For all the talk about House Democrats heading towards big losses in 2010, there is a major reason a red wave is unlikely: The party won’t have that much to worry about in terms of congressional retirements.
It might still be early in the cycle, but we can already say that their open seat headaches will look nothing like those that plagued the losing party of 1994, 2006 and 2008 - all cycles in which retirements were a huge factor. Needless to say, this will make it much harder for the GOP to score big gains. In a wave-like election, open seats provide easy pick-ups at little cost whereas incumbents are hard to beat even in the most favorable of environments.
Let’s review recent history:
- 1994: Democrats lost 22 open seats - nearly 40% of their total loss.
- 2006: At least 15 GOP-held open seats were considered competitive; the party lost 8 of them and spend a lot of money defending the rest (which included IL-06 and MN-06).
- 2008: 18 GOP-held open seats were considered competitive; Democrats won 11 of them - nearly half of their net gain.
In 2010, it would be a big surprise if the DCCC has to defend more than 6-7 competitive open seats - and even that many would take a few unexpected retirements.
For now, 7 House Democrats have announced they won’t run for re-election. 3 represent heavily African-American districts in which the GOP has no chance: AL-02 (Artur Davis), FL-17 (Kendrick Meek) and IL-07 (Danny Davis). A fourth open seat is that of Neil Abercombie in Hawaii. Republicans are excited about Charles Djou’s candidacy, but the bottom line is that the district voted for Obama 70% to 28%. Not exactly an appealing opportunity, whatever Obama’s approval rating next fall.
That leaves us with three vulnerable open seats: LA-03 (Charlie Melancon), PA-07 (Joe Sestak), and NH-02 (Paul Hodes). Note that PA-07 and NH-02 voted for Al Gore and John Kerry and they gave Barack Obama a double-digit victory. Strong Republican recruitment should make both top-tier GOP opportunities, but they won’t be easy pick-ups.
And here’s where the news gets good for Democrats: There simply aren’t many more potentially tough seats that could open up. Just this week-end, Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind announced he would not run for Governor - a relief for the DCCC.
At only 46, Kind is a 12-year incumbent, a Whip and a Ways and Means member; in short, he could rise to positions of power if only he stays in the House. Yet, he looked genuinely interested in a statewide race. Had he retired, the GOP would have had a good shot: While WI-03 gave Obama a 17% victory, it only went for Kerry and Gore by 3%. With Kirk now running for re-election, however, it heads off the map of competitive races. Kind has always cruised to re-election, albeit not always by dominating margins (he received 56% in 2004), and the district’s leftward turn last year should dissuade the GOP from paying much attention to the district.
So we are left with 3 vulnerable open seats - 4 if we grant that HI-01 could potentially be competitive. And I only see two House Democrats left whose retirement could create a headache for the DCCC:
- Rep. Bob Etheridge, who is considering running for Senate in North Carolina; NC-02 voted for Obama by 5%, for Bush by 8%.
- Rep. Peter DeFazio of OR-04, who is still deciding whether he wants to run for Governor in Oregon. Even if he does retire, once highly-touted GOP candidate Sid Leiken is not looking so hot anymore, to say the least.
Neither DeFazio nor Etheridge are likely to be vulnerable if they run for re-election, and at the moment I would not bet that either will retire. Even supposing that both do leaves the number of potentially competitive races at 5-6. (And let me repeat that this is already including seats in which the GOP would need to run a flawless campaign or rely on an excellent environment to be competitive; HI-01, OR-04 and PA-07 all lean blue.)
Other Democratic congressmen who have yet to rule out a retirement either are highly unlikely to quit or they don’t represent competitive districts. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08) or Jim Marshall (GA-08) running for Senate would be golden GOP opportunities, but neither has made any noise since the beginning of the year; polls showing McCain and Isakson in relatively good shape are unlikely to push them towards running. At 75, Leonard Boswell (IA-03) could retire from his swing district but he looks likely to stay put at least until redistricting. And the GOP has nothing to look forward to if Charles Rangel (NY-15) or John Dingell (MI-15) decide to retire. I believe that only leaves us with PA-11, where I once heard some buzz Paul Kanjorski might retire; but not only is that unlikely, it could also be good news for Democrats.
Let’s say a few such surprises occur, shooting the number of vulnerable Democratic open seats to 8-9. (As I said, this looks rather unlikely, especially with Kind announcing he’ll stay put.) Even that number bears no resemblance to the nightmare Democrats went through in 1994 or the retirement headaches the GOP endured in 2006 and 2008.
This did not happen for a lack of Democrats mulling retirement: At least 11 representatives who were actively considering seeking higher office or leaving politics decided to stick around to the House. Those include: Allen Boyd (FL-02), Ron Klein (FL-22), Dennis Moore (KY-03), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-02), Zach Space (OH-18), Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Stephanie Herseth Slandin (SD-AL) and Lincoln Davis (TN-04). That all chose to seek re-election speaks to their enjoying Democrats’ new status as the majority party.
By contrast, the NRCC has just as many open seat troubles to worry about as Democrats do. Jim Gerlach (PA-06) and Mark Kirk (IL-10)’s retirements create huge Democratic opportunities in blue territory, and DE-AL could soon become the most vulnerable district in the country if Mike Castle doesn’t run for re-election, as is expected (he has hinted he will retire if he does not run for Senate). Democrats have recruited competitive candidates in FL-12 and TN-03, both red-leaning but already-open districts. Bill Young (FL-10), Fred Upton (MI-06) and I believe Frank Wolf (VA-10) are still considering retirements, and any of them would host competitive open races.
In short: Before worrying about a coming red wave, Democrats should remember that they are leaving the GOP few obvious openings - a stark contrast to recent wave elections in which the losing party greatly contributed to its Election Day losses by having many of its incumbents retire.
This article is encouraging but you never know what will happen in a country as diverse and with some of the wacky ideas and theories many Americans have. The small percentage of White Southerners who still support Obama better get their butts out there in the 2010 midterms and try to bring back some of the rising hope there was 1 year ago. The south remains the most stubborn bloc of voters in the country and the least likely to change their ways. Perhaps Virginia and parts of North Carolina are the exception, but Obama’s approval in Georgia on Rasmussen was 35 percent. That means there are people hearing lies from somewhere, and many of these sceptics need to come to their senses. Obama has truly been taking on tough issues and in my opinion has gained much more ground than Clinton did in his first 8 months, yet the polls are showing decline. 42 percent of White voters approve of Obama. That is much lower than Bill Clinton was getting and many Us Senators. There is clearly something going on here that has little to do with their perception of Obama as a leader, but due to the fact our country is still very racist and intolerant. As long as these people in many of these states continue their ignorance, they will continue to be a backwater.
As usual Tanial gives us an excellent overview of the 2010 Democratic outlook as it relates to the possible Democratic candidates. But who the Democrats run in open or contested districts is only one factor in how the Democrats will perform in 2010.
If the employment numbers have recovered and the economy is creating 200,000+ new jobs/month next summer, a new health plan has been passed and the war in Afghanistan is not producing 50-100 dead American soldiers a month the Democrats will gain seats in both houses. If the converse happens then the results could be a Republican takeover of the House and a increase in the number of Republicans in the Senate
There will also be new issues (see the news today about the Iran’s hidden nuclear plant) that will have many effects, unknown today, on how the election turns out.
The south remains the most stubborn bloc of voters in the country and the least likely to change their ways.
Let me say what you really mean:
The south remains the most stubborn bloc of voters in the country and the least likely to change their ways in ways that I agree with, because clearly, the South is open to electing Democrats to national office from time to time, and even going Democrat for President. The fact that it will be a cold day in hell before Massachusetts or Vermont go Republican doesn’t make them stubborn, because clearly, they are enlightened and open minded, while southerners are ignorant redneck hicks, so obviously their reluctance to embrace anybody but the Kerrys and the Leheys of this world is does not make them stubborn, while the South’s general Republican trend does make them stubborn.
Cliff, Dave is obviously speaking from a Democratic perspective. You can easily say that from the Republican perspective, the North East is very stubborn, altho at the state level there is more openess (i.e. a good amount of Republican Govenors in the North East and a good amount of Democratic Governors in the South East.).
Cliff - you are incorrect Vermont until recently had Republican senators (Jeffords for example). Also alot the North East voted for Bush Senior (MA excluded because Dukasis was from there, much like AZ voted McCain because he was from there in 2008).
Most of the south is stuck in its ways - It took VA 40 years to vote Democrat again and places like OK, MS, AL etc will never vote Dem whereas it is easy to envisage NJ, PA, NH, etc voting Republican in the right circumstances.
Alot of the tea party people kept saying “we want our country back” - I am all for substantive policy debates but some of those people will be racist and I expect the 10% who think Obama is a muslim are disproportionately represented in those parties. The funny thing is when asked most of those tea party people (on videos I have seen) have supported Medicare but don`t want Government healthcare!
The northeast embraces progress and focuses on many different issues, ranging from health care reform to being more likely to oppose foreign wars like Afghanistan where our generals have not yet made a strong enough argument for loss of life. Being near New York City and Boston has made much of the northeast with a few exceptions relatively liberal. The media in the south is more conservative, and religion plays a huge roll in how people vote. Issues like abortion or gay rights, are viewed differently. Unfortunately statistics show infant mortality, the number of the uninsured, those who go to college, in the south as much higher. Texas and Arkansas have the highest rate of uninsured, whereas VT, Mass and Minnesota and more conservative Iowa have 92-95 percent of it’s residents insured. I may sound a bit like a snob but it makes me sad when I see a majority of the White south being mislead by ignorance.