Targeting 75 House seats?

[nini2287]

I found this too on wikipedia, you just have to change the state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congressional_Delegations_from_Pennsylvania

[nini2287]

Aha, here we go!  Thanks, Al.

http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/elections.html

[Torie]

This seems to be the most user friendly recapitulation of the 2004 House races:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Ecn4uW_yc1EJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
U.S._House_election,_2004+1994+house+of+representatives+seats+gained&hl=en&client
=firefox-a

[Cubby]

Oops.  Well, then it's Simmons who's in trouble.  I don't know about Shays.  Those areas of Southwest Connecticut tend to me pretty upscale.

I could be wrong but the only reason why Shays nearly lost in 2004 was probably to do with high(er) turnout in Bridgeport.
Simmons' district really shouldn't have a GOP rep to start with...

Bridgeport is the base of Democratic support in Shay's District (CT-4) but the Dem opponent in '04 (Diane Farrell) was from Westport, a suburban town, and she did suprisingly well in the other bedroom communities.

Bridgeport was the only town in Fairfield County to lose population in the 1990's, so higher voter turnout there is unlikely, since cities have a lower participation rate anyway. (From 2000-04 Bridgeport's population is unchanged)

[Virginian87]

Oops.  Well, then it's Simmons who's in trouble.  I don't know about Shays.  Those areas of Southwest Connecticut tend to me pretty upscale.

I could be wrong but the only reason why Shays nearly lost in 2004 was probably to do with high(er) turnout in Bridgeport.
Simmons' district really shouldn't have a GOP rep to start with...

Bridgeport is the base of Democratic support in Shay's District (CT-4) but the Dem opponent in '04 (Diane Farrell) was from Westport, a suburban town, and she did suprisingly well in the other bedroom communities.

Bridgeport was the only town in Fairfield County to lose population in the 1990's, so higher voter turnout there is unlikely, since cities have a lower participation rate anyway. (From 2000-04 Bridgeport's population is unchanged)

I do know that Stamford is home to General Electric, while Bridgeport is the home of the Sikorsky Division of United Technologies, so you have some defense contractors to back you up if you're a Republican.

[jimrtex]

Based on the House Clerk's results, pickups were:

If the 1992 incumbent's name is in parentheses, they were not a candidate in the 1994 general election.  Democrat pickups are in red.

AZ-1 Salmon > (Coppersmith)
AZ-6 Hayworth > English

CA-1 Hamburg > Riggs
CA-19 Radanovich > Lehman
CA-49 Bilbray > Schenk

FL-1 Scarborough > (Hutto)
FL-15 Weldon > (Bacchus)

GA-7 Barr > Darden
GA-8 Chambliss > (Rowland)
GA-10 Norwood > Johnson

ID-1 Chenoweth > LaRocco

IL-5 Flanagan > Rostenkowski
IL-11 Weller > Sangmeister

IN-2 McIntosh > (Sharp)
IN-4 Souder > Long
IN-8 Hostetller > McCloskey

IA-4 Ganske > Smith

KS-1 Brownback > Slattery
KS-4 Tiahrt > Glickman

KY-1 Whitfield > Barlow
KY-2 Lewis > (Natcher)

ME-1 Longley > (Andrews)
ME-2 Baldacci > (Snowe)

MI-8 Chrysler > (Carr)

MN-1 Gutknecht > (Penny)
MN-2 Luther > (Grams)

MS-1 Wicker > (Whitten)

NE-2 Christensen > Hoagland

NV-1 Ensign > Bilbray

NH-2 Bass > Swett

NJ-2 LoBiondo > (Hughes)
NJ-8 Martini > Klein

NY-1 Forbes > Hochbrueckner
NY-4 Frisa > Levy**
NY-19 Kelly > Fish***

**Levy was elected in 1992 as the Republican and Conservative candidate.  Frisa was elected in 1994 as the Republican candidate, while Levy ran as a Conservative.

***Fish was elected in 1992 as a Republican, but was defeated in 1994 running as a Democrat.

NC-2 Funderbunk > (Valentine)
NC-3 Jones > Lancaster
NC-4 Heineman > Price
NC-5 Burr > (Neal)

OH-1 Chabot > Mann
OH-6 Cremeans > Strickland
OH-18 Ney > (Applegate)
OH-19 LaTourette > Fingerhut

OK-2 Coburn > (Synar)
OK-4 Watts > (McCurdy)
OK-6 Lucas > (English)

OR-5 Bunn > (Kopetski)

PA-13 Fox > Margolies-Mezvinsky
PA-18 Doyle > (Santorum)

SC-3 Graham > (Derrick)

TN-3 Wamp > (Lloyd)
TN-4 Hilleary > (Cooper)

TX-9 Stockman > Brooks
TX-13 Thornberry > Sarpalius

UT-2 Waldholtz > Shepherd

VA-11 Davis > Byrne

WA-1 White > Cantwell
WA-2 Metcalf > (Swift)
WA-3 Smith > Unsoeld
WA-4 Hastings > Inslee
WA-5 Nethercutt > Foley
WA-9 Tate > Kreidler

WI-1 Neumann > (Aspin)

Of the 59 GOP gains, 23 were in seats where the 1992 Democrat incumbent was not the defeated candidate in 1994.  At least 3 of these open seats were created by a Democrat unsuccessfully trying to move to the Senate.  If I'm not mistaken, there was a buyout around this time, where retiring congressmen could convert their campaign funds into personal funds.

The 3 Democrat pickups were all in seats where the Republican incumbent successfully moved to the Senate.  5 of the GOP gainers now represent their state in the Senate.

The GOP pickups were geographically distributed as: Northeast 7, Midwest 16, West 15, South 21.

In general it wasn't a case of Republicans squeaking by for upsets.  There were maybe another 15 to 20 Democrat seats where the Democrat held on by a narrow margin.

Democrats had a huge falloff in support from the 1992 election (presidential year), in some cases more than 50%.   Republican fall off was much more modest.  There could also be a residual redistricting effect, especially in the seats where the 1992 incumbent did not run. Line drawers might include more voters of the opposing party, knowing that some will cross over to the incument.

Regional and state differences appear to be pretty much a case of opportunity.  

For example, Washington had a bunch of seats that were competitive and within reach. The 1992 cumulative vote was Democrats : Republican, 1.237:0.911 million, and the Democrats held an 8:1 majority in the delegation. The 6 seats that fell were all within 15%.  In 1994, the cumulative vote was Republicans : Democrats  0.948:0.752 million. The Republicans had a 4% pickup, and the Democrats a 39% drop off.

In Wisconsin, the Republican : Democrat cumulative total was 1.210:1.154 million, and the Republicans held a 5:4 delegation majority.  In 1994, the GOP majority was 0.893:0.548 million, a 26% drop for the Republicans, and a 53% dropoff for the Democrats.  The Republicans narrowly took the seat that Les Aspin had vacated to become Secretary of Defense.  They closed the gap in a pair of other seats from 173:84 to 93:78 (35% to 9%) and from 166:91 to 97:81 (36% to 11%)

In both Wisconsin and Washington, the GOP picked up every seat they had a realistic shot at, but in Wisconsin they started from a slight advantage that was reflected in their delegation majority.  In Washington, the delegation was not close to representing the popular vote support for the two parties, and there were 6 competitive seats.

[Smash255]

NY-1 Forbes > Hochbrueckner
NY-4 Frisa > Levy**
NY-19 Kelly > Fish***

**Levy was elected in 1992 as the Republican and Conservative candidate.  Frisa was elected in 1994 as the Republican candidate, while Levy ran as a Conservative.
 

NY-4 went back to the Dems in 1996(Carolyn McCarthy who  is now in her 5th term defeatd Frisa by a decent margin in 96 (approx 126k to 88k)

Forbes switched to an Independent in 99 & ran on the Working Families line in 2000 lost to rRepublican Felix Grucci.  Dem Timothy Bishop edged out Grucci in 2002 & is currently serving his 2nd term

[nini2287]

Thanks for posting and great anaylsis as always jimrtex.

I hadn't really looked at the results in depth prior to this (mainly just at PA's results lol) but I never realized the Dems had two house seats in two of Kansas' highly conservative districts and I always that Hostettler came into power more recently.

It's also interesting how many of the class of 1994 have gone on to bigger things-Saxby Chambliss, Sam Brownback, John Baldacci (D), John Ensign, Richard Burr and Tom Coburn

[WMS]

I suspect a 25 seat strategy is more likely and productive. Below are the 25 GOP seats that seem possibly in play  in no order of vulnerability. A few are close to wishful thinking, but 25  has a certain ring to it. * seats have no incumbent, and the ** seat probably will have no incumbent.

3   N.M   Wilson   2

That's District 1, not 2.

And Wilson is pretty entrenched for now in NM-1, although when it opens up (wait for an open NM Senate seat for that to happen) all hell will break loose.

But the Dems still have to make the effort, so the airwaves and the mailboxes will be unsafe as usual next year.

[AuH2O]

Well I guess the question would be, in terms of open seats, were they open because the Democrat feared losing? I don't think that was the case, because it wasn't clear until rather close to the election just how bad it was going to be. So the massive GOP gains were helped by the number of open seats, in addition of course to the voter discontent that lead to the victories over 34 incumbents.

To some degree 1994 was also congruent with 1992, where Clinton received 43% against a tax-raising Republican and a near-single-issue fiscal conservative. Deprived of the nonetheless charming Clinton, Democrats were toast.

Bush in 2004 took 51%. In a generic D vs. R matchup that number will tilt a bit in favor of Dems for 2006, but politics is still local enough that really doesn't matter. Maybe in 40 years something like '94 will happen again.

[Virginian87]

Maybe in 40 years something like '94 will happen again.

You really think the Republican majority is going to last that long?

[AuH2O]

Maybe in 40 years something like '94 will happen again.

You really think the Republican majority is going to last that long?

Not necessarily, but if the Dems retake the House it will be a gradual process, not all at once.

I could see the House either being marginal GOP for a long time or being more or less even, with control shifting regularly.

[Virginian87]

Maybe in 40 years something like '94 will happen again.

You really think the Republican majority is going to last that long?

Not necessarily, but if the Dems retake the House it will be a gradual process, not all at once.

I could see the House either being marginal GOP for a long time or being more or less even, with control shifting regularly.

Yes that's true, like what happened with the Senate in the '80s.  I think the Dems might have a better chance of retaking Senate before they retake the House, but both will be gradual.  That part is a definite.

[A18]

The 1980 Senate takeover was not gradual.

[AuH2O]

Actually if you look at the Senate, it's not real fertile ground for Democrats. They mostly succeed on the basis of large metropolitan areas in a handful of states-- I don't expect them to retake the Senate under the current alignment of political interests.

In other words, until the Democrats become less urban, they will never retake the Senate. The House is a different story.

[Virginian87]

The 1980 Senate takeover was not gradual.

No, what I mean is that in the 1980s the Senate swung from Democratic-controlled to Republican-controlled back to Democrat-controlled until the election of 1994 when it finally stabilized.  I was agreeing with you that the change to Democratic control of the House will be like GOP control of the Senate where shifted a few times during the '80s until stabilizing in 1994.

[Virginian87]

In other words, until the Democrats become less urban, they will never retake the Senate. The House is a different story.

I'm hoping they DO become less urban.  The House is tougher because of gerrymandering and redistricting.

[Keystone Phil]

Aha, here we go!  Thanks, Al.

http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/elections.html

I now this will make me a certified political geek but this is one of the best sites out there. Thanks. 

[socaldem]

I suspect a 25 seat strategy is more likely and productive. Below are the 25 GOP seats that seem possibly in play  in no order of vulnerability. A few are close to wishful thinking, but 25  has a certain ring to it. * seats have no incumbent, and the ** seat probably will have no incumbent.

3   N.M   Wilson   2

That's District 1, not 2.

And Wilson is pretty entrenched for now in NM-1, although when it opens up (wait for an open NM Senate seat for that to happen) all hell will break loose.

But the Dems still have to make the effort, so the airwaves and the mailboxes will be unsafe as usual next year.

What if either NM AG Patricia Madrid or Sec State Rebecca Vigil challenges?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Simmons said on social security according to some site sponsered by the DCCC, he said something about not caring about social security privitization, because he will be dead before it affects him.

[WMS]

I suspect a 25 seat strategy is more likely and productive. Below are the 25 GOP seats that seem possibly in play  in no order of vulnerability. A few are close to wishful thinking, but 25  has a certain ring to it. * seats have no incumbent, and the ** seat probably will have no incumbent.

3   N.M   Wilson   2

That's District 1, not 2.

And Wilson is pretty entrenched for now in NM-1, although when it opens up (wait for an open NM Senate seat for that to happen) all hell will break loose.

But the Dems still have to make the effort, so the airwaves and the mailboxes will be unsafe as usual next year.

What if either NM AG Patricia Madrid or Sec State Rebecca Vigil challenges?

Madrid will run a tough challenge but I don't think it will be enough by now (back in 1998 or 2000, she likely would have won). If she runs, however, she would be the best candidate the Dems have put up vs Wilson to date (Maloof...ugh.) I'd have to know more about her positions to get more detailed (social vs econ)...mildly communitarian would probably be my best guess for NM-1, although NM-1 has every political point on the compass in it somewhere.

Vigil-Giron is a terrible candidate and would get squashed.