reading other folks take on such things. Here's Chris Cillizza, over at the WaPo, take on the Senate seats most likely to flip as of now.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/08/the_line_where_are_the_gop_sen.html

10. Alaska: We never thought we'd write this, but Sen. Ted Stevens (R) appears to be in serious electoral jeopardy. Stevens, a legend in Alaska politics, has drawn considerable scrutiny from a federal investigation into a pay-to-play scandal involving an Alaska energy company. Democrats sense an opportunity and are optimistic that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, the son of late Alaska Rep. Nick Begich (D), will decide to take on Stevens. A recent independent poll conducted in the state showed the depth of Stevens's potential problems: 44 percent felt favorably toward him while 40 percent felt unfavorably. Stevens, 83, insists he has no plans to retire. If the investigation continues to proceed, however, Stevens may rethink that plan. (Previous ranking: N/A)

9. South Dakota: All eyes will be on Tim Johnson (D) later this month when he makes his first trip to the state since emergency brain surgery late last year. While we believe Johnson wants to run for another term, we don't believe he has made a final decision. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) announced earlier this month that he would begin to put the pieces in place to find a serious candidate to challenge Johnson. The response by Johnson's office -- calling Ensign's announcement "a classless attack by a desperate chairman" -- was WAY over the top; Ensign's job, after all, is to elect more Republicans. Even so, it's hard to see a serious Republican emerging if Johnson decides to run for reelection. Gov. Mike Rounds (R) is the party's strongest candidate but would likely run only if Johnson decides to retire. (Previous ranking: 9)

8. Nebraska: Can anyone claim to know what's going on in the mind of Sen. Chuck Hagel (R)? The Fix expects him to announce his retirement from the Senate some time this fall, but Hagel has proved us wrong before. If Hagel retires, Democrats are expected to make a major push for his seat. The likely candidate is Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey, although former Sen. Bob Kerrey has also expressed some interest and might well have the right of first refusal. Republicans would quickly move to recruit Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, a former Nebraska governor, but it's not clear that Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is already in the race, would back out. The eventual Republican nominee should be helped by the state's strong GOP bent. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. Minnesota: Sen. Norm Coleman must be feeling pretty good about his reelection chances, since he is bringing President Bush into the state on Aug. 21 to raise money for his candidacy. Coleman can expect a bashing from both of his potential Democratic opponents -- comedian Al Franken and 2000 Senate candidate Mike Ciresi -- but he obviously calculated that the money he will raise from the Bush visit is worth it. It's hard to analyze this race until we know whether Franken or Ciresi will emerge from next summer's nominating convention as the party's nominee. Either way, Democrats will seek to make the race a referendum on Coleman and his relationship with President Bush. It's a potent argument in a state Bush lost in 2004 (albeit narrowly), but even Democrats acknowledge Coleman's political savvy and agree that this race is far from a slam dunk (don't forget that the GOP will hold its national convention in the Twin Cities next summer). Still, it is a testament to Democratic opportunities in 2008 that a race likely to be decided by a few percentage points is only ranked No. 7 on The Line. (Previous ranking: 5)

6. Maine: Democrats want the race between Rep. Tom Allen (D) and Sen. Susan Collins (R) to be about one thing -- Iraq. Allen voted against the war in 2002 while Collins supported it. Republicans argue that Iraq is only a part of this race; voters know and like Collins for her moderate positioning on a wide range of issues, they say, and respect the fact that she is trying to find a consensus solution somewhere between President Bush's surge proposal and Democrats' push for withdrawal. Who's right? We don't know. Here's two things we do know: First, Collins is in the fight of her political life; and second, her political skills are regularly underrated. (Previous ranking: 4)

5. Oregon: After a long search, Democrats have settled on state House Speaker Jeff Merkley as their preferred candidate against Sen. Gordon Smith (R). Merkley started the campaign on the right foot by recruiting Gov. Ted Kulongoski and former Gov. Barbara Roberts as his campaign chairs, although he still faces a primary from activist Steve Novick. Merkley is seeking to set the terms of the race early by making clear he opposed the war in Iraq from the start while Smith made an "election night reversal" on the issue. Smith is no slouch and will be very well-funded. But the national political environment could play heavily in this race. A poll conducted for Novick showed that just 21 percent of Oregonians thought Bush was doing an "excellent/good" job while a whopping 79 percent thought he was doing a "fair/poor" job. We known Smith isn't Bush, but that is a tough hill to climb for anyone with an "R" after his name. (Previous ranking: 7)

4. Virginia: This race continues to move up The Line based on two assumptions: Sen. John Warner (R) announces his retirement next month and former Gov. Mark Warner (D) quickly enters the race. If either of those events doesn't come to pass, then this race will drop down the rankings. But John Warner does seem set to leave the Senate after more than three decades in office, and Mark Warner is clearly itching to get back into political life following his sudden departure from the presidential race in the fall of 2006. Mark Warner, who left office as one of the most popular governors in the country, would almost certainly have the Democratic primary to himself. Republicans, meanwhile, would likely face a primary between Rep. Tom Davis and former Gov. Jim Gilmore, a race that could expose serious ideological division within the GOP. Regardless of whom Republicans pick, Mark Warner would be a favorite. (Previous ranking: 6)

3. Louisiana: We're leaving this race in the No. 3 position because we can't figure out where else to put it. On the one hand, even Democrats acknowledge that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) is endangered due to the changing political nature of the Bayou State -- a process that was accelerated by the outmigration from the Democratic bastion of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. On the other hand, Republicans seem to be putting all of their hopes on state Treasurer John Kennedy, who is currently a Democrat. Party switching isn't the black mark in Louisiana that it is in other states, but Kennedy's flirtation with the state Attorney General's race this year (he eventually decided not to run) raises questions about how dedicated he is to challenging Landrieu. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. New Hampshire: Although Democrats are worried about premature celebration, most state and national party strategists believe former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is going to announce next month that she will take on Sen. John Sununu (R). Shaheen's own husband has told supporters that his wife is "70 percent" likely to run, according to columnist Bob Novak. If Shaheen runs, she starts the race as the favorite. Sununu is a savvy senator but faces a very difficult task in running away from President Bush and the Republican label -- both of which are major problems in the Northeast. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Colorado: The challenge before former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) became clear late last month when a liberal activist group -- known as ProgressNowAction -- accused him of selling his vote on the state's Board of Education for a campaign contribution. Whether the accusation sticks is beside the point. Colorado has an incredibly well organized and well funded group of progressive groups that will be blasting away at Schaffer every day of the campaign. That means Rep. Mark Udall (D) can keep his hands clean, focusing on courting the political independents who will likely decide the race. (Previous ranking: 1)

Nlm, I do take opinions by Cook (when he updates), Rothenberg, Cilizza (less so) and a couple of others into account when making my rankings, but thanks for posting it anyway.

Those are my qualms. NH is toss up without Shaheen and likely D with her. MN is toss up. Georgia is safe. Texas is safe.

Astute predictions - any partisan bias =  more agreement and fewer comments

Conan:

Texas and Georgia should be safe, but I always play it more cautious coming out of the gate.

NH will be Lean D with Shaheen, sorry we disagree.  Too early to put anything in the Likely part of the other team's column unless an open seat.

MN may be tossup eventually, but it certainly not tossup now.

Sam, would you agree that Mike Ciresi is a stronger nominee than Al Franken? While Norm Coleman is more charismatic and less prone to errors that Rod Grams, I see parallels between the 2000 race between liberal self-funder Mark Dayton and wishy-washy conservative Rod Grams.  I'd put Coleman in the toss-up category for now, largely because of  Minnesota's political history.

Minnesota has the longest streak of voting Democratic in  a Presidential election (and it nearly voted fro McGovern in '72), it has only elected one Republican to the Senate since 1990 and it's recently swung heavily towards the Democrats (Democrats have retaken the State House, solidified their majority in the State Senate, won a U.S House seat and nearly beat the relatively popular moderate Governor with a milquetoast candidate who had a propensity for profane statements). If Norm Coleman could barely beat a politician with cob-webbed political skills (Walter Mondale) in the most pro-Republican year since 1994, how can he possibly be secure in 2008?

With Shaheen polling near 60% this far away from the election and Sununu's unwillingness to moderate, it's likely dem with her at this moment, and I guess it's only one poll for MN, if there's some more confirmation of those polls then it's def toss up now.

You sidestep the fact Mondale had never lost anything in Minnesota and was never expected to.

I get your point, but thanks for trying to be funny anyways.  :P

Based on events of the past week, I have updated my Senate list.

why do you think Warner v Davis would be only lean D?

B/c it's Virginia, which last time I checked is still considered a lean R state at the Prez level.  Warner would cut into Davis in rural Virginia.  Davis would cut into Warner in suburban Virginia.

Democrats
Strong Dem
Delaware
Illinois
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
Rhode Island

Likely Dem
Arkansas
Iowa
Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Virginia

Lean Dem
Louisiana
Minnesota
Colorado
New Hampshire
Oregon

Republicans
Strong GOP
Alabama
Alaska
Kansas
Mississippi
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Wyoming
Wyoming

Likely GOP
Georgia
Idaho
Nebraska

Lean GOP
Kentucky
Maine
North Carolina
New Mexico
Tennessee (if Ford runs, otherwise likely GOP)

Here's a map for it:
()

Okay...

At this point, I don't see Democrats winning Oregon.

I'd also move NJ from "Strong" to "Likely," and move Idaho from "Likely" to "Strong."  I mean, seriously, Larry LaRocco?

Umm, why?  I'd argue that Minnesota -- if the DFL picks Franken -- much more likely to vote GOP than Oregon is.

Updated

Great to see you're keeping tabs on these races. If I had more time (ie lighter course load), I'd post my House and Senate predictions. Oh, well, I guess I'll wait till Thanksgiving break.

For a person who's likely never set foot in the Beaver State, you've described our Senate race quite aptly and succinctly.

Democrats
Strong Dem
Delaware
Illinois
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
Rhode Island

Likely Dem
Arkansas
Iowa
Montana
South Dakota
West Virginia
Virginia
New Hampshire

Lean Dem
Louisiana
Minnesota
Colorado
Oregon
New Mexico

Republicans
Strong GOP
Alabama
Alaska
Kansas
Mississippi
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Wyoming
Wyoming

Likely GOP
Georgia
Idaho
Nebraska
Tennessee

Lean GOP
Kentucky
Maine
North Carolina

Here's a new map:
()

Well, I haven't done a thing about the House races myself, but I figure that the House races are still fairly fluid in many respects (challengers still likely to enter now).

Updated, with Illinois CD rankings.

Sam how come you don't have either NJ-3 or NJ-7 on your list for the House?

With Huckabee out of the Senate race for sure, I think it's time to put Arkansas in the "safe" category.

Because New Jersey has not had its filing deadline yet (read above).  Even though, if the opponents become clear, I may rate it.  Part of the reason why I'm doing House races this way is that 1) I haven't had enough time to do all the seats; 2) People may still enter the races.

As with the House races, I'm waiting until filing deadlines and playing it conservative till then, though I fully expect Arkansas to be in Safe before long.  I suspect Iowa, Michigan, Idaho, Nebraska and maybe Mississippi (depending on what happens there) to be on the list as well.  Probably not Texas, however

Updated with Texas added in the House.

Calling Lampson a tossup might be being generous. :) Or maybe you're unimpressed with the Rep recruiting there? Are there any obvious favorites for the nomination among his half-a-score strong field of opponents?
Nice to hear you think Rodriguez is in as little danger as Bean.

Much like Charlie Cook, I don't put anything in more than toss-up, until after primaries, at least, so don't read too much into that.  :)

Among the candidates, boy it could really be anyone.  But last time I heard, the conventional Republican decisionmakers liked Pete Olson, who was Cornyn's chief of staff.  He also raised $200,000 last quarter, which puts him in the serious category.

But it could be anyone...


Uh, Rodriguez is not in as little danger as Bean.  Bean is only there because her opponents have money.  Moreover, they only appear so close, because other CDs have not entered the list.  :)

I was really ambivalent about placing this one in toss-up or Lean D, so consider it right on the edge.  FYI, before Larson entered, this one was in toss-up in my mind

In addition, the Republican primary will be brutal (Canseco has money) and I expect the white guy to come out on top.  Plus, my gut tells me that Larson won't connect as well with certain border towns, like Bonilla did.  But if the Republicans nominate someone who won't drag them down along the border, like McCain, it'll go into the middle of toss-up immediately.  And I know about how general Presidential election turnout disproportionately favors Republicans more than any other type of election in this CD, so...

TX-23 is a lean Dem district with any Republican but Bush at the top of the ballot.  Just look at who has won the district under its current lines.  Landslide losers Ron Kirk in 2002 and Victor Morales in 1996 both carried this district. 

I do not think TX-22 should be under anything stronger than 'Toss-Up' either.  Its too early to start predicting the GOP can defeat Democratic incumbents yet, given the state the Republican Party is in, but regardless of that, the overall picture needs to become clearer. 

In TX-22, any Republican will be favored over any Democrat in a Presidential general election, regardless of incumbency.  Unless maybe it's Gibbs, but I don't see her getting past 9 other challengers (a few of whom are quite strong) and a runoff to boot.  That CD is partisan heaven, and Republicans have the edge (eroding as it may be).  It's also one of the few CDs in Texas where I suspect the Bush numbers are quite accurate generically.  It stays in toss-up for now, but it'll be moved in the future (barring something strange)

OTOH, the TX-23 arguments will go on ad infinitum.  I expect them to continue on into the future.

I will agree with you on TX-22 for the most part, but I could not disagree more on TX-23.  There is no way that a district that is 65% Hispanic is going to favor a white Republican over a Democrat with the last name Rodriguez.  Larson may carry the Bexar county portion of the district, but Rodriguez will likely rack up huge margins in the Border counties to more than overcome that. 

Poor Chet Edwards -- forever on the "Watch List." Oh, the vicissitudes of life as a Southern Caucasian Democratic Congressman.

His opponent is a third-tier candidate who lost Republican primaries back in 2000 and 2002 to face Edwards.  I don't really consider him in any danger.  Of course, the Republican will probably get 40% just by being there, but that doesn't win elections.

I agree with your designation of his race.  If the Democrats retake the TX State House, he could be around till 2022. By then, Texas may finally become a two-party state.

Quick question: How come IL-06 is listed as "Likely Republican"? The Democrats had a colossal recruiting failure here. I'd take this race off the board.

Remember though, that they would need to hold the House until after the 2010 elections in order to have any say so in designing maps.  And rural west Texas will likely be squeezed into fewer and fewer Congressional districts anyways.  Just something to keep in mind.

The CD is not that Republican (margins are declining) and the incumbent is a first-term incumbent, which to me is the weakest kind.  I understand the candidate problems, but I will likely give some Dem takeovers in 2006 similar designations.

If Democrats can get the state House for the 2012 redistricting, a few significant changes are likely to happen.  First, Republicans are not going to be allowed to split the Democratic base in Tarrant county between four different districts.  A fair district will likely be created that inculdes all of Fort Worth(including its blacks which Republicans also split pretty thin).  This district would likely elect a Democrat.  Then Democrats will likely force Republicans to create fairer distrist in Dallas.  This would likely require linedrawers to "unpack" some minority voters that are segregated into the TX-30 in order to keep them from having any significant influence in nearby districts.  

Don't disagree, though some compromise may be worked out in that situation, especially considering where the new CDs are going to be.

Republicans will likely get the new districts, while Democrats would be given a shot at some of the existing districts as Republican territory is pared away to create new ones. 

Some of the Dallas-area Republicans could be threatened, like Pete Sessions.  They were reduced to below 60% of the vote in 2006, and Bush lost ground in this area in 2004.  It was traditionally Republican-terain that elected his father to the House in 1966 - wealthy, white suburban and urban voters who care more about a candidate's economic than social values.  In the next few years perhaps the right kind of Democratic candidate could stage a comeback to win here - someone with Clintonesque economic virtues. 

It's an interesting conversation, but a lot depends on whether Democrats can take control of the House or the Governorship in 2010 (Senate control changeover is nil for a number of reasons).  Because if the Republicans have control of all three branches, they will deal with things in such a way that will not be pretty to Democrats, except to probably try and feed another CD to the Hispanics (not to mention trigger more lawsuits).

Sam Spade, I read Baker of Louisiana is retiring, which might create some play.

Possibly.  I hear the Dems have a good conservative Dem candidate down there and I don't know whether we still have any idea the composition of the CD after Katrina.  Of course, Louisiana is one of the few states in the Union right now that I suspect has no anti-GOP trend at present and I suspect will have little in 2008.

I've only really gotten a chance to get to Illinois and Texas House seats for the moment (because the filing deadlines are past) - but the rest of it will be up soon, probably after February 5.

I added this race to my "Potentially Competitive" category.

updated...

Come on josh22 and Harry, you know you want to post something...

Right now, I would say NC is Lean Republican, Hagan has stayed close but not that close to put it as toss-up. But I do see it becoming toss-up.

I appreciate that you can look at the race objectively, unlike most of the Republicans on this board who remain certain of a Wicker double-digit victory.

I didn't say that a double-digit victory wouldn't occur - rather this is an observation of a race as it stands right now.  Naturally, you know what I expect to happen.

I might put Minnesota closer to tossup than lean R but that's about all...  when I did these things I made two categories entitled "Tossup D" and "Tossup R" to differentiate.  Minnesota this year seems made for the "Tossup R" category, at least for now.

Considering the GOP got the best possible match-up in terms of winning the election, I think NJ should be moved to Likely D rather than Safe D.  I'd say Zimmer winds up losing by less than 5%

No.  Not with Franken.

So, in other words, Zimmer will lose by double-digits.  Thanks.

NJ Repubs never lose by double digits, right around 10 pts is really the max.  I think Zimmer could definitely pull this one off, but it would take a good campaign.

It's a joke, considering your penchant for overestimating Republican chances.

I suspect Zimmer will probably run closer the worse his campaign is, so...

You must know something I don't. Like, Camden County finding a million absentee votes for Andrews yesterday.

I don't agree with you there, I think Andrews would have been much, much harder to defeat.  The main argument for NJ GOP is to say, "hey Democrats are old and trite and let's give us some new breath."  If Andrews had been in there, I doubt the GOP would have spent a lot of time on the election.  Lautenberg is old, incompentent, and not as good at winning the independents.

Ok, but a 60-something retread who ran and lost a statewide race 12 years ago and hasn't been heard from since is not the embodiment of change.

Machines, machines, machines, and sectional rivalries. Reps want to win a Senate race in NJ? Run a Rino from North Jersey (not "Central Jersey". Real North Jersey.) and get the Dems to run someone from the South of the State who's made his career in part by attacking the corrupt North Jersey machines while glossing over the fact that the south is no different. Ie, Andrews.

Alright, I finally put up a preliminary house list... ugh.

Pretty good list.  The only thing I would change would be VA-11 and NY-25.  I just dont see anyway Republicans hold those increasingly Dem seats without incumbents.  I would move them to lean dem pickup. 

1. NY-25:  You can certainly make a good case on that one.  Here, I am just being a tad conservative, but it could well be moved and probably will be long-term.

2. VA-11:  Have to disagree.  I know about the "trend" and let's face it, Dems selected the right candidate in Connelly over Byrne, but the fact is that this CD is still quite marginal in my book (even with the trend) and more importantly, I am not going to seriously think about moving it when the GOP candidate has $1 million in the bank.  Especially not at this early point.  You know, if the Dems would have nominated Byrne, the money factor and her weakness as a candidate probably would have had me place it on the other side of the tossup line.  Let's see, time will tell...

Good predictions, just a few changes I had in mind.
I would move CO-4 to leans R and then switch MN-1 with NH-2.

If Obama comes anywhere even close to winning Virginia, he will carry VA-11 by at least 10 points, which will make it almost impossible for the Republican to win. 

When that happens, I'll change it.  :)

In CO-04, when your own internal poll only shows you up seven, under 50%, that means you belong in toss-up.  Especially someone with a record like Musgrave - you see, McConnell in KY showing me something similar would mean Lean R, but Musgrave - no.

I feel very good about OH-15 being the top of the toss-up (or NY-25, whichever) because Kilroy's internal placed her at 47-37 over Stivers.  That should be stronger for someone who's been running for the past two years.  Whereas Musgrave at the bottom of the toss-up, fits nicely.

MN-1 vs. NH-2 has to with the PVI of the two CDs, plain and simple.

I was just looking at the candidates.  In MN-1, the GOP isn't going to have anyone worth while (Dick Day won't be Tim Walz).  But in NH-2, I see both Clegg and Horn capable of beating Hodes if things pan out right.  Also, watch LA-06.  Bill Anderson, who would be a great GOP candidate, is considering entering the race.  Combine that with the fact that Michael Jackson, who Cazouxou (however the hell his name is spelled) beat in the primary, might run as an independent, where he would pick up much of the black vote (Jackson's black), and things aren't looking good for Cazouxou.

Casayoux would be lower than he is if it weren't for the facts you mention (and his CD is more problematic, frankly).

I would put NJ-7 into Toss-Up definitely.

Not with Lance as the candidate and the history of that area. 

In fact, it would be below NM-01, the other marginal open seat where Republicans have a strong advantage based on the particulars (excluding IL-18 of course), but-for Stender's cash advantage at present.

But if my opinion changes or the situation changes, rest assured the ranking will.  It's only the end of June, quite early in these types of races.

Good list. I know it is a small change but I have better feeling about the democrats prospects in Ohio 16 than in 15. I think the candidate line-up there is much better for them.

Also I think Chris Murphy is much safer than listed. He won by 12 points over the woman who based on past results was arguably the toughest Republican in the northeast, despite being vastly outspent. Yes the district was close in 2004, but this is precisely the type of northeastern seat where Obama will play well, and Murphy has a massive COH advantage over Capiello who would have been a decent candidate in 2002, but has no shot in 2008. I think it will be at least 15 points probably more.

Don't you think NC-8 belongs in the Toss-Up category?  In 2006, Kissell lost by just 329 votes.  This year, he will have Obama behind in a district that is 27% black and that Kerry managed to get 45% in.  I could see both Obama and Kissell carrying NC-8 with about 50% of the vote easily.

Time will tell.  Quite frankly, I consider all contenders to these two seats to be quite legit.  Moreover, both candidates have raised enough funds to be considered credible (which is really a key point this early in the campaign).  The difference therefore, is the CD itself (one is about four-five points more Republican in the PVI than the other).  Thus, the ranking - but note where both are.  At this point in the election, it is impossible to say more.


Freshman Rep.  District leans slightly Dem, but is marginal.  Challenger is an "A"-type challenger (compare that to a lot of the seats below him or on the watch list).

Any Obama "coattails" are only noted in two places for me (until we get much closer to the election):  1) Illinois; 2) open CD's with high black populations.  Everything else is merely wishful thinking right now, imho.  There also may be a bit of reverse coattail in highly HIspanic CDs due to turnout issues, but we're not there yet to taking that into account.  Otherwise TX-23 would be higher.

Ya, but Kissell was one of those candidates in one of those CDs that was seriously helped by the wave - to the tune of probably about 5 points (the wave was particularly strong in that area of the world).

Historically, Hayes is one of these candidates that gets into trouble when he gets complacent - like in 2006.  I don't see him being complacent this year.

Anyway, black turnout is only part of the equation.  If I didn't think black turnout would be higher, Kissell would be lower.  We shall see.  But note where Kissell is - the distinctions between the bottom of toss-up and Lean R/D at this point in the campaign are not "that" great.  :)

NJ-7 is a toss up in my book. Stender will outspend Lance, probably by a lot. Also, look at the history. It's a trending dem district and is only slightly republican. Plus, this is 2008, which looks to be a strong dem year, and this is NJ. At most it's barely lean Lance.

But she didnt win in 2006, which was a worse year for Republicans than 2008 will be, and I can guarentee you that.

You can not guarantee 2008 won't be as bad as 2006 was, both as a whole and in the case of this seat. For one, Republicans are no longer defending a majority with ample funds, but are a fractured minority without the money to compete with the Democrats. For two, the top-of-the-ticket dynamic favors Democrats in a Presidential election in N.J. For three, it's now an open seat, and not an incumbent defense. Some people have argued this cuts both ways with Ferguson, but that's a challenging case to make.

Whatever else, we can all agree that you can't draw a straight line from '06 to '08 and say '08 will be better for Republicans, so any Democrat who didn't win last time is S.O.L.

No it doesn't mean she can't win, but it doesn't mean you put in the "leans gop" category either.

Dick Zimmer being on the ballot should likely help Lance.  They have the same key base, and so both should be relentlessly targeting the same voters.

And you do have to remember that Stender's near miss in 2006 was more due to Foley than anything else.  (Specifically, the relevance it gave Ferguson's Washington DC bar scandal.)

That is ridiculous. Completely nothing to do with Foley and there's nothing to suggest that. Her near miss was because the district is about 50/50 and she was a well funded candidate. There's really no stronger explanation. We shouldn't ignore the most simplest of facts.

Let's also get straight that yes, the district has been lean GOP for quite some time. Lance is a good candidate for the district. I happen to believe it's a toss-up and lean Lance at Best. Also, Stender isn't even the best candidate the dems could get for this district.

I happen to think that her fundraising, Lance's so far lack of, the timing, the marginal demographics of the district, and Obama will carry her over.  Obama did his best in the counties (except Middlesex) that make up this district in the primary. (Haven't specifically looked up the district though)

Sam Spade, plaudits for compiling a solid House race list. I have only a few disagreements. First, why do you rank CT-05 above the two vulnerable Arizona Democratic freshmen. The GOP candidate against Chris Murphy has underperformed in fundraising and has been chastised by local Republicans for his weak campaign operation. While Giffords is a rising star in the Democratic Party, she'll face the toughest challenge of her career against State Senate President Tim Bee, who will try to ride the McCain coattails to victory.

Second, I'd place CT-04 higher than NM-01. We both know that Heinrich is a weak Democratic candidate who is handicapped by race and lack of political experience. Sheriff White is a top-notch contender, someone who probably could've held this seat in 2006 for the GOP.  In CT-04, we have a Democratic contender who is a perfect fit for this district. Himes is a Harvard-educated Wall-Street millionaire turned do-gooder who volunteered in the poor precincts of this district. Himes has drawn on his extensive list of wealth contacts to nearly match Shays' fundraising.  Unlike the Farrell, who was allergic to door-to-door comapaigning, Himes is a campaign-aholic, someone who will knock on enough doors to enough victories. He simply can't be outworked.

He's also quite impressive on the stump. I remember reading an article with quotes from voters saying that he, not Obama and Clinton, should be the Democratic POTUS nominee. He's a policy wonk with a charisma, a compassionate politician with connections to big money, and he'll have the full backing of the DCCC. With Obama expected to carry this district by 5-10 points, I'd peg Himes as a slight favorite. This is one race where if I had to bet today, I'd go agaisnt the conventional wisdom and pick a Himes upset.

Policy wonks have a heck of a lot of trouble winning heated elections, I find.

Yes, but he's a policy wonk with a rare ability to distill complicated concepts into short sound bites. In one of his campaign events, he successfully explained the need for AMT reform to a group of senior citizens. Any politician who can explain tax policy to the Social Security crowd is truly gifted.

Your points on CT-05 and CT-04 are quite valid, although Shays will be hard to oust.  I seriously thought about putting AZ-08 higher myself, but I decided not to. 

I don't know whether White would have won in 2006 - would he have been able to get Madrid to crack for the ad Wilson got - probably not.  And otherwise overcome the wave.  If there's one CD where that might occur - it's here, but consider me ambivalent.  I should not that Novak rated this race Lean D because not having Wilson on the top might not get the requisite turnout on the East Side.  Doesn't he realize that White was the head of the Republican effort here in 2004?  Just a side comment.

Really, with a lot of these Lean Rs/Lean Ds, it's more about gauging where they should fall rather than getting it *exactly* right.

The only minor changes I might make right now as to the list since creating it is to push Sali up to the bottom of Lean R and bump Hill down a little bit within Lean D  (at least below Mitchell, maybe below Ciro).

Pst, I have news for you. Himes isn't doing anything. He has a few horrible commericials, one of which is where his old teachers endorse him, and call him "Jimmy". Also, whatsherface got enough signatures to force a primary, so he'll have to wait a bit more before he can go after Chris.

 I say Chris wins this one with 52%-54%

Yes, Himes isn't doing anything, except matching Shays nearly dollar for dollar in fundraising, campaigning all across the district, all while investing in a solid GOTV operation. You might no like Himes introductory ads, but they're effective in defining the candidate before the Shays money machine can.

Do really think Himes will fall short of Diane "What's retail politics" Farrell' showing? Part of why Farrell underperformed in '06 was due to the decreased Bridgeport turnout. Obama will help Himes in that area. If Shays wins, it'll be a 51-49 win, not a 54-46 win.

I'd also like to note Himes' GoldmanSachs touch. Goldmans never lose.

Updated.

I'm considering mainly the fact that in 2004 and 2006, you saw Diane Farrell everywhere this time of year. Most of the people I know dont even know who Jim Himes is, which isnt a very good thing for the democrats in the district.

Politico had this poll (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/Poll_shows_Schmidt_vulnerable.html) that has Schmidt in a questionable position.  I'm not sure if I'd keep her in Potentially Competative or move her down to Likely Republican.

Jack Ryan?

He won the primary...never lost an election.

Bob Torricelli went out with an unblemished record, too, right?

Yes, he simply was too ill to hold office or something like that...

What does Torricelli have to do with anything?

he technically did not lose is the point being made.

Moved a few races around very slightly (a spot here, a spot there), due to some fairly strong fundraising numbers today from the GOP non-incumbents Ozinga in IL-11 and Paulsen (now over a million in COH) in MN-03.  Same thing with Kirk in IL-10, but its not unexpected there.  Moved NY-25 and AZ-01 up the Dem takeover lists for obvious reasons.

Good changes. Besides NM-01, MN-03 is probably the GOP's top hope for holding a contested open seat.

Finally, Martin Heinrich has caught a break. In a recent NYT article, Sheriff Darren White took a shot at Bill Richardson.   “You can’t go on the national stage and have people find out you have no problem with a bloody sport,” said Sherrif White, in reference to Gov. Richardson's weak stand on cockfighting.

This could motivate Big Bill to awaken from his political slumber to take on White. A politically active Richardson campaign for Heinrich is just what the Anglo liberal's flagging campaign needs.

I doubt Richardson alone can save it, but who knows.

Of course, Richardson's approvals have been slowly sinking over his problems with the Legislature (among other things).

Richardson has also lost a little luster wit his failed Presidential run. He and Dodd seem to be suffering in state polls because for much of the last two years, they were more focused on Des Moines than Darien or Dona Ana County, respectively.

At time point I'm not sanguine about Heinrich's chances. Barring a full-out Richardson/DCCC media blitz, White will prevail by 4-6%.

I think the little Countrywide Mortgage issue is more of a cause for Dodd than his failed Presidential run.  I thought Richardson's drop was more recent than the last two years (and more localized, I'm pretty sure).


Media blitzes tend to not be very effective in this part of the world unless your advertising is very effective, because the voters are too weird and independent.  Who knows, maybe it'll be different this time.  :)

Cockfighting is legal in New Mexico... and the "weak" stand, certainly, consists of buckling under and following 47 states into banning it.
Which won't happen as long as Albuquerque doesn't outvote the remainder of the state. Shame White is running in Albuquerque... elsewheres being against cockfighting would cost him votes.

I didn't know you had sympathy for cockfighters.  cool.

I say let the chicken choose whether to ban cockfighting or mass poultry farming. I know which would be banned.

Paulsen's not the only MN-03 candidate putting up gaudy fundraising numbers. Ashwin Madia (D): ~$650K raised (rumored) $693K raised; $738K CoH (press release)

Interestingly, I think Madia and Paulsen are both rising stars who could someday be senators. If Madia wins, he and Walz (if they're both still around) will be the top Democratic Senate candidates in 2014.

I see Paulsen as the next Paul Ryan, an adroit youngish conservative who can easily hold an otherwise marginal district. Both of these candidates have a lot of potential as legislators -- it's an unfortunate reality that one of them has to lose.

So, it goes on the other side of Porter now.  I won't put it on the side of going Democrat without any polling on the race simply because of the history of this area of Minnesota and its tendencies.

In many ways, MN-03 and NJ-07 are sister CDs, with NJ-07 being slightly less marginal, and more importantly, with two candidates I know pretty well, henceforth the distinction.

Yep. If I could only watch the results of two House races, I'd choose those two. If Democrats win both, they'll have a very good night. A split hints at a decent Democratic showing. A double retention suggests Republicans will hold most "Leans R" seats and will not be blown out in open seat tossup races.

Well, I wouldn't be so drastic.  After all, it is possible that one or more of the candidates has a local "fcuk up" which doesn't affect the national mood.  But on the whole, you're probably right.  Of course, that's why NJ-07 is ranked where it is and MN-03 is ranked where it is.

You're also probably right on that other thread of yours that the night won't be that good for the Dems in the House should they not win the two Ohio seats.

Made a couple of modifications to the Senate list due to the FEC filing garbage, etc. - moved Oregon ahead of MS (Wicker) (I was planning on doing this one for a while now) and moved Texas down to safe (Noriega has absoluetly zero chance with raising that little money).

House movement will probably take me until the weekend, should I decide to make any.

I'll follow suit on the Senate races. I'm also bumping Minnesota up to Leans Republican. Franken seems to have weathered the worst attacks and his CoH numbers should sustain him through the fall. He'll have to grab onto those Obama coattails...

If I were you, I'd nudged NJ-03 up the competitiveness chart. I've also bumped IL-10 down to #17. I have this gut feeling that Kirk will survive even if Obama wins that district with 60%, which I think is unlikely. Kirk's excellent field operations, the delicate redistricting that removed many Democratic precincts, and Seals' lack of a political base are all factors in Kirk's favor. Don't be stunned if Kirk pulls a Gerlach and wins a race he should lose on paper.

NJ-03, why?

On IL-10, I'll agree to put him behind Musgrave, but I'm leery of doing too much, considering coattails.  Same thing applies considering what's been going on in IL-11.

I'd move NJ-03 from Tossup to Lean D. That's what I meant.

I'm suspicious of the effect of coattails in district with politically wishy-washy affluent, well-educated professionals. They may vote for Kirk as a way to keep Obama honest on taxes.

As you well should be.  Yea, I'm close to doing that myself on NJ-03 also.

I could note some of the more important House fundraising news I've read today, but that's not for this thread.

Interesting KS-03 fundraising numbers:
                                                          Q2        CoH
KS-03     Dennis Moore     D-inc.     $336     $1,140     
KS-03    Nick Jordan    R                 $472    $616    

Jordan may be the toughest foe Moore has ever faced. In 1998, Moore defeated ultra-conservative freshman Congressman Vince Snowbarger. In 2002, the infamous Phill Kiline lost by 3%. Two years later, the NRCC's star recruit here lost in the GOP primary, but the primary winner held Moore to a 50%-47%. The last two cycles have ended with double-digit Moore wins over conservative candidates.

Now the GOP has found a moderate from Johnson County to run against Moore. If Jordan had run in 2002, he might be running for reelection now. While Jordan is the right fit for the district, he still faces the twin challenges of incumbency (Moore finally appears to be ensconced here) and the political climate.

I've bumped this race up to #17th most likely Democratic seat to flip.

I dont know.  If Moore could survive in 2002, which was a pretty bad year for Democrats and then he faced moderate, pro-choice Adam Taff, I think he should be fine in 2008.  Johnson is really no moderate, he is pro-life(which is out of step with this socially moderate district) and doesnt seem to be very charismatic. 

Keep in mind that the last Republican to hold this district for a long time, Jan Myers(1984-1996) was strongly pro-choice. 

Perhaps. Jordan is a  "moderate"  in the sense that he is a nonentity who has not taken part in the factional squabbles in the State Senate. Unfortunately, his effort to unite the Johnson CO GOP is going to be nuked by Phil Kline's run for DA. Kline is going to win a nasty primary, and then he is going to go down in flames in the general in a area he lost by 30 points two years ago.

Normally a local race would not have coattails in a Presidential year, but Kline is currently breaking the local party to pieces, and Jordan allowed himself to be sucked in on Kline's side earlier this year. It was probably a smart decision in the short run because opposing Kline might have triggered a far-right challenge, but it undid most of Jordan's moderate credentials. If Moore is smart he will make Kline's antics the issue, as Kline has become an enormously polarizing figure.

Ah... Phill Kline, a mesmerizingly charismatic public speaker who espouses views to the right of Sam Brownback's, whose mercurial career has yet to reach its eventual nadir.   Now Kline is trying to replace the Johnson County DA who replaced him as AG. I agree with your assessment of Kline's chance. Kline's presence on the ballot with hurt Jordan a little, but I doubt it will cost him the election. Voters know that Jordan is a "mod" and Kline is a"con," they'll distinguish between the two.

I expect Jordan to pull 45%-47% of the vote. If Jordan exceeds Kline's 2000 performance (which was before Kline went off the ideological deep end),  KS-03 will be one of the hottest races of the 2010 cycle. Moore may even retire if he barely wins in such a Democratic year.

2010 depends on who is elected President.  If its Obama, Moore could be in real trouble.  If its McCain, expect Moore's 2010 perecentage to increase. 

Exactly. As of right now, I expect Obama to win. Which is why I think Moore could be in trouble if Jordan wins >47%.

Part of the problem with the Moderate-Conservative war in the Kansas GOP is that while it has ideological underpinnings, its not really so much ideological as personal. A political figure fails to back a candidate who is popular with the mods, and he is promptly labeled an enemy irregardless of voting record, and vice-versa for the Conservatives. Its a nasty game of tit for tat, and one in which Jordan's voting record will matter less in the minds of mods than his failure to back Steve Howe if Howe ends up losing the primary. If Howe wins it won't matter to the mods as much, but Conservatives will attack Jordan for being insufficiently pro-Kline. It is a lose-lose situation guaranteed to damage him either way.

That said, his support for Kline would be less damaging if he had stronger factional moderate creds. While he has a moderate ideological creds, he has never taken a leading role in the conflict until now, and this time he has come in on the Conservative side. Furthermore, knowing a bunch of them, I'm not convinced the mods even want to win back this seat. The annual fiasco in KS-03 has become a way for them avenge their powerlessness at the statewide level, and I am not convinced that they are willing to give it up, or if they are that they would be that disappointed if they lose. Taft was a "moderate" too, and when he finally got the nomination they did nothing for him. We will see.

One quick thought: In KY-02, the Democrat's fundraising has been abysmal. According to the buzz in the KY political blogosphere, his campaign is far behind where Mike Weaver's was at this point in the cycle. Of course, Weaver lost by 10% in the most favorable political climate to Democrats since 1974. Even the flush DCCC hasn't committed to spending there. Which is surprising because they're spending money in other long shot open seats like NM-02 and CA-04.

It's only that one poll.  I expect it to move lower on my list, frankly, and will probably do so.

Okay. I just mention this because I think it'll be hard for him to capitalize on a slight lead in a summer poll when he's down 10-1 in CoH. ;)

Then again, that doesn't seem to matter to those who think Leonard Lance will win....
(MW08 crouches under a table as he waits for the Jersey Republicans to remind him that Lance is actually leading in the polls, and that Stender was tarred by over $2 million in "Stender is a Spender" ads.)

Some minor changes.  Nothing big really, however.

Hmm... Why did you move MO-09 below MO-06? Have you bought into the "Baker is too LIBRUL to win in rural MO" buzz?

I moved it a tad too low after the primary before I read up on both candidates.  However, it still goes below Graves, sorry...  :)

I should add - Luetkemeyer appears to be right type of Republican for this CD - socially conservative, economically not too conservative, more of an old-school fiscal conservative (CfG ran ads attacking him) - rural voters are dominant here.

Yeah. The CfG bizarrely attacked him for opposing a gas tax holiday. Why would the CfG, which pretends to be a fiscally conservative group backed by leading economists, attack him for opposing an economically unsound idea?

Key word is "pretends".

The DCCC and the shadow NRCC (Freedom's Watch) are already battling on the airwaves.

DCCC hits Adelson's Freedom's Watch in radio ads
By Alex Isenstadt
Category: HouseTags: Freedom's Watch, DCCC

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure arm is announcing plans to air competing radio advertisements targeting Freedom’s Watch, the conservative advocacy group heavily funded by Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson.

The ads are set to begin airing Friday. A DCCC spokesperson did not provide information on the size of the ad buy.

“Democrats will not allow Freedom’s Watch to mislead voters,” said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for the DCCC.

The announcement comes one day after Freedom’s Watch announced plans to launch radio and television advertisements targeting Democrats nationwide.

The DCCC’s radio advertisements will be airing in the ten congressional districts where Freedom’s Watch is airing radio ads of their own: Idaho’s First Congressional District, Louisiana’s Sixth Congressional District, Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, Missouri’s 6th Congressional District, New Hampshire’s First Congressional District, New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District, New York’s 29th Congressional District, Ohio’s 15th Congressional District, Ohio’s 16th Congressional District, and Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District.
http://www.politickernv.com/alexisenstadt/2178/dccc-hits-adelsons-freedoms-watch-radio-ads

What is going to be the topic of these DCCC ads or are they not done yet?

The DCCC's site says the ads will "respond" to the Freedom's Watch ads. Will the ads attack Freedom's Watch's shady billionaire backer Sheldon Adelson, who is connected to forced abortions in China? We should know in a day or two.

That would be stupid.  Does anyone outside of political websites know what Freedom's Watch is?

Here's the possible ad: Have you heard the false, negative ads attacking Kay Barnes? The man  paying for those ads is a Las Vegas casino billionaire! Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has spent hundreds of millions  of dollars investing in Communist China, paying off the government and supporting forced abortions.  Dirty money, forced abortions, and lies about Kay Barnes. Is this all Sam Graves has left?

Paid for by the DCCC

The amusing thing is that those people who heard the negative ads are probably unlikely to the rebuttal - which would make the ad even more confusing than otherwise.

Kay Barnes, a pro-choice Democrat running in a culturally conservative Missouri district, should accuse her opponent of being weakly tied to someone being unbelievably accused of supporting "forced abortions"?

Really, make this campaign about abortion?  Do you want Barnes to have any shot of winning at all?

I'm a disinterested observer of MO-06. If I were an uninterested observer, I could be a Packers nut watching re-runs of Brett Favre's last game at Lambeau. :P

The ad script is similar to the ad the D-trip ran in MS-01 agaisnt Davis. Considering Barnes' pro-abortion rights views, they might tone down that part of the ad.

The DCCC is up with their response ads:
http://www.dccc.org/page/invite/bigoil?source=081108_jc

As Mr. Moderate predicted, they don't mention Freedom's Watch.

()

How close is that to your guess, Sam?

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=28

Made some changes to the Senate list.  Will try to update the House tomorrow.

NM is odd in that the NRSC has pulled out, but I personally suspect Rasmussen is right on where the race stands.

I think its time you add NC to Toss-up.

I haven't had a chance to update this in a while (esp. House).  Give me some time.  :)

Ok, sorry.

On the Senate side, everything's been updated.  Don't pay attention to the House yet, it's still under re-construction for the time being.

Stevens is still a tossup to win Alaska?  How long are you going to hold it in limbo Sam?

Until the trial is completed.

But this is a prediction, right?  If Stevens trial outcome is unknown, then we can still make a prediction on other factors.  Right now, he's not favored to win.  If he beats off the conviction, he could still be tarnished and there's no guarantee that he'd win regardless.  If the results of the trial determined the race, I'd agree with you, but the results will only determine if Stevens will even be competitive.

If he beats the conviction, he'll win - mark my words.  Torie doesn't agree with me, but so be it - I'm willing to stick my neck out here.  If he doesn't, he'll obviously lose.

The polls have him such right now that I would put in in lean D.

I would tend to agree that the bell cannot be unrung for Stevens when it comes to the trial, but I also suspect Republicans underpoll in Alaska, so who knows. Palin could well put him over the top by increasing turnout.

I don't know whether Palin will help, but Republicans do tend to underpoll in Alaska, so I agree there.  Whichever, the trial is the important part.

True. If it were anywhere other than Alaska I'd say the scandal would doom him regardless of the results of the trial (dye cannot be uncast, bell can't be unrung, whatever metaphor is to your liking here....). But it's Alaska, and they do like their pork. :)

What are the odds that Stevens will be found not guilty in DC before the election?  What happens if it is a hung jury?

I have no clue.  The trial starts tomorrow - let's see the evidence.


Most likely loses, but not 100% sure.

Hey, I want Stevens to lose as much as everyone else does.  But I'm playing it conservative here.

Sam, why is Stevens less vulnerable than Young? Young, unlike Stevens, hasn't been formally charged with any crime. Is it Young's polarizing persona (he's ornery and crabby, but not in a lovable way) that's costing him (as Ivan Moore asserts), or are Alaskans just more attached to 'Uncle Ted'?

Greater attachment.  Young's personality doesn't help matters. 

Good list. I haven't been able to pay as much attention to the races lately, so it's nice to see a clear run-down of who's up and down in the Senate races. My only beef with your rankings is Minnesota, which I think should be moved into the tossup category. Most polls show the race tightening and Barkley's presence in the race seems to be equally hurting the candidates, which is contrary to the current CW.

If Coleman were up by 5% right now, would he be running as many negative ads?  His constant negative ads suggest that Franken is closing in the polls. The DSCC and the NRSC are also going nuclear in this race, with the national Ds running an ad that blatantly exploits the death of a solider and the national Rs running ads featuring Franken's tirades. Both suggest that the campaign atmosphere is so toxic that only the harshest ads will cut through the ad clutter.  The reason these ads are so negative is because both candidates realize that the race is very tight.

If Coleman were up by 5-7 points, he could afford to run some contrast or mainly positive ads. Right now, his "lead" is within the MoE and it's imperative that he maintain his negative messaging.  For this reason and because of the national political climate, I'd classify this race as a tossup.

I'm not Sam, but Stevens lobbied for statehood for Alaska in the first place.  Contrast that with Young, who couldn't get elected until the House seat opened up unexpectedly.

Oh, I don't disagree that Coleman's lead is under 5 points, but he does have some sort of a "lead" considering no polling company has had Franken up in a while, and is Franken going to win any voters by constant negative advertising? 

Let's look at this another way, from the Franken view.  Seems to me like his strategy is to force enough Coleman voters third-party (along with DFL turnout help) to win.  The danger in that is, that if McCain starts performing worse than now, Republican voters are less likely to jump the third-party ship, and the strategy has its own potential risks with regards to his voters jumping the third-party ship.

Anyway, we'll see.  The rankings are, of course, flexible.  :)

Conversely, Begich is starting from a stronger position than Berkowitz, having both the name (not much use in a young state) and the geographic base (this does matter).

I met Berkowitz in June at a small fundraiser. He was emphasizing lowering energy costs for the Native communities as his signature issue, but also talked about "change" etc.

Updated D House List, but not D Watch List.

On the subject of Smith, I think he made a mistake with his earlier ads. While Oregonians may not like  high taxes very much, they also don't like personal attacks, which is why that incompetent Kulongoski won reelection because Saxton was an idiot. Of course, Merkley has reciprocated that treatment and more, but the fact that Smith was the first to launch attack ads makes me think he gave a rather negative impression of himself. At this stage, I'll call Merkley for the win, largely because Oregon has a high amount of registered Democrats and it would seem that they would have higher turnout than the Republicans in this election cycle. And the ads show the Dems have more ammunition than the Repubs in my opinion.

Also on a recentad, fearmongering
 can be a double-edges sword. If used correctly, it could plant enough doubt in the voter's minds, since there are a fair percentage of Dems who are concerned about letting the bad guys go free. On the other hand, it was an attack ad with a somewhat nasty character.

Kentucky has been moved to Lean R.

Schaffer simply beat Udall ragged in the MTP debate yesterday - was not pretty at all.

Nothing else on the news front - still waiting for a real poll out of NC.  :P

Are you going to give some commentary on the close House races, Sam? For example, why do you put Musgrave and Porter under water at the moment?

I'm not quite done yet with the new list, but I'll tell you why...

Musgrave:  Has been very poor at raising money and when you compare internal polls of the campaigns (Markey has herself up 9, Musgrave has herself up 2), it leads to a guess that Markey is probably up presently.  Also, Obama's campaign should be strong on the ground there.

Porter: Internal poll release of a few days ago by both campaigns (Titus has herself up 9, Porter has himself up 2).  Leads to a guess that Titus is probably up presently.  Obama's campaign should be strong there too.

The new Dem list is only updated halfway through Lean R, btw.

The other scary thing is how much Young (AK-AL) has improved his standing, imho.  Stevens too, and I think the government's case against him is not that strong.

Will you let me complete the update before pointing out incorrect things?  Thanks.  :)

Interesting new rankings.

 Some races look a little low (e.g., FL-24 and FL-25), some races look a little high (e.g., KY-02), but I generally agree with your rankings. My only major beef is with your ranking of FL-13. The presence of Jan Schneider makes it virtually impossible for Buchanan to lose. The incumbent also enjoys a massive CoH edge and the DCCC has not reserved any ad time there. I would definitely bump FL-25 (which is too close to call, right now) above FL-13.

It's nice to see that you agree Phil English is now in serious trouble.  We also agree that IL-10 is an overrated pickup opportunity for the Democrats. Kirk has now raised over $4.6 million and even Democrats concede that Seals is running a mediocre campaign. Despite the top-ballot atmospherics, it's not a good year to be an Illinois Democrat.

I'm only done updating everything through NY-26 or so yet.  Be patient.  I think a lot of this through.  :)  You don't know where FL-25 is going to be yet (though FL-24 will stay where it is).

On Illinois, Halvorson's weakness is fascinating and I have to wonder how she'll do if Blago gets indicted (which I think is becoming almost a foregone conclusion eventually).

As for Seals, if your own polls can't put you within 10% of Kirk, why should I believe that you're competitive.

Oh, on Phil English - I moved him up 1) because of the spending and 2) because the SUSA poll looks legit to me.

Sure it is!  Seals is one of just two I can think of looking unlikely to reap the rewards.


I'd love to talk with you about this one some time.

Sam, I have a challenge for you and I think you'll enjoy it but maybe not.

Can you list the five-seven House races, and, perhaps, two Senate races, which you are most likely to be proven wrong on in election day?  Upsets of Sam's predidctions, if you will.  I know you already try and adjust for this type of thing (AK-AK-AK), but it'd be a good firewall for you :P  Even if you miss a race or two, you can still have them on that secondary "Maybe I'm Wrong" list.

Sort of thing I'm truly interested in.  I trust your judgment as rough estimate of the consensus, but I trust your judgment more on where the consensus could be failing to take other factors into account.  :)   And it's not just CA-4 (which I'm surprised to note is already at #40, yay, higher than Politicker which has it at #53 or so) haha.   Besides the clear tossups, which races on November 4th would be the least predictable?

Or is your list already organized 100% in terms of confidence?

Yes, would be interested to see his take on these, as well.

Also looking to see if his upset picks pan out better this year than Steele in 2006 or Bush winning Hawaii in 2004.

Not that I'm being critical; at least he has the balls to make such picks, which I don't. :)

I have, in the past, chosen to make some upset picks.  This year, I probably won't, because when they're wrong they get pointed out and when I'm right - they don't. (e.g. Pombo in 2006)

:( Was truly looking forward to the upset pick.

You should pick Barkley to win in MN. :) Hell, if you won't, I just might have to pick up the slack!

Now might be the time to move up AZ-03. The DCCC has dropped over $670k there, including over $200k today.

From TPM (D):

The DCCC latest FEC filings from last night show that the Dems put down over $7 million for ads in 39 races across the country, in a mix of offense and defense. The single most notable expenditure: The Dems are spending $777,000 to go after scandal-plagued Rep. Don Young (R-AK), an astonishing amount for a small and very red state.


...

The NRCC has been playing defense with their media buys, compared to the Dems who have done mostly offense. The Hill reports that the GOP has now put down over $2 million on ads to defend Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Steve Chabot (R-OH). On top of that, Minnesota Public Radio reports that the NRCC has reserved $126,000 worth of ad time in defense of GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann.


...

Dole refuses to debate


...

Further elaboration from the hill on GOP spending:

MW08 - You have to wait for the update instead of blitzing me for being lazy about it.  :)

Some more spending updates for you to ponder Sam:


http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1008/NRCC_cutting_back_ad_buys.html?showall

Republicans will agree, this is a total FF move for the Democrats.

This independent only hopes the move actually works.

Sam, someone like yourself needs to give a good talkin' to Marc Ambinder, who is typically an adroit observer of politics. Today Ambinder wrote, "Sen. Mitch McConnell doesn't campaign very well in tight races." Maybe that why he pulled off an upset in '84, survived in '90, and fended off a challenge from the current KY guv in '96.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/every_analyst_does_their_own.php

You seem to know enough about this to write to him yourself.  :)

I might have missed a thing or two, but it's finally fully updated.

why is GA likely as opposed to lean?  I'd think that Martin's chances are closer to Musgrove's than to Allen's... I actually think he might be slightly more likely to win than Musgrove is (but also more likely to lose by 8-10%).

Much like I said earlier this year with Hagen, Martin has to prove to me that he can get above 44%-45%. 

In other words, all signs point to those Chambliss movers as being movers from Chambliss to undecided.  But so far, none of those movers have shown any inkling to move to Martin.  Until a poll shows they have interest in doing such, when election day gets here, they will move back to where they came from.

Of course, the fact that the DSCC is not advertising here is another factor.  Although they are advertising in KS, which makes no sense in comparison.

Tragically, she spells it with an "a" instead of an "e".

a little birdie told me to expect them to do so soon.  Well, no one told me that, but I can see the national party sprinting over.

Few changes made today:

1. Obviously, because of the Mahoney thing - his seat goes to lean R and becomes the most likely Republican pickup.
2. I switched NM-01 and AK-AL.  Heinrich had a good fundraising quarter and Dem spending in AK-AL speaks to nervousness.
3. Moved KY Senate back down to Lean R.  Although McConnell's people released a poll with him up only 9 and under 50, Lunsford's people returned with a poll showing him down by 3.  That to me does not translate to Toss-up/Lean R status.
4. I'm getting close to putting Georgia in Lean R, but some money has to be thrown there first.

Interesting changes. I pared down the list of potentially competitive GOP-held House seats, tweaked some House ratings (e.g., WI-08 moved down a notch), and moved up a couple of GOP-held Senate races.

I remain reluctant to move MN into the Tossup/Tilts Democratic column. Barring a late collapse in Coleman's numbers, I can't see Franken being more than an even bet to win on election day.

As do I.  With Rasmussen's number, I can't help but wonder if that had to do with the suit flap.  Because the week before that, if you're (Franken) releasing a poll showing you up 2, you're not leading in my book.  Whatever - hopefully we'll get some clarity soon enough.

New poll out confirms your idea on NV-02.  Some Kos diarist is sad right now.

Yay, CA-04 is now in the "lean" category.  Go Charlie Brown Go!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1008/DCCC_adds_eight_candidates_to_list_of_top_recruits.html
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added eight new Democratic challengers to its "Red-to-Blue" list of leading recruits.

The list, once viewed as a gold standard for the party's strongest candidates, now resembles more of a compilation of any Democrat with even a small chance of winning.

One of the additions is Louisiana technology executive Jim Harlan, running in a district that gave President Bush 71 percent of the vote in 2004.  He's running against Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who won a special election for Bobby Jindal's old House seat.  Harlan has been self-financing much of his long-shot campaign.

Another inclusion is blind rabbi Dennis Shulman, running against Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.).

The full list of additions are below:

Josh Segall (AL 03)
Nick Leibham (CA 50)
Becky Greenwald (IA 04)
Jim Harlan (LA 01)
Elwyn Tinklenberg (MN 06)
Dennis Shulman (NJ 05)
Linda Ketner (SC 01)
Larry Joe Doherty (TX 10)

Wow... the DCCC is really digging at the bottom of the barrel. Those are all the sort of candidates who will only win if the Democrats are picking up 40+ seats, which is quite a rosy scenario for them.

You know, Lunar - I do read other websites.

You read the ScoreCard?

The Miami Herald today endorsed Mario Diaz-Balart for reelection, but snubbed his brother Lincoln  in favor of Democrat Raul Martinez.

I still can't figure out which one of these races is closer.

Good question.  Rothenberg seems to think Mario is safer.

Hell yeah!

Interesting.  A quick aside: I just checked Rothenberg's ratings and I noticed that he also ranks AK-AL as "Likely Democratic." Factoring the Palin effect and the irascible ol' devil Young's ability to squeak out wins, I've bumped this race down to the lower part of the Pure Tossup category.

Rothenberg also sees FL-24 as "Leans Democratic," which is a bit higher than I'd rank it.

Rothenberg trusts Alaska polling more than I do (which is incredibly little, except factoring that the Republican is always understimated).

He also still has PA-03 as Toss-up/Tilts R, which I disagree with.  I agree with you on FL-24.

Good stuff. ;D

More rapid fire political news: The DCCC is spending $487k (!) to make a 1900 point ad buy (!!) in IN-03 (!!!). http://indiana.typepad.com/fwob/2008/10/breaking-487k-i.html

The Democrat in this race is a young lawyer who has outraised sluggish incumbent Mark Souder. This is JLT's old district, so the DCCC may be counting on her GOTV effort to bolster Democrat Mike Montagano's chances.

Like Jim Esch, Montagano is a young Democrat who could (if he wins) be positioned to hold this seat for a long time.

I thought JLT's district was more or less what IN-2 is now.

While much of her old district is now in IN-02,  part of her political base (cue HardRCafe saying "JLT and political base in the same sentence is a joke") is in the Fort Wayne area, which is in IN-03.

Hey guys, haven't been on in a while (so busy, but football will be over soon) and now I'll try to be on more often.  Sam, I agree with your analysis pretty well, but a few changes.  I think NM-02 is more likely to go Dem at this point (put it in front of the next five or six), I would move NH-01 down 2 or 3 (somehow, I think she'll pull off a win), and I think Dems will gain maybe two or three more than what you have now (17 Dem pickups, 6 GOP, for a net total of 11 Dem pickups).  Also, as far as the Boyda-Jenkins race goes, I think the debate tonite may have a major effect on the outcome of the race.

If the elections were today, the Dems would probably gain a net of 20 or so (probably 23-24 seats, while losing 3-4 to the GOP).  Rothenberg's prediction of 25-30 is possible, but I consider that the outer limit for now.  This, however, is not a *today* prediction.  Rather, it's a future one which will change as circumstances do.

MW08 and I agree on NH-01.  No more to say there.

NM-02 is a seat where the GOP is going to throw some money (and the GOP candidate has money).  Teague is from a GOP part of the CD, and that helps substantially, the question in my mind is going to be how Dona Ana goes.  Tinsley has some rep there and should perform slightly better than generic R in a even race.  How much may determine a win vs. a loss.  The internal dynamics of that seat simply favor the GOP generically.  Henceforth, tossup/Lean R.  I do suspect Teague is up a couple of points right now.

In KS-02, Jenkins has been a very impressive fundraiser and as we saw against Ryun, saved it all to the end for the last-minute bomb, which was very successful.  The DCCC will be absent here because Boyda wants it.  Boyda has shown more talent than I expected, but still... It is the closest thing to a toss-up in my mind right now.

Ok, I understand now that you're saying how it will end up on election day.  Also, what is the deal with Mahoney?  Will he issue an apology ad?  Can that save him?

Mahoney is almost assuredly going down.  Watch the next thread I post.

Guess who the NRCC thinks is safer? Mario or Lincoln?

The IEs say it all:
 
      FL-21   NRCC   13-Oct   Direct Mail   $22,272.22

   FL-21   NRCC   13-Oct   Media Prod.   $9027.18

          FL-21   NRCC   13-Oct   Media Buy   $488,000.00

   FL-21   NRCC   10-Oct   Direct Mail   $22,815.97

   FL-21   NRCC   10-Oct   Polling   $19,074.00

         FL-25 NRCC      $0


The DCCC hasn't spent a dime in either race.  Maybe the NRCC fears that Raul Martinez's solid base in his home town is enough to carry him to victory. (A similar situation occurred in the AZ-05 race in 2006.)


BTW, the NRCC is also now up in MO-06, CO-04, OH-15, and PA-03. Existing NRCC ad buys cover WI-08, MI-07, AL-02, AL-05, and OH-01. The NRCC is now running ads in ten districts, eight of which are currently held by the GOP.

This is the first  time all cycle that the NRCC has been a relevant entity. For many of these districts, the mold may have already hardened, as Tom Davis noted.
               

CO-04 probably.  PA-03, maybe.  Dems are still spending exceptionally heavy in OH-15, so I doubt things have hardened there.  MO-06, the Dems haven't spent much there and I agree with Stu that it's at Lean R.  Incumbent protection?

WI-08, I really doubt the chances, although it's better than other Dem-held CDs.  MI-07 is a complete toss-up to me.  So is OH-01, but Chabot has talent.  AL-02 and AL-05 make sense.

Oh, and the money does say something.  Garcia's (FL-25) people released a poll showing him 3 down today.  When that's the best you can do...

I agree that OH-01, OH-15, and MI-07 remain tossups. Kilroy suffers from lingering high negatives and Stivers is a strong candidate.  Chabot is a political Houdini -- but even he may not be able to pull his greatest act of all, surviving in this political climate. MI-07 is a pure tossup.  News that Garcia's own internal shows him down 3% is reason enough for me to bump that race down.

On other thought: the DCCC has expended nearly $1 million in AZ-01 and they put up a new ad today. Is Sydney Hay holding up better than Randy Graf did?

At this point, nothing can save him.  Do you not realize how brutally toxic his situation is?

How long before he cancels his reelection bid?

The GOP will likely pick up TX-22 and FL-16, two seats it only lost because of a series of unfortunate circumstances. Any gains for the GOP beyond those two seats will be impressive. At this point, I doubt the DCCC cares if  Mahoney hangs on.

He and Vito Fossella should start a cover band together after the election.

The ballots have already been printed. Any guesses on what % of the vote he pulls?

I'm guessing around 40%.
Good one. Maybe they'll let in Tom DeLay and Bob Ney so they can form the "I f***ed my party's campaign committee" band.

What is it with FL-16 and sex scandals?

Yeah, I was thinking of this weird what-if where, in 2006, Foley doesn't cancel his reelection bid but instead breaks this story about Mahoney. (of course, it would have had to have developped further by then for this to be at ll possible) I'd've loved to see that bitchfest. :D

Dems have thrown about 500K at Georgia.  That's good enough for me to push it into Lean, but in Senate contests, 500K is indicative of a test run to see the response (kinda like the 200K thrown into NE-02, not the 500K thrown into IN-03).

AZ-01 is a bit different of a CD than AZ-08, imho.  Lots of moderate Republicans in AZ-08.  Of course, McCain here helps greatly.  But spending one million is a sign of something.  Especially when Fitzpatrick is not exactly short of funds.

On a completely different topic, one of the things that's annoying me this year is the increased reliance of pundits on *publicly released internals*.  To me, you only rely on them when the candidate is showing himself behind or something like that.  Any other reliance is just guessing (like my 5-point differential formula, which is probably garbage with most polls even).

Lastly, I'm burying Steve Pearce today...

Given the track record of the national and statewide parties in understanding this seat, I wouldn't attach any significance to what they do or think. :P

The DSCC has bought 500k in Georgia...

Reading is your friend.  :P

Aww shucks.

That race was over when Pearce won the primary.

I know, I know.  But a move to Safe means that he's dead and buried, not just dead.  :P

I don't know, for some reason I don't see Musgrave losing reelection.

Musgrave's going to suddenly start to get an ouch of political talent?

No, but the Cook PVI in the district seems too slanted to the Republicans for Markey to win.  I dunno.

The district is clearly moving to the Democrats.  Musgrave's margin of victory has gotten thinner and thinner in every election since her first in 2002.  Just look at Larimer county that makes almost half of the district's votes and is the fastest growing in the district.  George W. Bush won it by just 52%-47% in 2004 after he won it 53%-39% in 2000 and even Bob Dole won it by five points in 1996.  Obama will almost surely carry it by at least a few points and that will surely help Markey. 

Uh, Bush won the district 58-41.  The only reason Larimer swung so much to Kerry was because the Nader votes (which constituted a high amount of votes in the county in 2000) broke hard for Kerry in 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBFARnjmIEE&eurl

Some talent in there.

McCain will be lucky to win it by five this year.  Larimer went from 53% in 2000 to just 52% for Bush in 2004 and the county is growing rapidly. 

isn't WY-AL as 'Likely R' a bit of stretch...?

Once again - reexamine the poll and tell me who the undecideds are.  I'm not getting ruined on my predictions like I did with Idaho in 2006 where the same thing occurred.

I understand that and agree with your implication that most undecideds will come home and pull Lummis across the finish line.  but 'likely' to me implies >90% or so chance of victory which just doesn't quite work for me...

this is a bit of an academic point as we agree Lummis is likely to win anyway but I'd put Trauner's chances closer to Musgrove's (lean) than I would Tom Allen's (likely).

I know you don't like news updates, but MAmbinder is saying that the DSCC is sending staff and even more money to GA.

Are either of these statements plausible, Sam?

1. Michael Skelly will win 47%-48% of the vote. He'll be buoyed by early voting, which will actually favor TX Dems for the first time in awhile.

2. Nick Lampson will win by a solid margin (>4%). The VFW has backed Lampson, the NRCC has pulled out of the district, and Lampson's  numbers suggest that Olson's approvals are in the negative range.  Growing minority turnout will holster Lampson's chances. Hurricane Ike also dampened enthusiasm for Olson in a district that needs federal pork to rebuild.

Possible.  I still think Skelly's ceiling is somewhat lower

2. Nick Lampson will win by a solid margin (>4%). The VFW has backed Lampson, the NRCC has pulled out of the district, and Lampson's  numbers suggest that Olson's approvals are in the negative range.  Growing minority turnout will holster Lampson's chances. Hurricane Ike also dampened enthusiasm for Olson in a district that needs federal pork to rebuild.[/quote]

I have no clue here.  The minority factor in this CD is overrated, IMHO.  Blacks are only 9%, which is actually not that much greater from Culberson's CD.  Asians and Hispanics are the main minorities (8.4% and 20.3% respectively), but I really don't see their low-turnout tendencies changing in this election.

As for Ike, here's the key point:  There's two parts of this CD that were affected in any part by Ike.  Only one part of the county do I care about.  The Fort Bend and Brazoria parts of the county got very little, if nothing, from Ike.  The Galveston county part was always going to vote for Lampson anyways.

Rather, it's the Harris County suburban growth parts, the growth to the South and Southeast of Pasadena and Clear Lake, most importantly, that are highly Republican, and might be affected.  There are also some blue dog Democrat areas in Harris County along the bay - please ignore.

If Lampson can start flipping votes in these areas in any great numbers, then he'll certainly stand a decent chance of winning.  Problem is, I can't tell you how flippable they are.

It would be really nice to have a poll out of here.

Robin Hayes just said that he wants Sam to move his name higher up on the list. He wants to be number one!  :P

No way he's getting above McMahon, sorry.  :P

Just re-did Senate.  House undergoes a major renovation tomorrow.

Looking forward to your House updates. It'll be interesting to see where you place MN-06.

SUSA should have a poll out tonight.

Do you believe the PPP poll that shows Foxx up by just 2% in NC-05? The Democratic candidate is a teacher who is running an innovative campaign, yet hasn't received any IE help from the DCCC. This may sound familiar (shades of Kissell in '06), but Kissell was in a more marginal district than Carter is in. 

I'm unsure as to whether this seat is actually competitive, which is why I've placed in the Potentially Competitive (R) category.

I didn't see the poll you're referring to.

I dont think any Democrat would ever win NC-05 in its present form.  Democrats drew it to keep Republicans out of NC-12 and NC-13 and pack as many Republicans as possible in NC-05.  If Democrats were to redraw the district to include all of Forsyth county and cut out heavily Republican counties like Wilkes and Iredell like they did up until the early 1990s, Foxx would likely be toast. 

I can't find anything on PPP's website about it.

The only thing I can find is a Democracy Corps poll of NC back in September which did 100 people per CD (roughly) and had her up 2.  I consider that garbage.

http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/2008/09/06/democracy-corps-nc-congressional-polling-results/

I didn't realize that poll had such a small sample size. With an MoE that astronomically high, it's probably safe to toss it in the trash.

Senate has been updated with one week out.

In case you don't notice, I did away with the toss-up/lean distinction because I was starting to find it annoying.

I will be keeping it for the House.

Stevens should be dead, but he's in Likely D here because I want at least one legitimate poll (I know I'll have to take Ivan Moore) to tell me this, just in case Alaska doesn't decide to give the F-U to everyone.

Kos already has R2000 doing an Alaska poll, if that's acceptable.

Yea, that's ok.

I should add that I'm little nervous about putting Colorado in Safe, because I suspect it'll be closer on election day than the polls presently are, but since the committees have pulled out and I can't see a way Schaffer actually wins, I'll stick it there.  You may see me put this in Likely however, if I get actually nervous.

Would it be correct to read this as predicting a D net pick-up of 13 seats in the House, with a range of 5 either way? So 8-18?

It'll be higher than that number, brittain.  I haven't updated the list just quite yet - probably today.

But ya, you're reading it right.  When I get to day before election day, I'll start to make my hard call.

You should offer some commentary for the tight races. If the Dootlittle seat goes Dem, it is going to be a 23 seat Dem pickup. I picked that number out of thin air, but it seems right.

In some of these tight races, it's tough to make really accurate commentary.  I'm not on the ground.

Well, just explain why you call them tight, whether it be polls, money, ads, the district, tea leaves, or a random CD generator.  :)

Well, I can make a wild guess that if the committees are spending heavy money someplace, it's reasonably competitive.

Changes + final predictions probably tomorrow, maybe tonight.

SENATE 2008 (56 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 2 Independents)
WINNER IN RED

Alabama: Figures (D) 35, Sessions (R) 65 GOP HOLD
Alaska: Begich (D) 50, Stevens (R) 45, Others 5 DEM PICKUP
Arkansas: Pryor (D) 92, Others 8 DEM HOLD
Colorado*: Udall (D) 53, Schaffer 45, Others 2 DEM PICKUP
Delaware: Biden (D) 65, O'Connell (R) 35 DEM HOLD
Georgia: Martin (D) 46, Chambliss (R) 49, Others 5 SENT TO RUNOFF (GOP HOLD)
Idaho*: LaRocco (D) 39, Risch (R) 58, Others 3 GOP HOLD (humor prediction)
Illinois: Durbin (D) 63, Sauerberg (R) 35, Others 2 DEM HOLD
Iowa: Harkin (D) 59, Reed (R) 41 DEM HOLD
Kansas: Slattery (D) 38, Roberts (R) 59, Others 3 GOP HOLD
Kentucky: Lunsford (D) 47, McConnell 53 GOP HOLD
Louisiana:Landrieu (D) 53, Kennedy 46, Others 1 DEM HOLD
Maine: Allen (D) 43, Collins (R) 57 GOP HOLD
Massachusetts: Kerry (D) 61, Beatty (R) 36, Others 3 DEM HOLD
Michigan: Levin (D) 60, Hoogendyk (R) 38, Others 1 DEM HOLD
Minnesota: Franken (D) 40, Coleman (R) 43, Barkley (I) 16, Others 1 GOP HOLD
Mississippi - A: Fleming (D) 37, Cochran (R) 63 GOP HOLD
Mississippi - B: Musgrove (D) 46, Wicker (R) 54 GOP HOLD
Montana: Baucus (D) 65, Kelleher (R) 33, Others 2 DEM HOLD
Nebraska*: Kleeb (D) 36, Johanns (R) 61, Others 3 GOP HOLD
New Hampshire: Shaheen (D) 52, Sununu (R) 47, Others 1 DEM PICKUP
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) 55, Zimmer (R) 43, Others 2 DEM HOLD
New Mexico*: Udall (D) 56, Pearce (R) 43, Others 1 DEM PICKUP
North Carolina: Hagan (D) 51, Dole (R) 47, Others 2 DEM PICKUP
Oklahoma: Rice 39 (D), Inhofe (R) 58, Others 3 GOP HOLD
Oregon: Merkley (D) 50, Smith (R) 45, Others 5 DEM PICKUP
Rhode Island: Reed (D) 78, Tingle (R) 22 DEM HOLD
South Carolina: Conley (D) 43, Graham (R) 57 GOP HOLD
South Dakota: Johnson (D) 59, Dykstra (R) 40, Others 1 DEM HOLD
Tennessee: Tuke (D) 37, Alexander (R) 61, Others 2 GOP HOLD
Texas: Noriega (D) 43, Cornyn (R) 55, Others 2 GOP HOLD
Virginia*: Warner (D) 59, Gilmore (R) 38, Other 3 DEM PICKUP
West Virginia: Rockefeller (D) 64, Wolfe (R) 36 DEM HOLD
Wyoming - A: Rothfuss (D) 31, Enzi (R) 69 GOP HOLD
Wyoming - B: Carter (D) 34, Barrasso (R) 66 GOP HOLD

HOUSE 2008 261 Democrats, 174 Republicans (29 Dem Pickups, 4 GOP Pickups)

Likely DEM PICKUP
AK-AL
AZ-01*
CA-04*
CO-04
CT-04
FL-08
FL-24
FL-25
ID-01
IL-10
IL-11*
IN-03
MI-07
MI-09
MN-06
NC-08
NE-02
NJ-03*
NM-01*
NM-02*
NV-03
NY-13*
NY-25*
NY-29
OH-15*
OH-16*
PA-03
VA-05
VA-11*

GOP PICKUP
FL-16
KS-02
PA-11
TX-22

DEM HOLDS (up to 20 seats)
AL-05*
AZ-05
AZ-08
GA-08
IN-09
KS-03
KY-03
LA-06
MS-01
NH-01
NY-20
PA-04
PA-10
PA-12
TX-23
WI-08

GOP HOLDS (up to 60 races)
AZ-03*
CA-03
CA-46
CA-50
FL-13
FL-21
IA-04
IL-06
IL-18*
KY-02*
LA-04* (runoff)
MD-01*
MN-03*
MO-06
MO-09*
NJ-05
NJ-07*
NV-02
NY-26
OH-01
OH-02
PA-06
PA-15
SC-01
TX-07
TX-10
VA-02
VA-10
WA-08
WV-02
WY-AL

Senate has been filled in with the exception of 8 races (7R, 1D) that I want to rethink before finalizing.

Good to see that you had the guts to call VA for Mark Warner. I'm sure you really struggled with that pick. ;)

I did finish Kentucky, Mississippi and Maine, and I could probably fill in Oregon if I wanted to.  The rest are difficult.

Feel free to fill in Oregon. Merkley has closed with positive ads, while Smith is running only negative ads that play on the state's regional divide. The polling uniformly shows Smith  below 45% and Brownlow is hurting him with his base.

CO is also an easy call now.

I can see why you're still debating AK, NH, NC, MN, GA.

The problem in Colorado is not the call.  It's the margin.

Ah...  Plaudits to you for guessing the margins. I  (try to) pick the winners, not the margins.

I think there is a good chance Merkley (D-OR) wins by more than Udall (D-CO).

Senate done.  House will be finished this evening...

You should update your topic post with your finished rankings for convenience.  Gosh I had to do a few extra clicks to find it!

When I do the HOuse, I'll do that.

NC is a tossup? 

You really think Chabot in OH-01 can hold on with such swelled African American turnout?  I think he is toast. 

See the previous page.

I'm going to agree with your analysis more than anyone else's, although I am still holding out for FL-24.

Well if I counted right, Sam has a 22 seat pick up in the House based on intensive research and thought, and I have a 22 seat pickup based on looking at Rothenberg's list, and saying agree or disagree, and checking some polls and my knowledge of lack thereof of a district, and then my gut, and then pulling a number out of my ass.  Some of the individual seats vary, like CA-4 and so forth, but whatever. Two of the three Cuban districts in Florida are going down?  I though just one was in play?

Sam has both Cuban seats staying Republican (FL-21 and FL-25).  The two Florida seats he has going Dem are those of Ric Keller and Tom Feeney.

Both are in play, and I'm not finished yet.  :)

He has them both going down the toilet, actually.

Likely DEM PICKUP
AK-AL
AZ-01*
CA-04*
CO-04
CT-04
FL-08
FL-21
FL-24
FL-25

I may change my mind here too.

While all the focus was on FL-21, I was more worried about FL-25.  I can see Joe Garcia squeaking through before a felon like Raul Martinez.

bump (finalized)

bump, I'm going to try and get done the Senate/House review today...

HOUSE 2008
PREDICTION: 261 Democrats, 174 Republicans (29 Dem Pickups, 4 GOP Pickups)
ACTUAL: 257 Democrats, 178 Republicans,  (26 Dem Pickups, 5 GOP Pickups)

Likely DEM PICKUP
AK-AL (wrong) - Ah Alaska...
AZ-01* - Not close
CA-04* (wrong) - McClintock's campaign was bad.  But not this bad.
CO-04 - Not close.
CT-04 - Shays' loss is actually highly informative.
FL-08 - One fruitcake beats another.
FL-24 - Not close.
FL-25 (wrong) - You know, if I would have stuck with what I said about the Cubans six months ago...
ID-01 - Only Sali could lose here.
IL-10 (wrong) - Where were the coattails?
IL-11* - Association with Blago does not equal much, apparently...
IN-03 (wrong) - Not even close, really screwed up here.
MI-07 - One of the few cases this election top of the ticket really hurt.
MI-09 - After 2006, Knollenberg looked really weak.
MN-06 (wrong) - Should have trusted my intuition here, instead of playing it safe.
NC-08 - Not close.
NE-02 (wrong) - Not enough *black* coattails.
NJ-03* - Myers actually had a decent shot at winning.
NM-01* - White sucked as a candidate.
NM-02* - Tinsley sucked worse.
NV-03 - Porter couldn't survive what happened here upballot.
NY-13* - Not close.
NY-25* - Not close.
NY-29 - Expected result in my mind.
OH-15*- Ah, well at least I didn't screw up Ohio this year.  Stivers was killed by the 3rd party.
OH-16* - Expected result in my mind.
PA-03 - English was done a few weeks before the election.
VA-05 - Excellent long-shot call.  I'm proud!
VA-11* - Closer than expected, actually.

GOP PICKUP
FL-16 - Not close.
KS-02 - Excellent call, Spade.  Of course, I suspect Boyda might be finished after the R primary.
PA-11 (wrong) - Barletta was pathetic outside Hazelton.
TX-22 - At least I know my hometown well.

DEM HOLDS (up to 20 seats)
AL-05* - Close.  Danger seat in 2010 will cause incumbent to run to the right, imho.
AZ-05 - Not close.
AZ-08 - Not close.
GA-08 - Black turnout helped immensely.  Marshall will need a lot of luck next time, however.
IN-09 - Not close.
KS-03 - Not close.
KY-03 - Not close.
LA-02 (wrong) - Well, we all missed this one, didn't we.
LA-06 (wrong) - High black turnout doesn't help when 10% siphons off to someone else.  That being said, a decent number of whites here didn't cross parties that needed to.
MS-01 - Not close now.  Watch for any waves in 2010 here, however.
NH-01 - Larger than expected.
NY-20 - Not close.
PA-04 - Not close.
PA-10 - Not close.  Pathetic showing by the R actually.
PA-12 - Like Murtha was ever in *that* much trouble.
TX-23 - Rodriguez dominated along the border.
WI-08 - Gard should hang it up.

GOP HOLDS (up to 60 races)
AL-02 (wrong) - Surprising.
AZ-03* - Why Dems ever wasted money here is beyond me.
CA-03 - Coattails damaged here a bit.
CA-46 - Here too.
CA-50 - Same here.
FL-13 - Not close.
FL-21 - Not close.
IA-04 - Latham performed better than King.  So much for being in trouble.
IL-06 - Coattails?
IL-18* - Not close.
KY-02*- Guthrie won by about as much as I expected.  Doubt Dems have any chance in the future.
LA-04* (runoff) - Fleming should thank Obama.  Seriously...
MD-01* (wrong) - Eastern v. Shore vs. B-more suburbs.  We see who won this time.
MN-03* - Good example of a race where I felt the end result. (it happens every so often)
MO-06 - Barnes may have been the worst "serious" challenger of the year.
MO-09* - Close, but no cigar for Baker.
NJ-05 - Garrett was in trouble?
NJ-07* - Too obvious of a result for Stender.
NV-02 - Heller seemed impervious to any Obama coattails.
NY-26 - Not close.
OH-01 (wrong) - The blacks got Chabot.
OH-02 - Schmidt is much like a cockroach.  Impossible to kill.
PA-06 - Gerlach's weak performance here... 
PA-15 - Not close.
SC-01 - About as close as this will be for a while.
TX-07 - Someone on this forum knows Harris County...
TX-10 - Someone on this forum knows Texas...
VA-02 (wrong) - Drake's collapse here was surprising.  Of course, her survival in 2006 was too.  Weird.
VA-10 - Not close.
WA-08 - Reichert's best performance yet.  Will the leftist loons finally retire Burner.
WV-02 - Not close
WY-AL - Republicans broke for the Republican.

May be that White's *campaign* was bad, but the *candidate* was probably the best the GOP had to throw at this district - and that includes Wilson running again. But he couldn't survive what happened here upballot. Tinsley, of course, had geography issues - the normally Republican parts where the Dem was from are just more prone to swinging wildly than the normally Democratic parts where the Rep was from. The top off the ticket (read: weakness among Hispanics) also hurt like hell.

Kilroy beats (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/07/election.html?sid=101) Stivers in OH-15. So the final Dem pickup in the House is plus 22. Torie hits it on the nose. :P

The Kilroy win is a big victory for Democrats.  This is the kind of seat that they will be able to hold for a long time. 

Damn, I like Stivers.  Oh well...

21 - we lost LA-02. :P

Alright, I'm calling LA-04, because the number of provisionals in these LA races tends to be zilch.  And I want to put this thread to rest (until I update the Senate final calls).