Top House Targets in 2010

[Padfoot]

Targets are listed according to the party they belong to.  Candidates in italics were elected for the fist time in 2008. Incumbents receiving >55% are not considered vulnerable for the purposes of this list but some freshmen receiving <60% may be included.

Democrats:

Bobby Bright AL-2
Parker Griffith AL-5
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-1
Harry Mitchell AZ-5
Betsy Markey CO-4
Jim Himes CT-4
Alan Grayson FL-8
Walt Minnick ID-1
Frank Kratovil MD-1
Mark Schauer MI-7
Gary Peters MI-9
Travis Childers MS-1
Dina Titus NV-3
Carol Shea-Porter NH-1
John Adler NJ-3
Martin Heinrich NM-1
Harry Teague NM-2
Eric Massa NY-29
Larry Kissell NC-8
Steve Driehaus OH-1
John Boccieri OH-16
Kathy Dahlkemper PA-3
Paul Kanjorski PA-11
Chet Edwards TX-17
Glenn Nye VA-2
Gerald Connolly VA-11
Steve Kagen WI-8

Republicans:

Mike Rodgers AL-3
John Shadegg AZ-3
Dan Lungren CA-3
David Dreier CA-26
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dana Rohrabacher CA-46
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Bill Posey FL-15
Mario Diaz-Balart FL-25
Mark Kirk IL-10
Judy Biggert IL-13
Lynn Jenkins KS-2
Brett Guthrie KY-2
Bill Cassidy LA-6
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Erik Paulson MN-3
Michelle Bachman MN-6
Blaine Luetkemeyer MO-9
Lee Terry NE-2
Dean Heller NV-2
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Henry Brown SC-1
Joe Wilson SC-2
Michael McCaul TX-10
Pete Olson TX-22
Dave Reichert WA-8
Cynthia Lummis WY-AL

Uncalled Races:

AK-AL
CA-4
OH-15
VA-5

For Democrats it will be another year of protecting vulnerable freshmen and it isn't likely to be as easy as 2008 was.  Pickups in CO-4 and ID-1 are at least partially due to the unpopular personalities of the GOP candidates.  In the case of MI-7 and MD-1, contentious GOP primaries lifted the Democrats' chances.  More conservative leaning pick-ups in the South and Midwest will also be hard to hold onto especially since many of these Democrats were probably bolstered by increased black turnout.

Surprisingly, 5 California incumbents seem to be at least potentially vulnerable but a large 3rd party presence (and sometimes 4th) may be throwing off the numbers.  Mario Diaz-Balart is sure to be targeted again as his was the closest of the South Florida races in which the Democrats made an attempt to woo Cuban voters.  MI-11 was a bit of a surprise to me.  I highly doubt the Democrats will get outspent 45-1 in this district next time.  Lee Terry may be a bit safer without Obama running in NE-2 but his relatively poor performance in the past two elections coupled with Obama's likely win here will surely put him in the Democrats' sights again.  Henry Brown and Joe Wilson of SC-1 and SC-2 have to be some of the unhappiest GOP incumbents to get re-elected.  After cruising to crushing victories in previous elections, both saw their numbers tumble dramatically this year.  Changing demographics have bolstered Democratic hopes in these former GOP bastions.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I think Himes will end up being safe like Courtney and Murphy were this year. The Republicans just don't have anyone to run anymore.

Gerry Connolly will be safe -- Obama won the district by 15 points and, barring a scandal on Connolly's part, there's (again) not much of a bench in the district for the Republicans.

[AndrewTX]

I disagree about CT-04 being safe. It's all depending on how Obama does and the midterms shape up. We have pleanty of candidates here that could take the seat, including State Sen. McKinney.

 We'll know if any of these seats are safe or not in 2 years.

[Mr.Phips]

I dont think Himes in CT-04, Heinrich in NM-01 or Driehaus in OH-01 will be in much trouble.  These districts are the kind that if when they fall to Democrats, they likely are not going back.  Same with NV-03, since Republicans pretty much got their bench wiped out there.  Same with NC-08.  In PA-11, if Barletta could not take down Kanjorski I dont see who can. 

[Sam Spade]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

As for Democrats, the focus should be on those districts that Obama's coattails and Bush's anti-coattails should have taken down, but didn't, due to the fact... well, you know...

Also, protect the districts you won.  You can try and go after KS-02, FL-16, LA-06 and TX-22, but it's unlikely they're coming back - especially the first and last of that list.

Amusingly, I note that my blue dog racist Democrat colleagues in Galveston county appear to have helped drag down Lampson a bit to his defeat, but that's neither here nor there...

[Mr.Phips]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

her here nor there...

You should change that to any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line in a district Obama did not carry. 

[Bacon King]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

her here nor there...

You should change that to any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line in a district Obama did not carry. 

I'm pretty sure the only districts Obama carried in the south are either black-majority or affluent.

[Mr.Phips]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

her here nor there...

You should change that to any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line in a district Obama did not carry. 

I'm pretty sure the only districts Obama carried in the south are either black-majority or affluent.

I know NC-08 was carried by Obama.  As was VA-02, VA-11, and FL-08. 

[socaldem]

CA-44

Accidental Rep. Ken Calvert, who initially won election by fewer than 100 votes, winning only 48% of the vote in 1992 should be vulnerable.  He was supposed to lose in 1994, after having been found soliciting a prostitute but he survived that and more recent scandals with Duke Cunningham, corrupt GOP lobbyist and ex-rep Bill Lowery, etc.

But now his tme is coming.  His House district which had been a center of white flight, has a burgeoning black and latino population.  He lost Riverside County but was only saved by his margins in the small portion of super-conservative Orange County in his district. 

I think Bill Hedrick, a local school board member from GOP-leaning Corona would be good in a rematch.  Perhaps a Riverside City Council member or Mayor Loveridge will challenge him.

In any case, Obama did really well in the Inland Empire and I hope Democrats start looking to make gains at the congressional and legislative levels there as well.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Jim Marshall, Parker Griffith and Bobby Bright should worry about 2010.  They definitely have to be some of the most vulnerable. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Jim Marshall, Parker Griffith and Bobby Bright should worry about 2010.  They definitely have to be some of the most vulnerable. 

If Griffith can build up a personal following in the rural parts of his district he might be alright (Cramer was in the same situation in much of the '90's). I don't know about Bright. Marshall is a dead man walking.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Jim Marshall, Parker Griffith and Bobby Bright should worry about 2010.  They definitely have to be some of the most vulnerable. 

If Griffith can build up a personal following in the rural parts of his district he might be alright (Cramer was in the same situation in much of the '90's). I don't know about Bright. Marshall is a dead man walking.

I suppose there is a precedent for a conservative, rural Democrat to hold Griffith's seat.  The thing about Bobby Bright is that he managed to win his seat even as McCain must have been defeating Obama pretty heavily in it.  I know he was helped by Smith endorsing him over Love but still, I wonder if he might be alright in an off-year.  And Marshall is battle-hardened but 2010 could be bad for him - however, by then he will have been in that seat for some time and might be able to pull it out.  Anyway, I'd still call them three of the most vulnerable Democratic Congressman going into 2010.

[Brittain33]

The thing about Bobby Bright is that he managed to win his seat even as McCain must have been defeating Obama pretty heavily in it.

I would read the election in the opposite way. He won because Obama helped bring up African American turnout in the district, and he got by because enough white voters split their tickets. Obama's top-line numbers don't matter so much as I doubt Kerry did any better here.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The odds of Democrats winning NJ-07 or Republicans recapturing NJ-03 are sufficiently low enough to be rounded down to zero.

[Brittain33]

The odds of Democrats winning NJ-07 or Republicans recapturing NJ-03 are sufficiently low enough to be rounded down to zero.

Who will lose a seat in redistricting, do you think?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The odds of Democrats winning NJ-07 or Republicans recapturing NJ-03 are sufficiently low enough to be rounded down to zero.

What would the chances be of a takeover of LoBiondo's seat, assuming he were to retire?

[Keystone Phil]

The odds of Democrats winning NJ-07 or Republicans recapturing NJ-03 are sufficiently low enough to be rounded down to zero.

What would the chances be of a takeover of LoBiondo's seat, assuming he were to retire?

If the Dems run State Senator Jeff Van Drew, it's likely. If not, the GOP is favored to keep it.

[bgwah]

If the Democrats can find a good candidate for WA-8 I think they would probably win it. It's frustrating that they've nominated awful candidates three times in a row now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The odds of Democrats winning NJ-07 or Republicans recapturing NJ-03 are sufficiently low enough to be rounded down to zero.

Who will lose a seat in redistricting, do you think?

My best guess at this point is that they'll try to combine Lance-Garrett-Frelinghuysen into one seat.  Give Lance a safer seat by tossing in Warren, maybe give Sussex to Frelinghuysen.  The danger with trying to edge Lance out is that he's already shown he can outperform the district's basic partisan numbers.

The initial instinct may be to put Lance and Holt together in the same "fair fight" district like what happened with Johnson and Maloney in CT-5 circa 2002, but I'd be willing to bet that Holt would flex some veto power over that.

Just about anything can happen.  For example, a sitting GOP congressman could make things a lot easier on the line drawers by declaring a race against Menendez.  Perhaps Lance?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

What about Arkansas? Those guys aren't going anywhere.

[© tweed]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

What about Arkansas? Those guys aren't going anywhere.

or Florida I suppose, but that's probably not what he meant...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

What about Arkansas? Those guys aren't going anywhere.

I think it's hyperbole used to make a point clearer. The basic point is seems obviously true, though I wonder whether other areas (translation; places that swung hard to the Democrats this year because the troubles in the economy were causing particular problems locally) might cause more trouble than the group mentioned above in 2010.

[Sam Spade]

Look, unless Obama's approvals are sky-high (I'll say above 65%) come Election Day in 2010, any Democrat south of the Mason-Dixon line not in a black-majority district or an affluent district should effectively start campaigning now.  Yes now.

What about Arkansas? Those guys aren't going anywhere.

I think it's hyperbole used to make a point clearer. The basic point is seems obviously true, though I wonder whether other areas (translation; places that swung hard to the Democrats this year because the troubles in the economy were causing particular problems locally) might cause more trouble than the group mentioned above in 2010.

Oh, you're not being unreasonable either.  However, we must always remember that just because people appear safe now does not mean they will be safe in the future. 

In other words, for BRTD, just because the Arkansas GOP is presently a joke does not mean that circumstances will not arise in the near future that allows a resurgence through future candidates.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However, we must always remember that just because people appear safe now does not mean they will be safe in the future.

Very true; we only need to look at how plenty of Republicans who were "safe" in 2002 and 2004 lost in 2006 or last week. Or at 1994. Still, I think you can generally see certain signs of possible vulnerability under the surface (beyond "Presidential candidate x did badly there" and so on), though the way House elections work can make it harder than it might otherwise be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The amusing part is that the district in AR that seems least likely to fall in a hypothetical midterm nightmare is the one that voted for a Republican Rep as recently as 1998...

[Verily]

The odds of Democrats winning NJ-07 or Republicans recapturing NJ-03 are sufficiently low enough to be rounded down to zero.

Who will lose a seat in redistricting, do you think?

My best guess at this point is that they'll try to combine Lance-Garrett-Frelinghuysen into one seat.  Give Lance a safer seat by tossing in Warren, maybe give Sussex to Frelinghuysen.  The danger with trying to edge Lance out is that he's already shown he can outperform the district's basic partisan numbers.

The initial instinct may be to put Lance and Holt together in the same "fair fight" district like what happened with Johnson and Maloney in CT-5 circa 2002, but I'd be willing to bet that Holt would flex some veto power over that.

Just about anything can happen.  For example, a sitting GOP congressman could make things a lot easier on the line drawers by declaring a race against Menendez.  Perhaps Lance?

I suspect Lance's district will just be split up. He's the Republican with (by far) the least seniority, and his district is not growing very fast anyway, at least not now that the housing bubble has burst in Somerset County. He himself will probably end up in Holt's district, although he might be in Frelinghuysen's district. But Holt's district would be far too Democratic for him to win re-election.



Garrett will get his district extended into Hunterdon while losing some of the Democratic areas of Bergen to Rothman.

Frelinghuysen will get more of northern Somerset while losing parts of western Essex to Pascrell. He may also get the Republican areas of Union.

Pallone will get some of Union, both from Sires and from Lance.

Holt will get some of Somerset, and the borders in Monmouth County between himself, Pallone and Smith will be rejigged.

Smith and Adler will exchange their respective state edges so that Adler's district is along the Delaware and Smith's is along the coast; this will make both safer (although Smith is safe anyway). Robinsville will stay in Smith's district, of course.

Sires will gain most of the rest of Hudson from Rothman while giving up parts of Union to Pallone. This will keep the district Hispanic-majority as the Hispanic population is exploding in northern Hudson.

LoBiondo may be forced to take in some of the fringes of Andrews's district depending on how population shifts are happening down there. If the district would become too Democratic, though, he might get some Republican areas from Adler's district (or, rather, that would otherwise go in Smith's district).