Maybe in Ohio... (0.00 / 0)

...Clinton might have some coattails, but I honestly think that's more due to Strickland than to her. In Michigan, the general election is close either way (according to SUSA), so I'm not sure why she has the advantage over Obama. In Florida, the issue (especially with the Miami-area seats) is that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Kendrick Meeks are sitting on their hands and doing nothing to help the Democratic challengers.

---

by: PsiFighter37 @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:17:28 PM UTC

How I wish (0.00 / 0)

that a top challenger would appear in my NJ2, but the "best" candidates seem to waiting for the future.  It didn't meet your search because it's D+.  Though with two other open seats in the same state, you can see resources might run thin.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:19:52 PM UTC

IL-8 is not a pickup. We already have a Bush Dog there: Bean. n/t (0.00 / 0)

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:27:36 PM UTC

Must have meant 18. LaHoods old dist. (0.00 / 0)

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:28:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton's coattails? (4.00 / 1)

Huh?

She's running a tiny bit better in Florida than Obama.

But she has almost not chance at the nomination...

---

by: paulgemini @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:28:15 PM UTC

And let me add... (0.00 / 0)

Ask any democratic elected official. Ask them off the record if they want to run with Barack Obama on the ticket or Hillary Clinton. Ask them.

---

by: paulgemini @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:29:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, that's a pretty easy task... And this entire analysis is total crap. (0.00 / 0)

Just check the superdelegate lists against the list slightly vulnerable seats. According to Demconwatch it looks like it is currently 72-71 for members of the house. So, woopti-do.

You really need to ask the democratic unelected officials wanting to get elected. Like Jim Foster who recently won his special election with direct involvement from Obama and promptly endorsed him, or Andres Carson currently running for his grandmother's seat.

Frankly, with the turnout from youth voters and inspiring others to turn out, I'd want Obama on the ticket myself.

It's pretty well a moot point as you may not have majored in math, but if no miracle saved Huckabee what hope does Clinton have? -- Looking at early voter turnout was one of the things which made me an Obama supporter. I think driving some Republicans to the polls just to vote against Clinton isn't going to help the down ticket races. The turnout and excitement for the race certainly does equal coattails but you need to take a good look at who the massive turnout helps. I'm not exactly sure there would be that much vigor and excitement among the old women of Clinton's core voters.

I honestly don't see any coattails specifically for Clinton. There's certainly a wellspring of votes to oppose McCain (as well as a depressing support for McCain), but I don't exactly see anywhere near the excitement in the Clinton camp.

I don't buy the above argument.

Bill Foster wins in a +R district.
Therefore, Clinton must have coattails.
Therefore, Clinton can help win 50+ districts.

Bill Foster won in Illinois with the help of Barack Obama. This bodes well for the coming election season (clearly) however it has nothing to do with Clinton. Further, as the suggested close locations are where Clinton and Obama both do rather well in (according to SUSA) in the general I don't buy it at all.

Moreover, because (according to SUSA and various general polls) Obama is set to win a much larger victory against McCain than Clinton would, this does actually equal coattails. There's nothing like lackluster candidate suffering an overwhelming defeat to a charismatic individual to send shockwaves through the downticket races. I think the general conclusion of Clinton's lackluster general election prospects (she'd win mind you) doesn't actually scream coattails. In fact, I find Clinton's argument that she's the perfect person to go toe-to-toe with McCain another reason not to support her, not because she's tacitly advocating a McCain presidency, but because there's no reason to go toe-to-toe to a guy you can ignore and defeat while extolling the reasons why you are the man for the job. Going toe-to-toe with somebody means that you're at their level. The implicit assumption is that to bring Obama to McCain's level means that he needs to step it up a bit. Rather, to do so, Obama would have to lower himself just as Clinton has lowered herself. The fact that Clinton's current strategy is to advocate that she's the person to oppose McCain in a general election even though every matchup suggests that she does significantly worse is odd enough. However, when you're face with another four years of McBush who advocates keeping troops in Iraq until they are as old as he is, I must note, below stupid. Nobody needs to go toe-to-toe with McCain, is is the embodiment of failure.

Also, not simply Bill Foster here but even in 2004 when Obama was busy winning his Senate seat he started campaigning for a number of house races and having his volunteers help them out. In Clinton's 2006 race, she helped nobody but herself and spent massive amounts of money in an election she was never remotely close to losing.

Further, Obama's ground game is astounding, you win big with good ground game.

---

by: Tatarize @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 14:52:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was my reaction too (0.00 / 0)

21 of them alone were in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, which suggests that Clinton might have some serious House coattails.

My first reaction to this sentence was, "Huh? did Obama drop out earlier today while I wasn't online or something?  Why would he suggest that Clinton has those coattails?"  Then I realized that it was because she 'won' all those states (some of which even had Obama on the ballot!).

I don't think Cilliza's list suggests anything in particular about Clinton's capacity for coattails.  A breakdown of primary results district-by-district might, but given Obama's edge in Republicans and Independents, I would be pretty surprised if the OH, FL, and MI districts on the list were the ones where Clinton built her victories.

Yes we Kang

---

by: I Voted for Kodos @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:09:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stoller's bought the line (0.00 / 0)

that whoever wins the state in the primary, is the only one that can win it in the general.

---

by: recusancy @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:14:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look At The SUSA Results I Analyzed In My Diary (4.00 / 2)

Clinton beats McCain by 9 in Florida, a 14-point improvement over 2004, while Obama loses by 2.  So that's a significant indicator, as well, though things could certainly change.   In Ohio, and Michigan, they are virtually identical, so I think your point is very well taken there.

Things are looking much better in Ohio than Michigan, for some reason, but Michigan should change by November.  So, Florida really is the big question mark, IMHO.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:22:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An argument I don't get (4.00 / 3)

I don't understand why everyone just presumes that the winner of the Democratic primary in a given state is automatically in a better position to win the state in the general election. Obviously, it's perfectly possible for one candidate to appeal to the core party-base and win the state in te primary, while the other candidate does well with independents and crossover Republican voters in the general. (A purely hypothetical scenario, of course...)

Even if one candidate does better overall in the state, it wouldn't necessarily follow that they'd have more coattails than the other candidate - e.g., they might be more polarizing. (Again, totally hypothetical...)

Anyway, for what little it's worth, I feel like Clinton might have some coattails in Florida, and Michigan and Ohio would be pretty much a wash.  

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:46:32 PM UTC

right on (4.00 / 1)

It's also about the strength of on-the-ground organizing.  A lot of "coattails" is which campaign will turn out the most voters, period, and if they're willing to double up that GOTV operation for the whole democratic ticket.

---

by: TValley @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:59:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Intuitive (0.00 / 0)

It's just one of those things that make intuitive sense, but I have no idea if it is actually true or not.  It would be interesting to analyze primary returns with the USASurvey results to see if there is any correlation.  My guess is a correlation exists but is small.  Clearly, there is a negative correlation in the south this year, and Obama must pick up those lost votes elsewhere given the parity in both delegates and the USAServey poll.

A correlation assumes:

1) Those who vote for a candidate in the primary will also vote that way in the general.

2) Those who don't vote for a candidate are more likely to switch which party they vote for in the general.

3) Those that don't vote in the primary at all, or voted for a third candidate, will split their votes identically regardless of candidate.

It isn't hard to come up for reason why any one of these three might be wrong in specific situations.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:17:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Minnesota (0.00 / 0)

Yes, it would be nice to take Minnesota 2, 3, and 6.  CD-3 is an open seat, endorsing conventions are a few weeks off, and it looks as if Michelle Bachmann (6) will have a serious opponent.  

News today -- Mike Cerisi has dropped out of the Senate Race, and thus far, Al Franken looks as if he is on track to come close to the 60% of the State Convention Delegates necessary to endorse.  Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is still in, getting perhaps 20% of the delegates in the Convention Selection.  I don't look forward to the money Coleman expects to raise and spend next fall -- some are estimating we may face 30 million worth of ads, with lots of Republican Independent Spending anticipated.  

---

by: Sara @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:58:16 PM UTC

To be fair (0.00 / 0)

I cannot think of a worse canidate then Jim Oberweis and despite Fosters flaws he clearly worked hard to win and not every canidate will be that strong.

However I do think we have a shot for another HUGE pickup.

Let's assume we keep IN-07 in Democratic hands tomorrow. And let's assume we get another huge upset in LA-06. That puts us at 235 Democratic representatives. Let's say we win 40 more seats. That means the Democrats control 275 seats in the house of representatives. The Republicans would hold 160 seats. Imagine what we could get done then. But I think getting 60 seats in the Senate is more important.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:07:10 PM UTC

With a Dem president (0.00 / 0)

and a Senate lead of about 57-43, then past a point the benefit of extending the margin is best gauged in time. In other words, with that kind of lead we could be looking at a Dem-controlled House for a generation.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:22:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If my CD (MI 4th) goes blue (0.00 / 0)

Then wholly shit.  It will be the end times for republicans.  I just can't even fathom that possibility right now.  It's a solid 60/40 repub district.

This could be an incredible year.  All we need to do is get that pesky pres race wrapped up.

---

by: recusancy @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 23:10:16 PM UTC

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

"21 of them alone were in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, which suggests that Clinton might have some serious House coattails."

The SUSA polls have Obama doing just as well as Clinton in Ohio and Michigan.  Florida would be the only advantage we might see in those 3 states in terms of Clinton coattails...

---

by: moreaxe @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:13:58 AM UTC

Michigan? (0.00 / 0)

While I think you're wrong about Florida and Ohio being good for Hillary...I live in Ohio and McCain will own her here.  Also, polling bears this out in Ohio and Florida, McCain beats both Hillary and Obama.  But Michigan is a completely separate story.

She almost lost to uncommitted.  People went out in 6 inches of snow to vote against her.

Who are you...Ed Rendell?

---

by: politicalinaction @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:28:13 AM UTC

SUSA Polls Say, Not So Much (0.00 / 0)

See my comment above.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:32:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, Michigan is a separate story (0.00 / 0)

Yes, the manufacturing economies in these two states have been ravaged over the last thirty years.  But there are many differences.  The biggest Big Ten football rivalry is just the start of it.....

---

by: BEmama @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:49:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mistaken on Michigan.... (0.00 / 0)

Hillary didn't "win" Michigan.  I don't think she'll take it running against Obama as she did running against an unnamed opponent back in January.....

---

by: BEmama @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:29:12 AM UTC

california (4.00 / 1)

CA-26 and CA-50 are absolutely possibilities because we have viable candidates and out of touch Republican incumbents.  I like Russ Warner in CA-26; Nick Leibham in CA-50 strikes me as a little weird.  We have no viable candidate in CA-24; Mary Pallant is a great progressive and I think she can build an organization in a few years, but no chance in 2008.  CA-45 is kind of interesting but I don't have a sense that the potential candidates are decent.

The missing district here is CA-03.  That's actually the GOP-held district with the narrowest registration advantage for Republicans.  Dan Lungren ought to be very nervous; Sacramento-area progressives are working hard finding new voters up there, and it's exactly the suburban/creative-class seat that we can win.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

---

by: dday @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:44:32 AM UTC

incumbent traits (0.00 / 0)

It'd be interesting (in that "hey, someone who's not me should do this" way) to look at the incumbents in those districts and try to get a sense of who's legitimately beatable based on things like seniority (having it and not having it could each be bad, depending on circumstance), GOP hackdom, etc.  For example, I get the feeling that WI-06 would be an easier pick-up than WI-01, largely because Paul Ryan is seen as a well-liked rising star, whereas Petri's a sedentary establishment schmuck; he'd probably be in serious danger in an anti-incumbent wave election.

---

by: Aaron Veenstra @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:07:24 AM UTC

Edwards Democrats Endorse Fallon and Burner (0.00 / 0)

Similar to the topic here, and here's why (and I am part of those Dems) we do:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: Benny @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:16:22 AM UTC

Missed nine (0.00 / 0)

There are nine additional seats that should be added to the list with a Democratic lean (one is neutral).  They are:

CT-4  D+5 (Shays, has less cash on hand than his opponent, Himes).  Holy Joe campaigned for Shays as a pseudo "Democrat" in 2006 and may have carried him through.  Shays is deluded enough to insist that waterboarding is not torture.  And more.

DE-At Large D+7 (Castle)  Castle does have lots of money, more than any Republican in the Northeast.  That said, his biggest asset is the tacit and semi-tacit support he gets from the Democratic establishment, particularly Senator Tom Carper.  I'm thinking a Beau Biden run might take him down because only then will the establishment work against him.

FL-10  D+1 (Bill Young)  Young is the longest serving Republican in the House (since 1970) and the longest serving House member in Florida history.  Everybody is waiting for a retirement.  Hasn't come.

IA-4 D+ 0  Tom Latham

NV-3 D+1

NY-13 D+1  Vito Fossella  Mostly Staten Island.  Fossella has been low on cash this cycle (as low as $50 K in September, now $200 K).

PA-6  D +2.2  

PA-15 D+2 Charlie Dent

WA-8  D+2 A rematch beteween Dave Reichert and Darcy Burner

---

by: David Kowalski @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:17:02 AM UTC

You should look at.. (0.00 / 0)

...IL-10 as well.

I think it is a D+2 and it is held by Republican Mark Kirk.

Dan Seals has a good chance to pick this up unless Rahm's personal relationship with Kirk gets in the way.

---

by: delver rootnose @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:57:29 AM UTC

50 Is Possible (0.00 / 0)

I think Dr. Victoria Wulsin has a a pretty good shot at defeating Representative "Mean" Jean Schmidt (R) in OH-2 too. And in OH-07, Democrat Attorney Sharen Neuhardt might have a shot at winning over Republican State Senator Steve Austria.

The 50 you identified plus the 9 Democratic-leaning seats that David Kowalski identified, plus the others identified by other folks on this thread add up to a lot of vulnerable Republican seats. Given how terrible the economy is (and it will probably get worse), how horrible the war in Iraq is (and it will probably not get better), how much corruption there is among the Republicans (and some more big scandals will probably be revealed), I think it is very possible that Democrats could pick up 50 seats.

I'm looking forward to seeing a seat-by-seat analysis like Chris Bowers prepared in 2006 once candidates have been set and fundraising numbers and more polling data is available.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 18:57:07 PM UTC