Karl Rove's top House seats to defend and attack

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Top priority for defense:

Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania
Vern Buchanan, Florida
Robin Hayes, North Carolina
Heather Wilson, New Mexico
Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado
Peter Roskam, Illinois
Chris Shays, Connecticut
Jean Schmidt, Ohio
Thelma Drake, Virginia
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming (Note: Rove also says that Cubin might not seek re-election.)
John Doolittle, California
Jon Porter, Nevada
Jim Walsh, New York
Deborah Pryce, Ohio
Randy Kuhl, New York
Mike Ferguson, New Jersey
Joe Knollenberg, Michigan

and top 20 to attack:

Nick Lampson, Texas
Tim Mahoney, Florida
Jerry McNerney, California
Zack Space, Ohio
Baron Hill, Indiana
Chris Carney, Pennsylvania
Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania
Nancy Boyda, Kansas
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania
Brad Ellsworth, Indiana
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Ciro Rodriguez, Texas
Steve Kagen, Wisconsin
Jim Marshall, Georgia
Joe Donnelly, Indiana
John Barrow, Georgia
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
John Hall, New York
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/28/check_out_karl_roves_list_of_targeted_2008_house_racesinsight_into_gop_dem_openings_in_2008

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ones that don't belong on the list:

Peter Roskam, Illinois - He's not going to lose. At least not until redistricting.
Thelma Drake, Virginia - Sadly 2006 is as close as she'll probably ever get.
Randy Kuhl, New York - He's not much of a candidate, but there's no reason I see him losing if he didn't in 2006, especially in a presidential year.
Joe Knollenberg, Michigan - If he was vulnerable at all, he would've at least been half-way targeted last year. Why he's on the list and not Walberg is beyond me.

Also for Jean Schmidt she just needs to be primaried and that seat is safe. Time for the GOP to someone to primary her instead of having to spend millions each cycle in what should be a super-safe seat.

Zack Space, Ohio - 62%. Suck on that GOP. He's already got the numbers entrenched incumbents get.
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania - This district is long gone for the GOP and Sestak is one of the best candidates we got last year.
Brad Ellsworth, Indiana - People who crush incumbents just don't lose, period. Sure Hostettler was more than a little nutty, but he had survived strong challenges before. Getting 61% against an incumbent is enough to win as an incumbent.
John Barrow, Georgia - Half-decent black turnout and this seat stays Dem.
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota - NOT HAPPENING.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania - This district is long gone for the GOP and Sestak is one of the best candidates we got last year.

Remember; PA-7 doesn't = Delaware county. Kerry only took the district by 6% (remember here that it's places like PA-7 where Kerry had more appeal than an average Democrat) and the district is still strongly Republican at local level IIRC.

Chickens, don't, before, hatch, count, your.

('though historically that district does tend to stick with incumbents for a fairly long period of time; including the spell in the '70's and early '80's when it was last held by a Democrat)

Go look at Sestak's margin of victory. He's not losing, especially in a presidential year.

Even Phil admitted this seat is Sestak's as long as he wants it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

John Barrow is going to get swept out sooner or later -- either in 2008, 2010, or in 2012 redistricting.  Georgia has been trending Repubilcan and it's been trending Republican hard.

That's because of the growth in the Atlanta suburbs, not his district. Redistricting actually should help him, since Georgia will gain seats and they'll be drawn to be safe Republican seats, this means Republican areas will be cut off from currently Democratic districts. The biggest threat to Barrow is that his seat becomes majority black and he gets primaried.

As for Brad Ellsworth, Doug Forrester was on track to get at least 60% of the vote against Bob Torricelli in 2002.  Had Torricelli stayed in the race, would Doug Forrester be safe going in to the 2008 election?

Many differences. Hostettler hadn't been involved in any scandals for one. NJ is also a rather polarized state where the Democrats have the edge, that part of Indiana is quite fond of conservative Democrats. Plus Forrester was a lousy candidate, Ellsworth was one of the best recruits last cycle.

Go look at Sestak's margin of victory.

Yeah, not bad. Of course he was up against a scandal-tarred incumbent who ran an awful campaign in a year that saw a large swing to the Democrats (and in a district with a bit of a  history of swinging in such years), so not exactly impressive either. Interestingly enough he carried the district by the same sort of margin as Bob Edgar in '74 (who lasted for a decade but was never really safe...)

Btw, I don't think he'll lose next year. But he's not safe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why it being a Presidential year will make much of a difference, it's not like this district is strongly Democratic on a Presidential level or even close to being so. More to the point there's a reasonable chance that whoever the Republicans nominate for the Presidency will have a good deal more appeal to the sort of Republicans that dominate in PA-7 than Bush does/did.

Kerry got 53% in the district, which is much stronger than just about any other seat currently held by a Republican and there's many 53% Kerry seats that are considered more or less safe. Sestak is one of the strongest incumbents elected last year, so there's no reason to expect him to lose since as pointed out before, whenever incumbents lose in a district that votes for their party's nominee unless they get caught in a scandal or sit around too long to the point where they become an incompetent waste of space. Obviously not the case with Sestak.

I don't think any pro-war candidate would be very appealing to that district either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surprising; he should have remembered that redistricting isn't all that far off now.

That's assuming the GOP takes back the State House and wins the governorship in 2010 (which I highly doubt because I think Casey will run and win it with his eyes closed)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kerry got 53% in the district, which is much stronger than just about any other seat currently held by a Republican

And that's relevant, how? Please read what I wrote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? Presidential voting patterns (especially those of 2004) are frequently very different to Congressional voting patterns. There are also safe Democratic House seats that voted for Bush, sometimes quite strongly so. It isn't actually relevant to my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what way?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. I don't expect him to lose next year. As pointed out before.
2. In areas in which there is a significant difference between recent Presidential voting patterns and partisan identity the above theory doesn't hold much water.
3. In 2008, 2004 will have been four years ago and the candidates (on both sides) may be rather different to then. You don't seriously expect the Presidential voting patterns of the past six or so years to continue for ever and ever do you?

Sestak's resume and his campaign skills speak for themselves. He gave one of the most impressive performances of any candidate last year. This is all opinion of course, but I can't think of many who did much better.

I know you don't believe Sestak will lose next year, and I certainly don't think so either, I just think it's pretty stupid he's on the list since he's clearly not one of the top 20 most vulnerable congressmen. More vulnerable than Chet Edwards? I'll admit even Tim Walz is probably more vulnerable than him, although I have a tough time seeing him losing as well. I certainly am not surprised the GOP aren't going to seriously target him since there are way easier targets, but the same is clearly true of Sestak as well (Shea-Porter, while I hardly agree with mitty's delusion that she's dead in the water, is also certainly far more vulnerable than Sestak).

And no, of course the voting patterns of the past 6 years will go on forever, but the movement in PA-07 has clearly been to the Democrats.