MD-04 R+3?

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

---

by: Marcus @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 00:32:15 AM UTC

Deja vu

Didn't this also happen last time?

---

by: James L. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 00:35:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

CA-47

D+4, not D+24

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:17:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you

Slip of the keypad.

---

by: James L. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:21:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2010 Dem Retirements Important

This is incredibly important.  When you consider that of the 58 total Democratic seats lost in 1994 (52 net, + special election losses minus a few GOP seats gained), 24 of the Democratic seat losses were in open seats.

In 2010, potentially the difference between a very bad night for Democrats (loss of 25-30 seats) and a horrible night (40+ losses) would very likely be among open seats, it's pretty unlikely that Democrats could lose 40 incumbents.

So the $64,000 question is how many vulnerable district Democrats this fall, who may or may not have considered retiring before this horrible August recess, now decide that the House paycheck isn't worth it and decide to hang it up.

Charlie Cook
The Cook Political Report

---

by: ccook @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:58:00 AM UTC

Charlie

Do you guys have a list of the dates that Dems in 1993-94 announced their retirements?

---

by: DavidNYC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:43:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

94 Retirements

Will get that for you tomorrow.

---

by: ccook @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:47:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Charlie

Why so quick out the gate predicting disaster based entirely on the last two months when it took so long to come around to the possibility of Dems taking control in 2006? Particularly as fundraising and polls were much firmer in pointing in that direction back than they are today.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 11:38:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now Sabato's Crystal Ball chimes in

http://www.centerforpolitics.o...

I truly don't get this. The polls are at worst tied in the generic ballot, fundraising shows no sign of vast Republican strength, neither is there a sign of movement to Repubs in party ID. Indeed though Obama and Dems have seen a decline in all polling, Repubs are still in the toilet and haven't budged. Instead all these pundits have been spooked by a terrible couple months for Democrats and are forgetting the economy is already improving and likely will be creating jobs this time next year. They were never this quick out the gate in 2006 when Dems had healthy generic poll leads and a huge fundraising advantage already at this point. What gives?

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 15:56:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

1994

These folks have 1994 in mind.  When what looked like a marginal 10-15 seat loss a year out mushroomed into a 50 seat plus loss.  And they see health care and disparity in intensity as a common denominator.  But there's 14 months to go, which is an eternity in politics.  I think Cook and Sabato are jumping the gun a bit.  I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong.  But it's way too early to talk numbers.

---

by: Paleo @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 16:11:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

There are just so many other differences to 1994 that have been pointed out ad nauseum.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:09:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The right-wing nutjobs are like the hippies were in the 1960s.

A very vocal and heavily covered minority. But still a minority.

I guess that makes those of us who aren't birthers or deathers Nixon's silent majority...shiver.

---

by: NJCentrist @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 19:25:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As an op-ed article put it..

If these "rippies" are anything like their predecessors, then at least we'll get some great music out of it.

However, I doubt any members of this bunch could carry a tune in a leaky bucket.

---

by: corran horn @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 16:30:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Neither do I

While there has definitely been a decline for the Dems, all the polls I've looked at have the Republicans in worse shape.

What turned 1994 into a wave election was not just the national climate but, more significantly, an expertly-run campaign by Newt and then-NRCC head Bill Paxon. Paxon recruited an amazing number of strong candidates (like Schumer has done for our side)--though some of them would go on to reveal themselves as utter loons--and Newt, of course, helped devise the Contract with America.

Big Bad John and Pete Sessions are no Bill Paxon. Aside from Pat Meehan (PA-7) and Rob Simmons, I can't think of any truly strong recruitments they've achieved--and neither of them is a sure thing either. Most of the ones they've recruited have either serious liabilities (Blunt, Portman) or are being challenged by more doctrinaire conservatives (Norton in CO, Ayotte in NH).

---

by: corran horn @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 15:02:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How many retirements, you ask?

Not that many. The thing that pundits seem to completely ignore is that the bulk of the 1994 losses occurred either in the South or in rural areas. Granted, there were losses in suburban districts as well (especially in WA), but many of those swung back in '96 and '98 and have little interest in going back.

I do find it interesting that professional election prognosticators are so quick to project R gains when they absolutely refused, up until the last minute,

---

by: corran horn @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:42:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoops!

I forgot to add "refused to say the same for the Dems in spite of more convincing evidence".

---

by: corran horn @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:43:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Additionally,

Visclosky (IN-01) managed to get himself caught up in the FBI investigation of one of his major contributors/lobbyists a couple of months ago. It might not be serious enough to warrant retirement yet, but he should still be on the list.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:00:41 AM UTC

correction

i may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure John Boehner isn't a democrat :)

---

by: clemensol @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:19:40 AM UTC

Boehner & Charlie Crist

both have too professional looking tans to be Democrats ;o)

---

by: inhoc75 @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:02:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who might be challenging Hank Johnson?

I assume it's from the right, considering his profile, yes?  Should we care or worry?  Also, how many of the maybe challengers for a general election or primary in swing districts seem legit (Boswell, Boyd) and what are the chances of our Ds in R held seats actually bailing (Stupak, the North Carolina duo)?

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

---

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:53:21 AM UTC

Lee May is considering challenging Johnson.

He's a county commissioner from DeKalb County (that county that makes up most of the the fourth.  At this point, I don't think we have anything to worry about.  IIRC, May is tied to former DeKalb CEO, unsuccessful Senate candidate, and general douchebag Vernon Jones.  Jones lost DeKalb in the primary last year.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:28:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to ajc.com

Lee May, one of seven DeKalb County Commissioners is "contemplating" a primary challenge of Rep. Johnson.
http://blogs.ajc.com/political...
May has a website; here's his official bio:
http://leemaydistrict5.com/bio...
I can't find too much else on this May guy. The two things that stand out are (A) he's black (this is a majority-black district) and (B) he's a very religious Christian (as opposed to Johnson, who is a Buddhist).
SSP guessed this would be a primary from the right a while back, but since this is Hank Johnson, "from the right" can still refer to a fairly liberal politician.

---

by: NJCentrist @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:41:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Danny Davis

Get ready for Davis to pull a Gutierrez and un-retire and run for re-election.

As much as he'd like the girls (Dorothy Brown and Toni Preckwinkle) to drop and support his candidacy, I don't see it happening.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 14:25:47 PM UTC

You can drop OR-2 and OR-4 from the open seat watch

Neither is going to run since Kitzhaber got in.

---

by: skywaker9 @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 15:49:32 PM UTC

Have they made public statements to that effect?

Thanks -- I'll check to see if they have.

---

by: James L. @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 22:14:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Charlie Rangel

Now there's a diary up on dKos calling for Rangel to step down as head of Ways and Means, and pointing out that he's been making "campaign contributions" to many other House Democrats since the investigations started. Oh great. Not enough that he should go down with a little smear of corruption but he should pull others down with him?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

The diary didn't get a lot of attention, but Charlie got no Comments in his defense, not one.

Drip. Drip. Drip.

It ought to be said that Charlie Rangel has given considerable and effective service to his constituents, his city and state, his party, and the nation over his long career. But omitting income and assets from his financial disclosure forms was beyond stupid; it deserves Freudian analysis. In a couple of years he's gone from being an invulnerable incumbent to being at growing risk of losing a primary.

Of course, the Harlem establishment of leading black politicians is usually very close-knit -- former Mayor Dinkins, former Lt Gov candidate Basil Paterson and his son David Paterson the now Governor, former Manhattan Borough President Virginia Fields, Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, Jr, head of the state Democratic Party, and various other state and city legislators generally work together to maximize their power.

The potential candidate most likely to bolt the establishment would be Adam Clayton Powell IV. He's half Puerto Rican, after all, with a grandfather who had been Mayor of San Juan. But OMG he carries heavy baggage: Divorced in the 1990s and still unmarried, he got big press for an "incident" in a motel room with a 19-year-old intern (which led to the Legislature banning off-campus fraternization by members and interns), another claim of rape (but no charges were filed), and just last year an arrest for Driving Under the Influence in NYC (with a woman in the back seat passed out drunk, him to the precinct house, her to the hospital).

The district has been changing demographically. The core remains black, but large areas around the edge are Puerto Rican and Dominican. My own brownstone-lined block off Central Park West is just inside his district lines, and it's been predominately white for the 30+ years I've lived here. But the line demarking the white liberal Upper West Side from black Harlem has shifted north by half a mile or more.

Harlem itself has gentrified, with many young middle class voters moving into renovated brownstones and new condos on formerly vacant lots. Most of the new residents may be buppies, black upper income, but some are yuppies, white or Asian or Hispanic. The newcomers tolerance for any appearance of sleaze will probably be less than the patience of many traditional Harlem voters.

Charlie may be forced to announce that this is his last term, perhaps in a face-saving deal with the House Ethics Committee.

Meanwhile New York voters of every race, color, class, and region are disgusted with a corrupt bunch in our State Senate. We may see a lot of new faces in Albany after the election next year when they sit down to redraw the House lines after the Census figures are released and the state loses two seats.

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 18:09:17 PM UTC

I'm a former constituent of Rangel's

and until the stuff about the property in the Dominican Republic that he didn't declare or pay taxes on came out before the 2008 election, I liked him very much. When that story broke, I encouraged my parents, who still live on the Upper West Side, to vote for the Republican on basic grounds that, within reason (there are exceptions like the Edwards-Duke gubernatorial race in Louisiana, where the non-crook was Grand Wizard of the KKK), you should always vote for a challenger against someone who's corrupt (we could call that the William Jefferson rule). When the stuff about the half a million in undeclared income came out, my mother asked if I had heard about it and made clear that she no longer supports him.

As Chairman of the committee that makes tax laws, Rangel has no excuse whatsoever for this infractions, and his claims of innocent error are totally not credible - in other words, he's a corrupt liar. The sooner he retires, the better.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 21:13:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's not going anywhere

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 22:43:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gallup numbers bear mine and conspiracy's point out

While it is unquestionable that the Dems have slipped, the Reps haven't gained much from it. Most of the shift has come from indies, who are now almost evenly split. The GOP core, however, has remained flat.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122...

---

by: corran horn @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 16:38:08 PM UTC