IL-10: Obama + Seals = Kirk loss?

[MarkWarner08]

I've long viewed Mark Kirk as safe. Since he won a 2% victory in 2000, he's easily won reelection by large margins, surely bolstered by this decade's incumbent protection plan. In 2006 Kirk won reelection with only 53% over Dan Seals, an underfunded Democrats will a certain resemblance of Barack Obama. Since then, I've downgraded this race in my rankings because of Kirk's strong fundraising and the divisiveness of the Democratic primary. One worry is the presence of two strong Democrats  who are each spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on TV ads. This money which could've been spent later against Kirk.  However, none of this matters if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Obama performs well in the upper-income suburbs such as the ones currently rpesentted by Mark Kirk. If Obama is leading by 5% or more in the polls going into Election day, his look-alike, Dan Seals could very well ride the Obama wave to victory. Many of the Obama Republicans will look to Dan Seals and decide to send a stronger supporter of their home Senator to Congress.

Even in close POTUS contests some candidates have coattails. Bush's strong perfomance in rural ares in 2000 lifted Mark Kennedy and Sam Graves. A similar effect could boost Democratic turnout in IL-10 and end Mark Kirk's congressional tenure.

If Obama loses to Hillary, a similar case of coattails can be made for Dan Maffei, Jonathan Powers and Eric Massa, all Democratic challengers in Upstate New York.

[Sam Spade]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

[MarkWarner08]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

[Sam Spade]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

[MarkWarner08]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

2006 was the perfect storm for Democrats and they still lost in those three districts. I've taken that into consideration and I currently list NY-26 as Likely Republican and NY-29 as Leans Republican.

NY-25 and CT-04 are  the two HD's in the Northeast that I've categorized as toss-ups. Don't be surprised if this is the year Walsh and Shays fall. Just remember, you were given notice.

[Sam Spade]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

2006 was the perfect storm for Democrats and they still lost in those three districts. I've taken that into consideration and I currently list NY-26 as Likely Republican and NY-29 as Leans Republican.

NY-25 and CT-04 are  the two HD's in the Northeast that I've categorized as toss-ups. Don't be surprised if this is the year Walsh and Shays fall. Just remember, you were given notice.

If the Democrats didn't beat Walsh and Shays in perfect storm environments, what makes you think they're going to be beaten in less-than-perfect storm environments where Republican voters (and likely Indys) will be less than eager to hand too much control to one party, especially when that party will likely be controlling the Presidency.  Just some food for thought.

It could still happen, but the fact is that the Dem opportunities in 2008 will be at the open seats, the GOP opportunities will be at the seats that fell in 2006.  With an exception here or there - maybe those will be the exceptions.

[MarkWarner08]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

2006 was the perfect storm for Democrats and they still lost in those three districts. I've taken that into consideration and I currently list NY-26 as Likely Republican and NY-29 as Leans Republican.

NY-25 and CT-04 are  the two HD's in the Northeast that I've categorized as toss-ups. Don't be surprised if this is the year Walsh and Shays fall. Just remember, you were given notice.

If the Democrats didn't beat Walsh and Shays in perfect storm environments, what makes you think they're going to be beaten in less-than-perfect storm environments where Republican voters (and likely Indys) will be less than eager to hand too much control to one party, especially when that party will likely be controlling the Presidency.  Just some food for thought.

It could still happen, but the fact is that the Dem opportunities in 2008 will be at the open seats, the GOP opportunities will be at the seats that fell in 2006.  With an exception here or there - maybe those will be the exceptions.

Excellent points as usual, Sam Spade. Part of my reasoning is dependent on my House race evaluation system. I focus heavily on strength of candidate and district dynamics are the top two factors in determining the competitiveness of a House contest. CT-04 and NY-25 are both trending Democratic, a movement that would likely be accentuated in the GE if Obama faces Huckabee or Romney. Second, candidates matter. Even though top tier candidates in "tough" districts lose (Kleeb in NE comes to mind) and weak candidates in "easy" districts wins in wave years (here's to you, Mr. Loebsack), generally, the stronger the candidate the greater their chance of success in the general.

Jim Himes is a five-star recruit. He's a prolific fundraiser, an effective communicator, a Harvard grad with a thick rolodex, and a man who can speak Spanish, a considerable asset in the blue-collar Hispanic parts of this district.

Dan Maffei is also a strong candidate. If I remember correctly, you picked him to win in 2006.  Since his narrow loss, he's been building up his grassroots organization, courting donors and voters, honing his speech, and proving his case to the DCCC.

Himes and Maffei are solid candidates in blue-trending districts. By the end of the campaign, I fully expect you and others to belatedly agree that these districts are toss-ups.

Most agree Himes and Maffei is an improvement over campaigning-adverse Diane Farrell and then novice Dan Maffei. The question is this: can their improved campaign skills compensate from the changes in the political environment and help them gain the extra 1-2% they need to win?

[Mr.Phips]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

2006 was the perfect storm for Democrats and they still lost in those three districts. I've taken that into consideration and I currently list NY-26 as Likely Republican and NY-29 as Leans Republican.

NY-25 and CT-04 are  the two HD's in the Northeast that I've categorized as toss-ups. Don't be surprised if this is the year Walsh and Shays fall. Just remember, you were given notice.

If the Democrats didn't beat Walsh and Shays in perfect storm environments, what makes you think they're going to be beaten in less-than-perfect storm environments where Republican voters (and likely Indys) will be less than eager to hand too much control to one party, especially when that party will likely be controlling the Presidency.  Just some food for thought.

It could still happen, but the fact is that the Dem opportunities in 2008 will be at the open seats, the GOP opportunities will be at the seats that fell in 2006.  With an exception here or there - maybe those will be the exceptions.

What you don't realize is that these districts are blue at the Presidential level, and with the higher turnout of Democratic voters, district like CT-04 and NY-25 will be the ones that Democrats pick up.  There are both districts where there are few Republican voters and these incumbents rely on crossover support from Democrats to survive. 

[MarkWarner08]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

2006 was the perfect storm for Democrats and they still lost in those three districts. I've taken that into consideration and I currently list NY-26 as Likely Republican and NY-29 as Leans Republican.

NY-25 and CT-04 are  the two HD's in the Northeast that I've categorized as toss-ups. Don't be surprised if this is the year Walsh and Shays fall. Just remember, you were given notice.

If the Democrats didn't beat Walsh and Shays in perfect storm environments, what makes you think they're going to be beaten in less-than-perfect storm environments where Republican voters (and likely Indys) will be less than eager to hand too much control to one party, especially when that party will likely be controlling the Presidency.  Just some food for thought.

It could still happen, but the fact is that the Dem opportunities in 2008 will be at the open seats, the GOP opportunities will be at the seats that fell in 2006.  With an exception here or there - maybe those will be the exceptions.

What you don't realize is that these districts are blue at the Presidential level, and with the higher turnout of Democratic voters, district like CT-04 and NY-25 will be the ones that Democrats pick up.  There are both districts where there are few Republican voters and these incumbents rely on crossover support from Democrats to survive. 

Those reasons are partly why I call these races toss-ups.

[Sam Spade]

Look, gentlemen, as I've said before, we can have arguments ad infinitum on these types of subjects and what-ifs, but for right now, I'm going to say no mas and go to bed (as I should have done a few hours ago). 

What I will do is that I'll come out with my predictions soon enough, and we can begin again then.  Moreover, tonight is the beginning of the Presidential nominating season, not the end.  And also, there are always factors in these races that will cause us to rethink their placements and the strength of the relative challengers and incumbents.

Sorry for sounding sort of generic and not answering questions, but that's all for now...

[Brittain33]

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

I wouldn't call having Jack Davis as your candidate a component of having "everything" going its way, at least in that district.

[minionofmidas]

You don't seem to understand.  The Democratic party had everything (and I repeat everything) going its way in NY in 2006 and this is the best it could perform in CDs (not to mention the state senate).  It is just very hard to beat incumbents here.  Just FYI - not necessarily as a criticism, mind you... 

I wouldn't call having Jack Davis as your candidate a component of having "everything" going its way, at least in that district.

I'd actually think that Sam's assessment of 2006 being slightly different from others' is the main bone of contention here. If you expect the Republicans to somewhat reconsolidate in 2008, obviously you won't expect some of 2006' lucky survivors going down in 2008.
If you think, though, that 2008's presidential election will have a rather larger Dem percentage share than the 2006 house elections (something I'd agree with) and that we're obviously headed for a 15-year period of Dem domination at every but every level (just exaggerating for effect here), then obviously it won't be getting any easier for Shays, Gerlach, Walsh etc to hang on.
Only time will tell.

Although if you bear with me for a moment, I'd like to draw an analogy with 1996, the election after the last similar "wave" election. To simplify, there were two types of Republican losers that year - one term incumbents and longterm incumbents out of sync with their districts, perhaps undermined by Gingrich's unpopularity in Democrat Country. (Dems also picked up a number of open seats.) Republican gains - of which there were surprisingly many for a net 8-seat loss - were mostly in open seats; with three exceptions. These came in Louisville, in rural Missouri, and in rural Utah.(Lousville was decided by 335 votes, and in MO, where Kenny Hulshof won a rematch in 96, the Dem incumbent was held to 51%. The Utah district though looked completely safe based on 94 results.)
More to the point though, all the Republican gains except Louisville came in areas that continue to vote Republican today, and all the Democratic gains (maybe I overlooked one or two) came in areas that continue to be Democratic. That is, what the election mostly did is align Congress to the country's political divisions.
One of the main differences between 94 and 06 is of course that George Bush won't be reelected in 08.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think Obama will be the nominee and will end up getting somewhere in the region of 65%-70%.  He has the potential to carry IL-6, IL-8, IL-11, IL-13, IL-14, IL-15, IL-16 and IL-18.  If he did this he would have carried every District in Illinois - which isn't a stretch since Bush's highest margin was only 59% in IL-15.  His coattails would obviously have some impact, possibly quite dramatic. 

[Brittain33]

I'd actually think that Sam's assessment of 2006 being slightly different from others' is the main bone of contention here. If you expect the Republicans to somewhat reconsolidate in 2008, obviously you won't expect some of 2006' lucky survivors going down in 2008.
If you think, though, that 2008's presidential election will have a rather larger Dem percentage share than the 2006 house elections (something I'd agree with) and that we're obviously headed for a 15-year period of Dem domination at every but every level (just exaggerating for effect here), then obviously it won't be getting any easier for Shays, Gerlach, Walsh etc to hang on.
Only time will tell.

Yes, I think that's it. If you believe 2006 was the high water mark for Democrats, then people like Shays and Walsh aren't going to lose. However, I can't see this as a purely subjective difference. There are objective factors at play in 2008 that were absent in 2006.

The first and most important of these is the financial disparity between the two parties. The Republicans could afford to go head-to-head with Democrats in all contested seats and effectively flood the zone. They won't be able to do so in 2008, much as Democrats had to concede some freshman seats (Sam Graves, anyone?) in 2002 in the face of superior Republican finances.

The second factor is that representatives in the minority have a weaker case for reelection than representatives in the majority. They can accomplish less for their district, while challengers from the majority party can promise more and back it up. We've seen this dynamic at work in the south, where Democrats continued to lose seats to the Republicans for many cycles following the "perfect storm" of 1994. We all recognize that this is why Republican retirements spiked this year, as Democratic retirements did in 1996. It may also mean that candidates for reelection and their patronage networks have a harder time mustering the energy needed for a successful reelection.

The third factor, whose impact is debatable, is the increased turnout of low-intensity voters in a Presidential election. Historically, that should favor Democrats. However I could accept an argument that said that the difference won't be any greater than it was in 2006.

All told, I can't see waving away the first two factors I mentioned as a difference of opinion. An argument needs to be made that those factors don't matter in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

Possible.  Incumbents are very hard to defeat in New York, you're giving that turnover scenario too much weight, imho.

Two NY incumbents lost in 2006;  three others barely survived.. However, both of those losses were tangentially connected to scandal.  There are many  reasons why 99% of incumbents win in "normal" election years -- but I think 2008 will be more like 1992 than 2004. Maffei won 49% in 2006 after running an excellent insurgent campaign. Most turnout models indicate that the precincts he performed well in two years ago we'll be more active in 2008. NY-26 and NY-29 are tough districts for Democrats to win. Thanks to the GOP's masterful bipartisan gerrymandering plan, Reynolds has a district packed with Republicans. NY-29 is also New York's most Republican House district.

If Powers and Massa are trailing by 2-3 points going into election day,  Obama/Clinton's coattails could make the difference. Considering how restless and  disappointed  many NYers are at their state's political impasse, it's not hard to believe some of their frustration could translate to the federal election balloting.

You better hope that 2008 is not more like 1992 than 2004, because many people forget that 1992 was an awful year for Democrats outside of the Presidential race.  The actually lost 10 seats in the House and one in the Senate depsite a very favorable map that year.  They also lost like 100 state legislative seats. If Democrats have a year like 1992, it will be an overall defeat, since losing ten seats would make their already small House majority pretty much useless. 

[Brittain33]

You better hope that 2008 is not more like 1992 than 2004, because many people forget that 1992 was an awful year for Democrats outside of the Presidential race.  The actually lost 10 seats in the House and one in the Senate depsite a very favorable map that year.  They also lost like 100 state legislative seats. If Democrats have a year like 1992, it will be an overall defeat, since losing ten seats would make their already small House majority pretty much useless. 

I think a comparison with 1992 is an extreme stretch.

First, the Democrats tied in the Senate, winning CA and WI against losing NC and GA.

Secondly, they were hit by the House Banking Scandal, which made more seats than usual up for grabs, AND reapportionment that contained potential for great Democratic losses that were completed in 1994. This was the election that saw safe Democratic seats evaporate in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, and New Jersey AND the first big wave of majority-minority seats in the South that created bleached Republican suburban seats in the solid South. The House would have been a wash without reapportionment, and coming off of a big Democratic majority, that's no bad result.

[Mr.Phips]

You better hope that 2008 is not more like 1992 than 2004, because many people forget that 1992 was an awful year for Democrats outside of the Presidential race.  The actually lost 10 seats in the House and one in the Senate depsite a very favorable map that year.  They also lost like 100 state legislative seats. If Democrats have a year like 1992, it will be an overall defeat, since losing ten seats would make their already small House majority pretty much useless. 

I think a comparison with 1992 is an extreme stretch.

First, the Democrats tied in the Senate, winning CA and WI against losing NC and GA.

Secondly, they were hit by the House Banking Scandal, which made more seats than usual up for grabs, AND reapportionment that contained potential for great Democratic losses that were completed in 1994. This was the election that saw safe Democratic seats evaporate in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, and New Jersey AND the first big wave of majority-minority seats in the South that created bleached Republican suburban seats in the solid South. The House would have been a wash without reapportionment, and coming off of a big Democratic majority, that's no bad result.

The Democrats ended up losing another Senate seat in April 1993 in a special election for Lloyd Benson's old seat, which Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson won. 

[SomeLawStudent]

I live in the Shays District that everyone has been talking about.  2 points that I would mention in response to some comments made here:

1) The democrats performed poorly in 2006 because minority voters did not turn out, as they tend not to in off-years in the district.  This was especially true in Bridgeport which has a 92%-8% democrat to republican registration margin.  In a Presidential election year minority turnout will be much higher, especially if Obama is the candidate.

2) Someone said there are few republicans in the district.  While I agree that there is certainly a democratic edge in the district, this is certainly not true.  The vast majority of the district is Republican and until last election there was an overally Republican registration advantage.  Almost all of the NYC suburban towns are reliably Republican, some by huge huge margins (New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, Weston, etc.). 

The Bottom Line is that this is a swing district that is trending democratic primarily due to social issues.  If Obama runs, it helps the democrats here a lot, if McCain runs it helps the Republicans here a lot as well.  If Huckabee is the Republican nominee, Shays has absolutely no chance of retaining his seat. 

[MarkWarner08]

I live in the Shays District that everyone has been talking about.  2 points that I would mention in response to some comments made here:

1) The democrats performed poorly in 2006 because minority voters did not turn out, as they tend not to in off-years in the district.  This was especially true in Bridgeport which has a 92%-8% democrat to republican registration margin.  In a Presidential election year minority turnout will be much higher, especially if Obama is the candidate.

2) Someone said there are few republicans in the district.  While I agree that there is certainly a democratic edge in the district, this is certainly not true.  The vast majority of the district is Republican and until last election there was an overally Republican registration advantage.  Almost all of the NYC suburban towns are reliably Republican, some by huge huge margins (New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, Weston, etc.). 

The Bottom Line is that this is a swing district that is trending democratic primarily due to social issues.  If Obama runs, it helps the democrats here a lot, if McCain runs it helps the Republicans here a lot as well.  If Huckabee is the Republican nominee, Shays has absolutely no chance of retaining his seat. 

Welcome to the forum, SomeLawStudent. Thanks for sharing some insights into your home Congressional district. Would you agree that Jim Himes is a strong contender than the previous Shays opponent? If Obama and McCain face off in the GE, do you think the higher suburban turnout (i.e. Shays folks) would neutralize the higher urban turnout (i.e. Himes supporters)?

[SomeLawStudent]

I live in the Shays District that everyone has been talking about.  2 points that I would mention in response to some comments made here:

1) The democrats performed poorly in 2006 because minority voters did not turn out, as they tend not to in off-years in the district.  This was especially true in Bridgeport which has a 92%-8% democrat to republican registration margin.  In a Presidential election year minority turnout will be much higher, especially if Obama is the candidate.

2) Someone said there are few republicans in the district.  While I agree that there is certainly a democratic edge in the district, this is certainly not true.  The vast majority of the district is Republican and until last election there was an overally Republican registration advantage.  Almost all of the NYC suburban towns are reliably Republican, some by huge huge margins (New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, Weston, etc.). 

The Bottom Line is that this is a swing district that is trending democratic primarily due to social issues.  If Obama runs, it helps the democrats here a lot, if McCain runs it helps the Republicans here a lot as well.  If Huckabee is the Republican nominee, Shays has absolutely no chance of retaining his seat. 

Welcome to the forum, SomeLawStudent. Thanks for sharing some insights into your home Congressional district. Would you agree that Jim Himes is a strong contender than the previous Shays opponent? If Obama and McCain face off in the GE, do you think the higher suburban turnout (i.e. Shays folks) would neutralize the higher urban turnout (i.e. Himes supporters)?

Thanks.  I actually don't think Himes is a particularly stronger candidate than Farrel.  Except for the fact that it sounds like he is raising more money and the fact that I think a democratic male runs slightly better in the district than a woman does.  I don't really think McCain will have great coattails in the district, though it would certainly be better than Huckabee's.  For some reason Republicans and Independents in the district really seem to like him.  I remember that my parents voted for him in the 2000 primary and that this was the district that put him over the top in CT.  However, he doesn't seem to really inspire new voters the way Obama does.  If it is an Obama/McCain matchup, I think any democrat, Himes included, starts at a huge advantage over Shays.  Assuming that Obama has similar results in turning out voters here as he did in Iowa, I don't see how Shays could win the district, there are simply too many democrats and democrat leaning independents in the district.

I also think Himes benefits from a lot of the groundwork that Farrel laid out in her last couple of campaigns in terms of registering a lot of new democratic voters.  It just seems like a really bad year for Shays for a number of reasons that don't have much to do with Himes.  He just seems like a generic "good" candidate that will probably win given the current political situation.

This is mostly just my opinion though.  I am a registered independent from one of the district's more republican towns who happens to vote democrat usually, for what it's worth.