In the previous cycle, just 4 congressmen announced their retirement after January 2008; one of them, Rep. Vito Fossella, did so following a late-breaking cycle This cycle might be different: two representatives have already announced they won’t seek re-election since February started. This morning, Republican Rep. Vern Ehlers confirmed last night’s reports that he would not seek re-election, and this afternoon came news that 77-year old Rep. Diane Watson would retire as well.
While this raises the number of open seats Democrats have to defend in November to twelve, this is one district the GOP have absolutely no chance of picking-up. Located entirely in Los Angeles County and covering much of central LA, CA-33 is one of the country’s most Democratic districts: It voted for Barack Obama 87% to 12%, for John Kerry 83% to 16% and for Al Gore 83% to 14%. Watson’s successor will be decided in the June 8th primary.
That does not mean that the stakes are not high, since districts like this play a major role in determining the Democratic caucus’s ideological make-up. Watson was one of the chamber’s most left-wing members. A member of the Progressive Caucus, she voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the bill reforming FISA, June 2009’s war supplemental and the free trade agreement with Peru - all passed with substantial help among Democrats; she has also repeatedly supported the progressive budgets, introduced as amendments by the CPC. On the other hand, Watson was not that high-profile a House member, which might be due to the fact that she was already 68 when she first she joined Congress!
As such, her retirement offers the left a chance to get a more active champion out of this staunchly blue a district while also putting them at risk, since it would be quite a blow if Watson’s successor was not a committed progressive. (While it is likely that such a staunchly Democratic district produce a liberal lawmaker, there are plenty of examples of moderate-to-conservative congressmen being elected to such seats; think Harold Ford or Artur Davis, just to name a few.)
All of this said, at the moment it does not appear that the Democratic primary will be any more competitive than the general election: state Speaker Karen Bass is by all accounts preparing to enter the race, in which she would start as the undisputed favorite and should also receive Watson’s endorsement. Bass has a very progressive profile, she is “only” 57 and she would move to the House from a position of power, which potentially positions her to gain some influence on the Hill.
Will she have the primary for herself? Given that state officials are term-limited and that House districts open up so rarely, it might be tough for some Democrats to pass up this opportunity.
More open seats: Dems are in trouble in KS-03, land Arkansas candidates
In a development that was discussed in the comments section of my new House ratings, Democrats are losing their chances of defending a key open seat: KS-03. While I had left the district in the “toss-up column” because of the prospect that Kansas City Mayor Joe Reardon might run, he had in fact announced on Friday that he would do no such thing, which leaves Democrats in a very precarious position as it is now unclear where they will even manage to contest a district they have held since 1999.
State party chairman Larry Gates, who now has a dismal track record of convincing anyone to run for anything, argued in an interview Democrats had good choices left, but when a party is reduced to touting the possibility that congressional staffers could jump in a race, it doesn’t suggest it is preparing to make a full-throated effort to defend the district. The winner of the GOP primary, which opposes among other candidates state Rep. Rep. Kevin Yoder and former state Senator Nick Jordan, will move to the general election favored.
The reason this is rough news for Democrats: Of all the open House races the party is very worried about, KS-03 is a rare district that voted for Obama in 2008. The two Dem-held seats that I rated “lean takeover” (TN-06 and LA-03) both gave McCain over 60% of the vote; many of the other open seats gave the Republican decisive victories. As such, on paper KS-03 should not have been the toughest of these open seats.
On the other hand, many districts in which Obama was far weaker have been historically far more friendly to Democrats, who thus have a deeper bench; as such, the party’s Kansas failure is not necessarily a harbinger of what might happen in AR-01, AR-02 or TN-08.
Case in point, AR-01, where Democrats just landed two elected officials: state Senator Steve Bryles (who has served since 2000) and state Rep. David Cook; they’ll face Marion Berry’s chief of staff Chad Causey. Just a few days ago I was writing about the lack of activity in this district, so this is great news for the DCCC. The party will have more than a fighting chance with an experienced candidate who will run free of any association with Washington Democrats (unless Causey wins the nomination) and will thus be able to appeal to voters’ allegiance to Democrats in non-presidential races.
Democrats are also having no trouble finding candidates in AR-02. After state Speaker Robbie Wills, state Senator Joyce Elliott and Snyder’s former chief of staff David Boling, a fourth candidate announced his candidacy this week: Assistant Attorney General John Adams.
While many Democrats have been hoping that Lieutenant Governor Brian Halter jump in the race, there is now growing buzz that he is just days away from announcing a primary challenge to Senator Blanche Lincoln; this is at least what is being suggested by an unsure-sounding piece at The Arkansas Times and by Markos Moulitsas, who sounds quite confident that he will get what he wants within the next week. I’ll obviously have more on this when it comes to pass.
KS-3 looks like a likely pickup for the Republicans. The only way I see the Democrats winning this race is if a solid candidate comes out of the woodworks and if the Democrats gain some momentum. I don’t see either happening.
Arkansas is a state that has drifted away from its prior Democratic roots. I can see us losing the AR-Sen, AR-1, and AR-2. However, a messy republican primary could enter into the equation, especially if the tea party enthusiasts aren’t satisfied with the nominated candidate.
There is definitely a realignment that has been going on since the 2000 elections. The northeast is, for the most part, solidly Democratic. When I say this, I mean that if the quality of the Democratic and Republican candidates are equal, the Democrat will most likely win. When they are not, we will see the Browns of the world defeating the Coakleys. The West Coast is reliably Democratic too, along with Illinois, and to a lesser extent Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The Republicans still have a stronghold in the great plains states, along with the Deep South. Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia has drifted to the Republicans.
For this election, I’m keeping my eye out on PA, OH, AR, IN, NV, NC, VA, NH, FL, CO, and MO. Each state, sans VA, has a senate race in 2010, along with IMHO 20-25 seats that are up for grabs in the House amongst these states. If the Dems can win 3 of the 10 senate races, and this is a tall order, and split the 20-25 seats, I will consider the 2010 mid-term elections a success for the Dems. Right now, I’d only rate IN senate as leaning towards the Dems. We will also lose senate seats in DE and ND, and IL is definitely in play.
Interesting comment, MSW.
I would suggest that the realignment you speak of is older than 2000. Bill Clinton was an exceptional candidate, but looking at congressional elections it seems that the same basic regional dynamics have been in place since 1992. Remember that in that year, the presence of Ross Perot, together with Clinton’s southern roots and outstanding campaign skills, helped the Democrats in a lot of states that were not demographically or ideologically favorable to them.
Another thing that seems worth mentioning is the qualitative difference in the mode of Democratic dominance between the northeast and the west coast. In the northeast, there are basically no social conservatives left, and even on fiscal matters and foreign policy, viable Republicans tend to be moderate. In other words, the vast majority, even of Republicans, are liberal compared to the country at large. In the west, even though Democrats dominate, there is still an active conservative movement, able to routinely nominate, and occasionally elect, conservative Republicans. So while these regions often vote for Democrats by wide margins in presidential elections, they can’t be treated identically when considering the ideological makeup of the country. I mention this to add nuance, not as a criticism.
I’ll be the first to say it: the Diaz-Balart retirement and apparent switcharoo is horrible news for Republicans. It has the potential to lose us both seats.
In the end, I think we are odds on favorite to hold both, but it’ll require a lot of money and work and this is not a good situation.
Huh? How can possibly the Republicans lose both seats in Florida? Obama may have won one of them but things have changed since then.
Will the Cuban-Americans be so incensed by the arrangement that they will flock to the Democrat?
Cliff & Panos, I learned about the Diaz-Balart switch as I was about to publish my Senate rankings - and after considering postponing publishing that to get to the Florida news, I realized I didn’t have the energy to blog on this weird development after working to finish the Senate rankings this morning… so I’m leaving a full post for later.
My short take: I think Democrats definitely have a shot at Mario’s seat while it could be tougher in Lincoln’s, but it should be fascinating to watch how voters react to Mario trying to switch districts.
Panos,
It’s the gamesmanship. Mario switching seats trying to get an easier district is EXACTLY the kind of entitlement that voters are REALLY not happy about.
It’s really disappointing because I’ve been fans of both Diaz-Balart brothers, but this is just silliness.
I think we’ll probably hold both seats, all said and done, but it’s a screwed up enough situation that it could put both seats in danger.
Shock horror, some Republican’s have a sense of entitlement. Cliff is right that people don`t like that. Hopefully he will no agree with comments severla people made a efw weeks ago that the current “wave” is not anti-Democratic per se but more anti-incumbent or politican. Great for short term GOP gains but not a greta basis to build on in 2012 and later. This would explain why even with the Dems sinking the GOP haven`t become more popular (20% or so identifying with the party).
At least I see Palin is starting to leave the door more open on running in 2012.
Nathan,
Points well taken. Arkansas had some mitigating factors in the 1990’s (a la Bill Clinton), and to a lesser extent Tennessee (Al Gore).
You are right regarding the West Coast and the Northeast. The Northeast used to be filled with the Rockefeller Republicans, while the West Coast was more associated with Nixon, Reagan, Hatfields, and Packwoods. With the exception of Reagan, these politicians and their class are not around anymore. Gordon Smith and Slade Gorton were somewhat like these guys, but they went down in this decade.
With respect to FL-21 and FL-25, the Republicans are lucky (1) that this is likely to be a pro-GOP cycle AND (2) that Rubio is (probably) going to be running at the top of the ballot. Without both factors, the GOP could easily lose both seats.