MN-03: Ramstead Retiring

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Democrats won 49% of the vote in IL-06 despite running a political neophyte who didn't even live in the district. That was also after a nasty primary and residual bad blood between the two losing primary candidates and the eventual victor.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that the swing in IL-6 was -4.48; very low for an open seat in an election like 2006.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are certain similarities to WA-8 (though there are also some significant differences) though not really to PA-6 (beyond some very basic stuff). Neither seem to be as like it as IL-6 though.

[MarkWarner08]

The Democrats won 49% of the vote in IL-06 despite running a political neophyte who didn't even live in the district. That was also after a nasty primary and residual bad blood between the two losing primary candidates and the eventual victor.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that the swing in IL-6 was -4.48; very low for an open seat in an election like 2006.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are certain similarities to WA-8 (though there are also some significant differences) though not really to PA-6 (beyond some very basic stuff). Neither seem to be as like it as IL-6 though.

Good point on IL-06, but another way to look at it is that Hyde's weak performance in 2004 was a product of a districtwide yearning for change. Thus, the swing was lower than it otherwise would've have been.

[Mr.Phips]

MN-03 is more Democratic than IL-06.  Clinton carried MN-03 twice and Dukakis came close to carrying it in 1988, while Clinton and Dukakis lost IL-06 handily. 

[MarkWarner08]

MN-03 is more Democratic than IL-06.  Clinton carried MN-03 twice and Dukakis came close to carrying it in 1988, while Clinton and Dukakis lost IL-06 handily. 

Good point.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

MN-03 is the kind of suburban/exurban open House district that the GOP lost in 2006.

Not so. The Republicans, generally, didn't do so badly in districts like this one in 2006 (which is why I'm sceptical of a Democrat gain). Though maybe voting patterns in 2008 will be different.

Not so. 16 of the 31 Democratic House pickups were in suburban districts. In fact, the Democrats carried the suburban House vote by a margin of 50-48 in 2006.

Here are some examples of suburban/exurban districts the Democratic won in 2006: Arizona's 5th; California's 11th; Colorado's 7th; Florida's 22nd; New York's 19th; Pennsylvania's 4th, 7th and 8th; and Texas's 22nd.  Only two of those seats (CA-11 and TX-22) were scandal pick ups.

I think I've gone over this before, but NY-19 was a scandal pick up—Sue Kelly had ties to the page program, and was specifically attacked over supposedly "looking the other way."

[MarkWarner08]

MN-03 is the kind of suburban/exurban open House district that the GOP lost in 2006.

Not so. The Republicans, generally, didn't do so badly in districts like this one in 2006 (which is why I'm sceptical of a Democrat gain). Though maybe voting patterns in 2008 will be different.

Not so. 16 of the 31 Democratic House pickups were in suburban districts. In fact, the Democrats carried the suburban House vote by a margin of 50-48 in 2006.

Here are some examples of suburban/exurban districts the Democratic won in 2006: Arizona's 5th; California's 11th; Colorado's 7th; Florida's 22nd; New York's 19th; Pennsylvania's 4th, 7th and 8th; and Texas's 22nd.  Only two of those seats (CA-11 and TX-22) were scandal pick ups.

I think I've gone over this before, but NY-19 was a scandal pick up—Sue Kelly had ties to the page program, and was specifically attacked over supposedly "looking the other way."

Well, pretty much every House race featured candidates using faux scandals as tactics. Just look at the supposed pay-to-play scandal involving Ron Klein that Clay Shaw's people cooked up. If you watched any of Heather Wilson's ads, you'd assume Patricia Madrid was the most corrupt AG in New Mexico's history.

I'd argue that Hall won because a gay millionaire from NYC spent 500k on attack ads that smeared Rep. Kelly in the last week of the campaign.

[Padfoot]

.

[Sam Spade]

I'm going to merge this thread with the other one - something I should have done yesterday.

[they don't love you like i love you]

As the StarTrib pointed out today, there are more DFL state legislators in the district than Republican ones.

[HardRCafé]

IL-14: 50/50 chance Dems win

This is assuming Obama is the Dem nominee?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

IL-14: 50/50 chance Dems win

This is assuming Obama is the Dem nominee?

I think you have to assume a lot more than just Obama being the nominee for any of the Democratic political nobodies running to win in a GOP-leaning district like IL-14.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Better chance at MN-03 than IL-14, that's for sure.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Better chance at MN-03 than IL-14, that's for sure.

Oh, Lord yes.  MN-03 could be argued as a 50/50.  No way IL-14 can be.

[MarkWarner08]

Better chance at MN-03 than IL-14, that's for sure.

Oh, Lord yes.  MN-03 could be argued as a 50/50.  No way IL-14 can be.

MN-03 right now is contingent on candidate recruitment.  If the Democrats nominate someone too close to the middle, they'll lose support to an Indy candidate. At the same time, they must be wary of nominating a big government liberal who could alienate rich suburbanites.

To the glib folks on this forum who dismiss Democratic chances in this district -- look at the political environment, the candidates in this race, and recent open seat history. I'll refrain from  once again pointing out the similarities between this seat and WI-08, a race most people here thought would stay Republican in 2006, and I'll instead juxatopose this race to the 2006 NV-02 contest. Bush won that seat with 57% in 2004, yet the GOP candidate barely managed 50% of the vote. The difference between this two races is candidate selection. The GOP doesn't have a telegenic moderate like Dean Heller who is willing to run in IL-14. The Democrats do have a strong candidate, one who has pledged to spend $2.5 million of his own money, funds that the  stretched-thin NRCC will not be able to match.

Even a strong self-funding Democrat can not win a district like this in a political vaccum, but, forutantely for the Democrats, 2008 is likely to be dominated by issues like the war in Iraq, health care, restoring competent governance, and reining in the GOP's policies of fiscal irresponsibility.  If the Democrats don't nominate a controversial candidate that motivates the GOP base (She's the only candidate in the race who was born in Illinois), voters will choose between the party running on a generic platform of change (a good position to be in when 70% of the nation is in the wrong track crowd) and the party that must defend  the unpopular establishment, such a choice doesn't energize many conservatives to pound the pavement for the GOP candidates.

Mitt Romney's mormon faith will likely be handicap in a morally grounded district like this, Giuliani's New York liberalism --just wait for some fringe Christian Right leader to yell, "Giuliani'll take your guns and force your wife to have an abortion" -- McCain's ties the unpopular war in Iraq, and Thompson's cluesness on major issues will not motivate the GOP base like Reagan once did. Some conservatives might prefer a Democratic presidency (it sure would help talk radio) as way for them to once again coalesce their movement around founding principles like small government and strong defense.

Finally, this district's growing blue tinge, the national factors, the absence of  an incumbent, and the possibility of a depressed GOP base  could create a perfect storm for a Democrat like Bill Foster, who would follow the path of scientists turned politicians like Vern Ehlers and Jerry McNerney. This district is not yet in the toss-up candidate, it's way too early to that, but it's also much to early to blithely dismiss the Democrats chances of picking up this seat.

[they don't love you like i love you]

MN-03 right now is contingent on candidate recruitment.  If the Democrats nominate someone too close to the middle, they'll lose support to an Indy candidate.

No, like I said, that shouldn't be a problem, Ralph Nader forever doomed that.

[MarkWarner08]

MN-03 right now is contingent on candidate recruitment.  If the Democrats nominate someone too close to the middle, they'll lose support to an Indy candidate.

No, like I said, that shouldn't be a problem, Ralph Nader forever doomed that.

I wish you were right. But just last year, we narrowly lost two State Senate seats, which would've given Democrats a majority in the MI State Senate, because the Green Party siphoned off too many votes from the left (and, possibly, the disgruntled middle).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

MN-03 right now is contingent on candidate recruitment.  If the Democrats nominate someone too close to the middle, they'll lose support to an Indy candidate.

No, like I said, that shouldn't be a problem, Ralph Nader forever doomed that.

I wish you were right. But just last year, we narrowly lost two State Senate seats, which would've given Democrats a majority in the MI State Senate, because the Green Party siphoned off too many votes from the left (and, possibly, the disgruntled middle).

I know that when I'm disgruntled, the first thing I look for is the most bats**t nuts Green Party member I can find to vote for!