Campaign Diaries

In an interview with the National Journal’s Congress Daily (via SSP), the DCCC’s executive director and the NRCC’s political director listed what they saw as their party’s 5-6 top pickup opportunities, each adding a number of promising second tier races.

Of course, these lists correspond to nothing tangible. Neither men promised to pour in money in these districts, nor did they commit to treating these races as competitive come the summer of 2010, nor did they suggest that other contests were not worth their time. And yet, it is certainly worth taking a look at their responses, as they provide us an early outline of where the 2010 midterms will be fought.

And the NRCC’s target list:

The first thing we can’t help but notice is that the NRCC’s list is longer, with 7 “tier 2″ races compared to 4 for the DCCC. That might be a trivial point, but it also speaks to a simple fact: After two cycles in which they picked up most low-hanging fruits, Democrats now have far more obviously vulnerable seats to defend than Republicans. (In my ratings, 27 Dem-held seats are categorized as “toss-up” or “lean retention,” compared to 18 GOP-held seats.)

The second striking fact is that the DCCC’s list, albeit shorter, contains more surprises than the NRCC’s. Democrats are really that optimistic about OH-02 and TX-10? Sure, Schmidt is strikingly unpopular and McCaul has drawn a very well-funded opponent, but they also hold conservative districts and decisively won competitive races in the tough 2008 environment. Sure, neither is safe, but it’s certainly a stretch to list them in the top 8 pickup opportunities.

It’s not even like the DCCC has an interest in hyping its commitment to unseating McCaul: They’ve already landed a top contender, so they don’t need to attract another one. Recruitment needs might account for the inclusion of another district, however: I am not surprised that MI-11 is on the list but I don’t think it is correct to put it this high since Democrats are experiencing a dreadful time landing a challenger to the obviously vulnerable McCotter.

By contrast, no district on the GOP’s list is a surprise inclusion. Republicans don’t have to think creatively but go after any Democrat who recently picked-up a swing district: All 12 of these districts are occupied by first or second-term Democrats - so all have been lost by the GOP in the past two cycles. That tells you all you need to know about how differently the two parties’ different approaches to the midterms.

The only district that might be worth discussing individually is MS-01: In such a conservative district, there is no doubt that Childers is vulnerable but the Democrat won his first re-election race with enough brio that it remained to be seen whether Republicans would go all-out against him in 2010. His inclusion could thus be the one newsworthy item of this list, as it takes care of any suspicion we might have had that the NRCC would give Childers a pass.

The explanation of this differential in surprises might very well be the same as the one for the list’s different lengths - Democrats have less obvious targets, so the DCCC gets to think more creatively. But that does not account for the fact that their list is missing many seats that I would say are better targets than MI-11, OH-02 and TX-10. In fact, 3 of the 6 GOP-held seats that I listed as toss-ups in my ratings are not on this list: AK-AL, IL-10 and WA-08! Also missing are any of the 8 ripe California district (some of which, like CA-03, are more promising than others), FL-25 or MN-03.

The NRCC’s list also contains a few omissions. First, while it is heavy on races from Florida, Virginia and Ohio races, the absence of any district from Pennsylvania (and, to a lesser extent, New Mexico and New York) is striking considering the long list of vulnerable seats in the Keystone State: PA-03, PA-04, PA-10 and PA-11 will all be 2010 battlegrounds.

Second, the NRCC’s most glaring omission is ID-01, a heavily red seat that looks to be the GOP’s best shot at a pick-up. This week, Republicans landed a top recruit: state House majority leader Ken Roberts announced he challenge Minnick. This is enough to put the incumbent in a very difficult position: The district is conservative enough that, as long as Republicans nominate a credible candidate who isn’t weighed down by scandal, they will be favored to pick-up the seat. (As far as I can tell, Roberts is the first high-profile challenger to jump in the race, though others like Attorney General Lawrence Wasden are also considering doing so.)

Update: As Cristinuity points out in the comments, ID-01 is included - so no need to read anything into that omission. That only reinforces the basic situation: Minnick is in trouble,  even more so now that Roberts is in.