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

[Gabu]

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Uh... nice dream you got there, Karl.

[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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

Rodriguez in Texas is also a real stretch.  That district is now heavily Hispanic and was radically redrawn.

Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania is as questionable is Sestak.  These are both blue districts and these guys are both working hard to entrench themselves.

Donnelly and Shuler also should be removed.  Both are Conservative Blue Dog Democrats who voted against Stem Cell research and fit their districts well.

Knollenberg does belong on here.  The district split evenly between Bush and Kerry and if Democrats actually spent some money there, they would have picked it up.

Roskam belongs on here as well.  If Obama leads the ticket, he would likely carry the district, which gets less Republican every year.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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)

[Joe Republic]

It really says something about Jean Schmidt that her seat is considered more vulnerable than Deborah Pryce's.

[Padfoot]

It really says something about Jean Schmidt that her seat is considered more vulnerable than Deborah Pryce's.

Schmidt is a complete moron and the GOP is even more moronic for not booting her out in the primaries.  With the perfect candidate Democrats could beat her but I doubt they would hold the district for more than one term once the crazy bow-wearing wench was gone.  Schmidt really is my least favorite person in Congress and I would love for anyone from either party to take her out once and for all.  Have I mentioned how stupid she is yet?  If not then I'll say it again.  Jean Schmidt is a stupid idiot.  She also has no sense of fashion and smells like nuclear waste.  She also hates veterans, puppies, and sunshine.

[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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

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.

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Verily]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

But the Democrats control and will control the Pennsylvania House, so redistricting will be strictly incumbent protection.

[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)

[WalterMitty]

shea-porter's seat isnt on the list?

must be an oversight.

[Mr.Phips]

shea-porter's seat isnt on the list?

must be an oversight.

She is not that vulnerable.  Bush's current approval rating was 17% there in the most recent ARG poll.  I doubt that she will be replaced by one of his supporters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But the Democrats control and will control the Pennsylvania House, so redistricting will be strictly incumbent protection.

Yeah, but PA is losing population so will lose a seat (maybe more than that?). While the lost seat will be in the West (Murphy looks like an obvious victim), Philadelphia is still losing population; this means that the urban Philadephia districts are going to have to expand outwards, which could easily result in more of Delaware county being added to the 1st district (the most Democratic parts of Delaware county are next to the river, the most Republican further out). The 7th would then have to take in more of Chester and so on. Which would be bad news for Sestak, obviously.
O/c there are other possibilities, but I'd have thought that to be reasonably likely - bi-partisan gerrymandering can be quite cruel at times and I wouldn't have thought that the powers that be in the PA Democrats would give a sh*t about a Congresscritter based in Delaware county; not compared to keeping as many districts as possible dominated by Philly anyway.

Could be wrong. But this sort of speculation is fun anyway.

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?

[Deano963]

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Uh... nice dream you got there, Karl.

haha yeh...when i first read that list yesterday, I did a double-take when I saw Herseth on there, as all of the other targets made sense. Then I just laughed.

[Mr.Phips]

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Uh... nice dream you got there, Karl.

haha yeh...when i first read that list yesterday, I did a double-take when I saw Herseth on there, as all of the other targets made sense. Then I just laughed.

If Herseth survived 2004, where Republicans turned out every possible voter they could, she is safe.

[Stranger in a strange land]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRTU2LgtrVY

mc rove can't be beat yo!

[bgwah]

No Dave Reichert...?

[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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

All Shea-Porter has to do is run ads with Bradley and Bush together and she wins.

[HardRCafé]

She also has no sense of fashion

Glad to know we are so issue-oriented.  Good boy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sestak's resume

You mean the fact that he was, what, an Admiral or something like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Consider who he was running against; by November 2006 Weldon would have struggled to beat Satan (D). His result wasn't even one of the most impressive in his state (not that it was a bad result or even an unimpressive one, mind).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No; think about it for a while and he *probably* is. Which, when you consider that in all likelyhood he'll be re-elected, says more about the trouble the Republican party is in than it says about Sestak or his district.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shortly after posting here, you wrote this elsewhere:

a perfect example of what I call the "trend line fallacy". There is no reason to expect a shift from one election to the next to continue indefinitely, for example despite the delusions of GOP hacks

Chickens, They've, Count, Hatched, Until, Dont, Your

[Mr.Phips]

Sestak's resume

You mean the fact that he was, what, an Admiral or something like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Consider who he was running against; by November 2006 Weldon would have struggled to beat Satan (D). His result wasn't even one of the most impressive in his state (not that it was a bad result or even an unimpressive one, mind).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No; think about it for a while and he *probably* is. Which, when you consider that in all likelyhood he'll be re-elected, says more about the trouble the Republican party is in than it says about Sestak or his district.

The only kind of Republican that would win in that district would be a Jim Leach style Republican and Republicans don't seem to want run anyone but extreme Conservatives in House races.

[Joe Republic]

She also has no sense of fashion

Glad to know we are so issue-oriented.  Good boy.

I take it you didn't bother to read the words around that excerpt, whereby it would have been obvious that it was an intentionally OTT attack on Schmidt?  The last sentence (which you omitted) should have provided a clue.

Here it is again:

Schmidt is a complete moron and the GOP is even more moronic for not booting her out in the primaries.  With the perfect candidate Democrats could beat her but I doubt they would hold the district for more than one term once the crazy bow-wearing wench was gone.  Schmidt really is my least favorite person in Congress and I would love for anyone from either party to take her out once and for all.  Have I mentioned how stupid she is yet?  If not then I'll say it again.  Jean Schmidt is a stupid idiot.  She also has no sense of fashion and smells like nuclear waste.  She also hates veterans, puppies, and sunshine.