Comments on: 2010 House ratings, part 2: Dem-held seats

By: Taniel

Taniel — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:31:05 +0000

About the discussion on net House seats: It would be a huge - and in my opinion quite unlikely - victory for Dems if they manage not to lose seats in 2010. Not only is this the midterms of a Democratic President, but they also have so many seats to defend. As we saw in 2008, some freshmen Democrats are bound to lose even in the most favorable of circumstances - so more than 5 should be expected to lose next year.

Jaxx, I agree that the GOP has more to worry about recruitment-wise in MD-01 than in AL-02 and ID-01. As for TX-17, I would agree with you if it wasn’t for Edwards’s quite weak 2008 showing; a 7% victory when no one was paying much attention to your district is not the way to look solid.

About OH-01: Obama’s 11% victory contributed to my decision to rate this “lean retention” rather than toss-up, but it is certainly not enough for me to push this into “likely retention.” OH-01 is a swing district won by Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and the boost in minority turnout played an important role in Driehaus’s victory. Chabot might be more conservative than you’d expect from such a district, but he also survived a number of competitive runs so he should not be dismissed.

desmoinesdem, I had my eye on IA-03 but I decided to leave it out for now. That might have been a bit unfair given that other seats in the likely retention category are at least as competitive, and I agree that Dems should definitely keep an eye on the district. At the very least, we’re certain to hear a lot about it in some cycle soon.

By: MSW

MSW — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:14:19 +0000

To add to Desmoinesdem, there are a lot of state GOP parties that are in shambles. Unless the National GOP party changes it’s message, they will be a minority party for a long time. In the last 6 months, the GOP has done nothing to improve its image. I just don’t see the GOP having a net gain in seats this year unless McConnell/Boehner et al get their act straight. Steele has been a major disappointment for the Republicans, and the GOP has failed to attract a lot of stellar candidates in the last few cycles to compete with the Dems. If the GOP gets its voice back, and if they actually try to make some good faith efforts to work with Obama, they will be very disappointed in 2010.

By: desmoinesdem

desmoinesdem — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:58:11 +0000

Well, Boswell should have retired in 2008 so a new Democrat would have two terms under his or her belt before having to face Latham in a redrawn IA-03 in 2012. I don’t like the idea of running someone brand-new in 2012, and I think Boswell would lose to Latham in 2012 (and I am not alone).

The Republican Party of Iowa is in shambles and Democrats have made huge registration gains in Polk County, which is the population center for IA-03. I think we would have much better than a 50/50 chance of holding the seat with a good candidate. The Republicans have a very thin bench in central Iowa.

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:29:45 +0000

2010 is exactly the kind of year where we dont want a seat like IA-03 open. From my previous experiences of elections in swing open districts in midterms where there is a Democratic President, I would say that a Republicans would have at least a 50/50 shot of picking up an open seat here.

By: desmoinesdem

desmoinesdem — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:46:35 +0000

I noticed that you did not include IA-03, which was competitive for several cycles in a row but not seriously contested in 2008.

I would tend to agree that Leonard Boswell is not vulnerable in 2010, but for whatever reason the DCCC is still calling him a “frontline Democrat.” I think that’s bogus–let him pay his DCCC like most of the others.

By the way, many Iowa Democrats believe IA-03 will be vulnerable in 2012, especially if Boswell doesn’t retire and Latham is thrown into this district. I don’t like our chances with a Boswell/Latham matchup. Ideally, Boswell would retire and let someone new get some experience, but he seems determined to run for re-election in 2010 and beyond.

By: Jaxx Raxor

Jaxx Raxor — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:00:50 +0000

I agree with you about OH-01, but Barrow will not get a large African American turnout like in 2008 because Obama will not be on the ballot. On the other hand, Barrow is not a weak opponent and his large victory has more than strenghened him with 2010 even without Obama. Although I do think there is a chance he could go under 60%, I’m not quite sure yet that it would be to the point of being an single digit race.

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:17:37 +0000

Overall a good analysis, but I have a few disagreements. One is OH-01. Steve Chabot is WAY, WAY to the right of a district that gave Obama a 55%-44% margin and George W. Bush only a 50%-49% margin in 2004. It would be like Dennis Kucinich representing a district like IN-02. Another disagreement is GA-12. The district is almost half black and Barrow won there by a stunning 67%-33% margin in 2008. I would be shocked if he was held under 60% in 2010.

By: Jaxx Raxor

Jaxx Raxor — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:10:18 +0000

I seriously doubt that Democrats will be able to get a net gain of seats in the House even if Obama is still popular. There are alot more vulurnable Democrats in conservative districts then the other way around, and the fact remains is that Obama had a good amount of coattails, and that without him on the ballot, support (especially from African Americans) will be down by alot, which could cost some support. Not to mention the traditional theme in which the party in control of the white house loses House seats in midterm electons. Although I do think that net losses for Democrats will be minimal.

By: MSW

MSW — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:02:48 +0000

Too early to tell on what the landscape will be like in November 2010. Taniel has identified several districts that could be competitive, and there may be a few others that will be identified as “races to watch”. I doubt if the Dems will lose more than a dozen of these seats, but these loses will be balanced by the GOP loses. On a larger scale, the GOP leadership is in disarray, and there is no sign that it will change anytime soon. The GOP lost big in November 2008, and in the last 6 months they have only made their predicament worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dems actually netted a handful of seats to their majority. If some GOP leadership emerges, the pendulum could swing back to the republicans.

By: Guy

Guy — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:37:20 +0000

So the GOP may take upto 5 seats - hardly a great success for them. I am sure the Democrats and Obama will be happy if come next November they lose 5 house seats and make a net gain of 2 senate seats. Sets Obama up for 2012.