Campaign Spot House Race Analysis

[Torie]

It is available here. It is not the greatest analysis (and of course from a conservative partisan), but it does contain a lot of information on a seat by seat basis of the seats deemed potentially in play, and thus some might find it of interest, or wish to comment on individual races.

Oh, and here are the 99 seats in play are ranked in trenches of difficulty for the GOP to take.

[Torie]

Yes Lunar,  the dude does seem to be on amphetamines or something, I admit. Hey, maybe the wave is already here and we just missed it.  But whatever, he lists the candidates and the money, and has some other tidbits, and not all of us are Sam Spade, and need cheat sheets.

[Torie]

I read the first article and not the second, Lunar, FWIW, because I didn't see the link.   

Looks like I made the correct choice.  The second article is rather silly.

It is hard to see something that wasn't there typically. I added it later.

[Torie]

Yes Lunar,  the dude does seem to be on amphetamines or something, I admit. Hey, maybe the wave is already here and we just missed it.  But hey, he lists the candidates and the money, and has some other tidbits, and not all of us are Sam Spade, and need cheat sheets.

It's not just that he skews things in favor of the GOP, it's that he's skewing the wrong things.

Arcuri is probably the best example of that.  I assume he thinks that because Arcuri flipped his vote from yes to no on HCR that he's more likely to be reelected, but in reality, that flip doomed him.

I mean, he generally gets a vague idea of what seats are in danger +/- some, but he's just....off.

There are tons of cheat sheets far better than this one, check out Cook & Rothenberg.

But they don't have the detailed chat that CS has of each race (at least not for folks who are looking for freebies rather than pay for more access), which for those who have not made this a project might be helpful.

Lunar is there some poll confirming that Accuri committed Seppuku because of his flip?

[Torie]

I read the first article and not the second, Lunar, FWIW, because I didn't see the link.   

Looks like I made the correct choice.  The second article is rather silly.

It is hard to see something that wasn't there typically. I added it later.

Trying to make me look like an idiot, eh! 

That is not hard; just ask Opebo. Vicious "rightest" too.

[Torie]

Lunar is there some poll confirming that Accuri committed Seppuku because of his flip?

Well, everyone who flipped away from a yes committed Seppuku imo except for the really random ones (Lynch & Lipinski).  It's logically irrational, as the Senate version was more conservative.

Arcuri is just...I mean, the entire Democratic county apparatus up there is completely deflated.  

I mean, Arcuri hasn't even made it clear whether or not he's even going to bother to run for reelection.  He's the only representative left in the House, as far as I'm aware, who's publicly teasing his retirement. 

Oh. So did he flip out of principle, or political miscalculation (trying to cut his losses, and instead opened up an artery), or because he didn't understand the bill the first time, or because ... ?

[Torie]

Of course, maybe Arcuri has been completely tarnished by what happened in 2008.

mmm?

Tarnished is not the best word, scarred is better.  Whatever...

I don't recall the scaring myself. What happened?

[Torie]

Phil Hare? LOL.

Arcuri is an idiot, plain and simple. The fact that the guy is considering retirement when he's only been in two terms and isn't that old is quite amusing but frankly we'd probably have a better chance with someone else.

Phil Hare is not completely ridiculous actually to put on a watch list now.  Unlike thinking that NV-01, CA-51 or MA-06 should be watched right now or should be put on any real list.  Or putting Phil Hare in TN-06 territory.

Putting CA-51 on the same level as CA-11 is just retarded. That was one of the mistakes that really caught the eye.

That caught my eye too, which is what precipitated my caveat that his conclusions were questionable, as opposed perhaps to the raw information. Indeed, it is retarded.

[Torie]

Campaign spot fights back on his being termed on amphetamines  about his perception that Hare and Berkeley being in the cross-hairs with this (the assumption being I guess that unemployment is the uber trump card):


Looking Hard at the Districts of Phil Hare and Shelley Berkley
May 13, 2010 11:54 AM
By Jim Geraghty   

Few predictions have generated more “Jim, you must be gargling with Maker’s Mark again” responses than my assessment that defeating Illinois Democrat Phil Hare is roughly as difficult as beating the St. Louis Rams. (Actually, the discussion here is whether I’m “on amphetamines” or whether  I’m “retarded.”)

If someone wants to argue that Hare doesn’t belong among the most absolutely vulnerable Democrats, fine, but anyone who thinks he’s a safe Democrat is, I suspect, extraordinarily mistaken.

For starters, let’s take a look at the jobless rate in some of the cities in Hare’s district.

    Sterling: 12.5 percent in March 2010, 13.7 percent in February; it was only 7 percent in November 2008, the last time Hare went before the voters (and with no Republican opponent).

    Rock Island: 10.2 percent March 2010, 10.8 percent the previous month; 5.5 percent in November 2008.

    Quincy: 8.9 percent in March 2010, 9.7 percent in February; 5 percent in November 2008.

    Springfield: 9.3 percent March 2010, 10.1 the previous month; 5.9 percent in November 2008.

    Decatur: 13.8 percent March 2010, 14.6 percent the previous month; 7 percent in November 2008.

Illinois’s unemployment rate is increasing faster than the national rate, and the counties in Hare’s district have pretty bad foreclosure rates (although Chicago’s is worse).

While March saw a bit of improvement, in most cities in Hare’s district, unemployment is close to double what it was the last time he faced the voters. This is not a circumstance where an incumbent can use the old Ed Koch slogan, “How am I doing?” Yes, this is a district gerrymandered to include a lot of Democrats. But even partisan Democrats who are out of work for long stretches can get dissatisfied with their incumbents and think about staying home or voting for the other guy.

Then there’s the matter of those polls conducted by Hare’s campaign but never released. What could they have shown? How good could they possibly have been for Hare if he’s decided to keep them under wraps, even after needling from GOP challenger Bobby Schilling? 55–45? If it were, say, 57–43, wouldn’t Hare have released them to show he’s still in fine shape?

Late last year, a poll found only 40 percent inclined to reelect Hare; in March, another poll found Hare leading Schilling 39 percent to 32 percent, a not-quite-so-daunting margin.

Of course, Hare can always rely on his raw charisma, charm, and dashing good looks to carry him to victory:

Then there’s the listing of Rep. Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada, where one commenter objects, “This list actually had Shelley Berkley listed as vulnerable in the inner city Las Vegas district.  Does this guy realize that the current NV-01 isnt even close to being like the district that she won in 1998 and John Ensign represented for four years in the 1990′s?”

Yes, Berkley’s district is most of Las Vegas – where the unemployment rate is 13.8 percent, was 13.9 percent last month, and was only 7.9 percent in November 2008. (Las Vegas unemployment has been 13 percent or higher for 8 of the last 9 months.) And then there are the epic troubles of Las Vegas homeowners: “highest foreclosure rate in the nation, 80 percent of homeowners ‘underwater’ on their mortgage, half of homes with 25 percent or more negative equity, 16 percent of homeowners delinquent on their mortgage.”

The Republican challenger to Shelley Berkley will have the simplest and most compelling of messages: “It’s time for a change.” Berkley will have to offer some argument that no one could possibly do her job better than she has so far, and that better times are just around the corner.

And this isn’t even getting into the top-of-the-ticket effects, from Harry Reid and Rory Reid in Nevada and Alexi Giannoulias and Pat Quinn in Illinois.

[Torie]

After seeing Hare on the tube, it is hard for me to fathom how he ever won the seat in the first instance, but whatever.

[Torie]

After seeing Hare on the tube, it is hard for me to fathom how he ever won the seat in the first instance, but whatever.

He was Lane Evans chief of staff, so he knew the district. As noted it was gerrymandered to maximize Dem support for Evans in 2002. In any case, this district has much more Dem lean than any of the others listed (IL-8, 11, or 14) so it's hard to see why this would be rated the tops for switching in IL.

Yes, I know. I was alluding more to how he ever secured the Dem nomination originally, and you have now filled in that blank. I suspect however, if the GOP does take over the House (I still tend to doubt that despite all the hype), my guess is that he might well be a casualty. He certainly won't appeal to voters on the fence I don't think, and the Dems just don't seem to be doing very well in Anglo areas outside the big cities at this juncture in a lot of places like this.