2008: a repeat of 2006?

[Brittain33]

This is a thought experiment prompted by the New Leadership thread, where someone said that if 2008 were like 2006, Boehner would be out.

An extreme interpretation of that would be for Democrats to pick up 30 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate on top of the gains already from the previous Congress. Is it reasonable? Hell, no. But let's say what it would mean the Democrats flip. To the best of my knowledge, these are all districts that the Democrats are contesting with viable candidates, and in the case of districts with solid incumbents or a strong Republican lean (FL-21, AL-2), they have strong candidates.

1. CT-4 (Shays)
2. NY-25
3. NY-26 
4. NY-29 (Kuhl)
5. NJ-3
6. NJ-7
7. VA-2 (Drake)
8. VA-11
9. NC-8 (Hayes)
10. OH-1 (Chabot)
11. OH-2 (Schmidt)
12. OH-15
13. OH-16
14. MI-7 (Walberg)
15. MI-9 (Knollenberg)
16. IL-10 (Kirk)
17. IL-11
18. IL-18
19. FL-13 (Buchanan)
20. FL-15
21. FL-21 (L. Diaz-Balart)
22. FL-24 (Feeney)
23. AL-2
24. LA-4
25. MO-6 (Graves)
26. MO-9
27. MN-3
28. CO-4 (Musgrave)
29. NM-1
30. NM-2
31. NV-3 (Porter)
32. CA-26 (Dreier)
33. WA-8 (Reichert)
34. AK-AL (Young)

I accounted for Democrats losing a few seats, and left off several Republican-leaning open seats like OH-7 or KY-2 (which could be swapped for MO-9, they're equally implausible) and the Mississippi seats. There's not a single Pennsylvania or Texas seat on the list, only one in California, only one of the three Cuban districts (although Mario's challenger is viable and Ileana's district would be competitive if open), and no Capito or Bono.

The only reason I'd consider this at something like a 1% possibility as opposed to a 0% possibility (which is where I'd rank the Republican chance of winning back the House) is because we have never seen a situation where the Republicans couldn't compete in most districts financially while the Democrats have 10x as much money, where the issues continue to play against the Republicans, and where if the Democratic nominee for President loses, it will be largely because of racial issues that wouldn't turn people against the Democratic brand itself and might encourage people to vote Democratic to check a Republican President they otherwise disagreed with.

Again, stop throwing things! I'm not being a hack, but setting out a deliberately extreme case. I was surprised to learn that this is within the realm of the imaginable without venturing into the truly unwinnable seats like CO-5, ID-1, CA-4, NE-3 and others that Democrats dream of winning.

[AndrewTX]

Shays is CT-4.

[Brittain33]

Shays is CT-4.

Thanks. Edited.

[Padfoot]

For comparison, here is the list of Republican held seats rated as Democratic Favored, No Clear Favorite, or Leans Republican by CQ Politics.  Incumbents in parentheses all others are open seats

Democratic Favored
IL-11

No Clear Favorite
AK-AL (Young)
AZ-1
MN-3
NC-8 (Hayes)
NM-1
NY-25
OH-15
OH-16
VA-11
WA-8 (Reichert)

Leans Republican
AL-2
CA-4
CO-4 (Musgrave)
CT-4 (Shays)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
IL-10 (Kirk)
LA-4
LA-6 (will be filled by special election)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9
NJ-3
NJ-7
NV-3 (Porter)
NY-26
NY-29 (Kuhl)
OH-1 (Chabot)
OH-2 (Schmidt)
PA-3 (English)
PA-6 (Gerlach)
WY-AL

I don't think the perfect storm is going to come together for them again like this though.  If the Democrats have a really good election they can probably net +20 in the House and +7 in the Senate.  Realistically they're probably going to get around +10 in the House and +5 in the Senate.

[Spaghetti Cat]

For comparison, here is the list of Republican held seats rated as Democratic Favored, No Clear Favorite, or Leans Republican by CQ Politics.  Incumbents in parentheses all others are open seats

Democratic Favored
IL-11

No Clear Favorite
AK-AL (Young)
AZ-1
MN-3
NC-8 (Hayes)
NM-1
NY-25
OH-15
OH-16
VA-11
WA-8 (Reichert)

Leans Republican
AL-2
CA-4
CO-4 (Musgrave)
CT-4 (Shays)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
IL-10 (Kirk)
LA-4
LA-6 (will be filled by special election)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9
NJ-3
NJ-7
NV-3 (Porter)
NY-26
NY-29 (Kuhl)
OH-1 (Chabot)
OH-2 (Schmidt)
PA-3 (English)
PA-6 (Gerlach)
WY-AL

I don't think the perfect storm is going to come together for them again like this though.  If the Democrats have a really good election they can probably net +20 in the House and +7 in the Senate.  Realistically they're probably going to get around +10 in the House and +5 in the Senate.

I'm sorry, plus 5 in the Senate?  How is that realistic?  At the very least, it's somewhat optimistic for Dems.  Plus 10 in the House is a bit more realistic, but still tilting to much favor toward Dems.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I don't think 2008 will be nearly as good as 2006 for Democrats. I don't think there will be more than 1 or 2 Republican incumbents that lose this time around. However, there are a lot of swing seats that are open this time around, and Democrats have a good shot at picking up about a dozen of them.

[Mr.Phips]

I don't think 2008 will be nearly as good as 2006 for Democrats. I don't think there will be more than 1 or 2 Republican incumbents that lose this time around. However, there are a lot of swing seats that are open this time around, and Democrats have a good shot at picking up about a dozen of them.

I agree here.  In the House I think we are going to be surprised to see very few incumbents lose.  In the House for Republicans, I am thinking Robin Hayes(NC-08) loses to Larry Kissell because Obama will get a huge turnout in Charlotte, Chris Shays(CT-04) loses because Obama gets a big turnout in Bridgeport, Dave Reichart(WA-08) loses on Obama's coattails, and Don Young(AK-AL) loses because of his own problems.  On the Dem side, Nancy Boyda(KS-02) loses as does Gabby Giffords(AZ-08) in a major upset due to McCain's coattails. 

[Nutmeg]

I'm sorry, plus 5 in the Senate?  How is that realistic?  At the very least, it's somewhat optimistic for Dems.

Virginia, New Hampshire, and New Mexico are very likely, for +3.  Colorado is more likely than not, for +4.  That's just one more seat to get to +5, and Minnesota is by all accounts a toss-up, so I don't see why +5 isn't realistic in the least.

[Padfoot]

If the Democrats have a really good election they can probably net +20 in the House and +7 in the Senate.  Realistically they're probably going to get around +10 in the House and +5 in the Senate.

I'm sorry, plus 5 in the Senate?  How is that realistic?  At the very least, it's somewhat optimistic for Dems.  Plus 10 in the House is a bit more realistic, but still tilting to much favor toward Dems.

I am 99% sure that New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire will all switch without a problem.  Colorado is looking to be another seat that will likely switch due to Udall being favored on his own merits as well as Obama coattails.  Minnesota is at least a tossup and then you have Maine, Oregon, and Alaska all being strongly contended for.  And then there's the Democratic financial advantage and the fact that the GOP is defending more than twice as many seats as the Democrats.  I'd say +5 is more than realistic.

[Smash255]

For comparison, here is the list of Republican held seats rated as Democratic Favored, No Clear Favorite, or Leans Republican by CQ Politics.  Incumbents in parentheses all others are open seats

Democratic Favored
IL-11

No Clear Favorite
AK-AL (Young)
AZ-1
MN-3
NC-8 (Hayes)
NM-1
NY-25
OH-15
OH-16
VA-11
WA-8 (Reichert)

Leans Republican
AL-2
CA-4
CO-4 (Musgrave)
CT-4 (Shays)
FL-13 (Buchanan)
IL-10 (Kirk)
LA-4
LA-6 (will be filled by special election)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9
NJ-3
NJ-7
NV-3 (Porter)
NY-26
NY-29 (Kuhl)
OH-1 (Chabot)
OH-2 (Schmidt)
PA-3 (English)
PA-6 (Gerlach)
WY-AL

I don't think the perfect storm is going to come together for them again like this though.  If the Democrats have a really good election they can probably net +20 in the House and +7 in the Senate.  Realistically they're probably going to get around +10 in the House and +5 in the Senate.

I'm sorry, plus 5 in the Senate?  How is that realistic?  At the very least, it's somewhat optimistic for Dems.  Plus 10 in the House is a bit more realistic, but still tilting to much favor toward Dems.

Sununu is a goner in NH.  The Dems have 2 open seats which are extremely likely one  of them a lock (Warner in VA) the other very close to a lock (Udall in NM)   Another open seat in CO with another Udall which favors them.   So you have 4 likely pickups right there.  MN is a tossup and with obama on the ticket could help push Fraken over the edge.  You also have what is likely to be a tight race in OR & although Collins will likely win, it is still a tough challenge in a state which obama will win pretty strongly. 

On top of that the Dems have a huge $$ advantage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

IIRC Collins is actually polling higher in Maine than Obama is (though maybe I'm wrong).

[Spaghetti Cat]

I'll give you Virginia, but I wouldn't call NH and NM locks.  My guess is Dems will take one of them, and be extremely lucky to get both. CO can go either way, but leans GOP.  As far as MN goes, people will realize that Al Franken is not someone who you would want to represent you.  I just can't see him beating Coleman.  Smith and Collins are safe, both moderate Republicans who've crafted themselves to fit their state. 
I think a plus 2, maybe plus 3 for Dems is a lot more realistic than plus 5.

[Nutmeg]

I'll give you Virginia, but I wouldn't call NH and NM locks.  My guess is Dems will take one of them, and be extremely lucky to get both. CO can go either way, but leans GOP.

Hack, you are revealed.

[Smash255]

I'll give you Virginia, but I wouldn't call NH and NM locks.  My guess is Dems will take one of them, and be extremely lucky to get both. CO can go either way, but leans GOP.  As far as MN goes, people will realize that Al Franken is not someone who you would want to represent you.  I just can't see him beating Coleman.  Smith and Collins are safe, both moderate Republicans who've crafted themselves to fit their state. 
I think a plus 2, maybe plus 3 for Dems is a lot more realistic than plus 5.

What the hell are you basing this on???  The majority of Republicans have admitted that both NH & NM are gone.

[Spaghetti Cat]

NH doesn't look good (I didn't realize how far ahead Shaheen was), but NM still deserves a chance to play out.  Even if Dems take VA and NH plus CO and NM (I doubt they'll get both), that's still only a four seat pickup, plus Republicans have a good chance in LA.

[Smash255]

NH doesn't look good (I didn't realize how far ahead Shaheen was), but NM still deserves a chance to play out.  Even if Dems take VA and NH plus CO and NM (I doubt they'll get both), that's still only a four seat pickup, plus Republicans have a good chance in LA.

You doubt both based off what exactly??