(Great data, though obviously I still strongly disagree on Boswell - promoted by Chris Bowers)
Building on Chris's initial table in Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs", I have used the breakdown of battleground districts from Democracy Corps list of battleground districts for 2008 [PDF] to help broadly distinguish how vulnerable different Bush Dogs even potentially might be.
[Update: Progressive Punch Added h/t David Kowalski]
Vital Stats on "Bush Dogs"
| Member | District | PVI | Term # | 2006 win % | Prog. Punch | New Dem | Blue Dog | |
| Tier One Battleground Districts | |
| Altimire | PA-04 | R +2.6 | 1st | 52% | 72.63 | Yes | No | |
| Barrow | GA-12 | R +2 | 2nd | 50% | 67.35 | Yes | Yes | |
| Bean | IL-08 | R +5.2 | 2nd | 51% | 75.52 | Yes | Yes | |
| Boswell | IA-03 | D +1.4 | 6th | 52% | 70.83 | No | Yes | |
| Carney** | PA-10 | R +8.0 | 1st | 53% | 76.92 | Yes | Yes | |
| Hill | IN-09 | R +7.1 | 1st / 4th* | 50% | 74.57 | Yes | Yes | |
| Lampson | TX-22 | R +14.5 | 1st / 5th* | 52% | 75.16 | Yes | Yes | |
| Marshall | GA-08 | R +8 | 3rd | 51% | 63.2 | No | Yes | |
| Shuler | NC-11 | R +7.1 | 1st | 54% | 71.32 | No | Yes | |
| Space | OH-18 | R +6.1 | 1st | 62% | 79.92 | No | Yes | |
| Walz** | MN-01 | R +0.9 | 1st | 53% | 90.88 | No | No | |
| Avg/ Subtots | -- | R +5.5 | 1.8 th/ 2.4 th | 53% | 74.39 | 6 of 11
55% | 9 of 11
82% | |
| Tier Two Battleground Districts | |
| Donnelly | IN-02 | R +4.3 | 1st | 54% | 73.64 | No | Yes | |
| Edwards | TX-17 | R +17.7 | 9th | 58% | 69.07 | No | No | |
| Ellsworth | IN-08 | R +8.5 | 1st | 61% | 74.12 | No | Yes | |
| Melancon | LA-03 | R +4.8 | 2nd | 55% | 68.89 | Yes | Yes | |
| Rodriguez** | TX-23 | R +4 | 1st / 5th* | 54% | 83.36 | No | No | |
| Avg/ Subtots | -- | R +7.9 | 2.8 th/ 3.6 th | 56% | 73.82 | 1 of 5
20% | 3 of 5
60% | |
| Safe Districts | |
| Boren | OK-02 | R +4.9 | 2nd | 73% | 60.51 | No | Yes | |
| Boyd | FL-02 | R +2.2 | 6th | 100% | 61.84 | No | Yes | |
| Chandler** | KY-06 | R +6.6 | 3rd | 85% | 79.22 | Yes | Yes | |
| Cooper | TN-05 | D +6.2 | 3rd / 9th* | 69% | 71.93 | No | Yes | |
| Costa | CA-20 | D +4.6 | 2nd | 100% | 77.81 | No | Yes | |
| Cramer | AL-05 | R +6.4 | 9th | 100% | 58.68 | No | Yes | |
| Cuellar | TX-28 | R +1 | 2nd | 68% | 70.2 | Yes | No | |
| Davis, L | TN-04 | R +3.2 | 3rd | 66% | 68.01 | No | Yes | |
| Ethridge | NC-02 | R +2.7 | 6th | 66% | 77.58 | Yes | No | |
| Gordon | TN-06 | R +3.8 | 12th | 69% | 69.45 | No | Yes | |
| Herseth** | SD-AL | R +10.0 | 3rd | 69% | 75.48 | Yes | Yes | |
| Lipinski | IL-03 | D +10.3 | 2nd | 77% | 83.51 | No | No | |
| Matheson | UT-02 | R +16.9 | 4th | 59% | 65.58 | No | Yes | |
| McIntyre | NC-07 | R +2.8 | 6th | 73% | 62.82 | Yes | Yes | |
| Peterson | MN-07 | R +5.6 | 9th | 70% | 59.63 | No | Yes | |
| Pomeroy | ND-AL | R +13.1 | 8th | 66% | 74.72 | No | Yes | |
| Ross | AR-04 | D +0.5 | 4th | 75% | 72.79 | No | Yes | |
| Salazar | CO-03 | R +5.6 | 2nd | 61% | 79.82 | No | Yes | |
| Snyder | AR-02 | R +0.1 | 6th | 61% | 77.65 | Yes | No | |
| Tanner | TN-08 | D +0.1 | 10th | 73% | 63.19 | No | Yes | |
| Taylor | MS-04 | R +16.3 | 10th | 80% | 88.64 | No | Yes | |
| Wilson | OH-06 | D +0.4 | 1st | 62% | 50.15 | No | Yes | |
| Avg/ Subtots | -- | R +3.6 | 5.1 th/ 5.4 th | 78% | 70.42 | 6 of 22
27% | 18 of 22
82% | |
| Averages/ Totals | -- | R +4.7 | 3.9 th/ 4.3 rd | 62% | 72.02 | 13 of 38
34% | 30 of 38
79% | |
Notes [Chris's originals]
PVI = Partisan Voting Index, produced by Cook Political Report
* = Non-consecutive terms in Congress
** = Received significant national blogosphere support
Also, Tim Walz did vote in favor of the McGovern amendment. All others voted nay on that amendment, and are clearly ideologically opposed to progressives in this area.
A few observations.
First and foremost is that the 16 Bush Dogs in tiers one and two are outnumbered by 22 Bush Dogs in safe districts.
Second, the 16 Bush Dogs represent less than half of the 35 Democrats in battleground states.
Third, although the safe Bush Dogs have an average PVI in their districts of R +3.6, they are incredibly safe, winning re-election with an average 78%, and a low of 59%--just one member below 61%.
Fourth, safety is clearly related to how long people have been office. Aside from the averages, only two of the Tier One officeholders weren't challengers* [*or running for open seats] in 2004 or 2006 (though two challengers* had previously served in Congress). Just one of the Tier Two officeholders wasn't a challenger* in 2004 or 2006 (though one had previously served in Congress). But just 6 of 22 safe district officeholders were challengers* in 2004 or 2006, and five of those were elected in 2004.
One obvious conclusion from all the above is that generically the best prospects for running primary challenges, if it comes to that, are against the 6 newbies Bush Dogs in safe districts: Wilson (OH-06), Salazar (CO-03), Cuellar (TX-28), Costa (CA-20), Boren (OK-02), Lipinski (IL-03).
These six are the safest seats from a partisan perspective, but the least entrenched officeholders, from a primary potential perspective.
Of course, specific situations will over-ride general considerations. But the big picture tells which prospects are most promising on general grounds, and which are not.
|
STATE BLOGS
