08/08/2002 Archived Entry: "US House Top 50 & Amy Walter, an analyst for The Cook Political Report"
I have been going over the US House 2002 webpage today making some changes. Not a whole lot of them, in terms of results, just +1 for the Democrats. There was an interesting blurb in this NYT's article from a couple of days ago, Economy Stirs G.O.P. Worry in House Races, that I've been trying to reconcile, or make sense of at least:
Amy Walter, an analyst for The Cook Political Report, said she now listed 39 House seats as competitive, of which 11 are held by Democrats and 19 by Republicans, and the remaining 9 vacant or new seats created by redistricting. That means the Democrats would have to win two-thirds of those seats to become the party in power next year. To complicate matters for Democrats, Ms. Walter said that three seats held by Democrats who are departing were considered likely to be taken over by Republicans.
Maybe it's just the authors mistaken way of interpreting what Walter's stated, regarding vacant seats. There is no way in 2002 that there are 11 competitive seats held by Democrats. More likely, the 39 House seats that are competitive breakdown like this:
11 are held by Democrats or retiring Democrats, and 19 by Republicans and retiring Republicans, and the remaining 9 open/new seats created by redistricting and reapportionment. If this interpretation is granted, then Walter's and I could be very close then in outlook of competitive Democratic seats, and open/new seats:
Competitive Seats
11 are held by Democrats or retiring Democrats
Vulnerable Dem:
MN:2nd-CD Luther -- Kline
FL:5th-CD Thurman -- Brown-Waite
KS:3rd-CD Moore -- Taff
UT:2nd-CD Matheson -- Swallow
KY:4th-CD Lucas -- Davis
Retired Dem:
MI:11th-CD Kelley -- McCotter
PA:6th-CD Wofford -- Gerlach
IN:2nd-CD Long -- Chocola
MI:10th-CD Marlinga -- Miller
OH:3rd-CD Crane -- Turner
ME:2nd-CD Michaud -- Raye
9 open/new seats created by reapportionment and redistricting
Redistricting:
MS:3rd-CD Shows -- Pickering
CT:5th-CD Maloney -- Johnson
PA:17th-CD Holden -- Gekas
IL:19th-CD Phelps -- Shimkus
Reapportionment:
NV:3rd-CD Herrera -- Porter
FL:24th-CD Jacobs -- Feeney
CO:7th-CD Feeley -- Beauprez
GA:12th-CD Walker -- Dooley
AZ:1st-CD Udall -- Renzi
To complicate matters for Democrats, Ms. Walter said that three seats held by Democrats who are departing were considered likely to be taken over by Republicans. Perhaps she's referring to the seats held by Bonior, Hall, and Roemer. The latter is probably a toss-up, but her opinion reflects DC thought on the race. Nevertheless, there are the retiring Republican Horn, Ehrlich, and Hilleary seats which are just as likely to be taken over by Democrats, which apparently goes unmentioned.
This interpretation gets a bit dicey when we turn to the number of competitive seats held by Republicans and retiring Republicans. By my count, there are 17 Republican incumbents in competitive races, and 12 retired Republican seats that are competitive, yielding 29 Republican seats that are competitive, instead of Turner's 19. The actual number is probably closer to Turner's count, though I think she's overlooking a few Republican vulnerabilities.
Replies: 38 comments
I think all these DC characters are not tracking the polls. Even the generally GOP favored Ipos-Reid is now showing Dems with a five point lead. There is a failure to look at the bigger picture. If the stocks remain below 9,000 at the end of September, a Dem sweep cannot be ruled out.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/08/2002 05:58 PM PST
Amy Walters talks a load of nonsense, and if the stock market does not increase dramatically, she would be proved wrong once again. She is one of the amen corners for the GOP and considers the Arkansas Senate race as leaning GOP
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/08/2002 06:01 PM PST
In the end, the following news items would be key in determining the outcome of the elections, Amy Walter's analysis not withstanding:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/220/nation/Economists_fear_gloom_will_become_self_fulfilling+.shtml
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/08/BU93517.DTL
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/08/2002 06:12 PM PST
"If the recovery does not gain steam later this year, it could play havoc with the state budget again next year, said Carlo DeSantis, director of research and development at Acting Governor Jane Swift's finance office. To balance this year's budget, Massachusetts political leaders had to use almost 80 percent of the rainy day reserves set aside for fiscal emergencies."
And that's going to be playing out across the nation. Rainy day funds and the Cigarette settlement has been used, not for education and health, but just to maintain overall spending levels, in 2003, it's going to hurt, as the Bush recession really hits hard.
Posted by myDD @ 08/08/2002 09:06 PM PST
I suspect Amy Walters means Pennsylvania's 18th district seat rather than the Indiana 2nd.... I like your picks overall, but I see reason for more optimism about the Texas 5th, Florida 22nd, Michigan 11th, and maybe even the Pennsylvania 6th races.
Posted by C.D. @ 08/08/2002 10:59 PM PST
An early July Lake Snell Perry poll has Jill Long-Thompson (D) up 41% to Chris Chocola's (R) 36%. Are you sure you prefer those other choices?
Posted by RParker @ 08/08/2002 11:50 PM PST
An early July Lake Snell Perry poll has Jill Long-Thompson (D) up 41% to Chris Chocola's (R) 36%. Are you sure you prefer those other choices?
Posted by RParker @ 08/08/2002 11:50 PM PST
Yesterday (barely ten hours ago here on the east coast) in the Charlie Rose show, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was interviewed. It gave me an idea as to how the Washington insiders think not only about this election but about future elections of this decade. One thing they clearly assumed was that demography would be a constant and that the GOP and Democrats would fight to a standstill. This is the kind of assumption that cost the GOP California during the 1990s. Of course, Rose in his infinite wisdom did not bother to ask them about the recent articles by Dick Morris and the book by Texeira. They were essentially non-entities, including the half a million new citizens that are being added every year to this country, especially in the traditionally GOP states of Arizona and Texas. So, it is not just the GOP that thinks like we are living in the late 19th century, the majority of the Washington Press corp as well. However, what really bothers me is that they are not looking at the polls and base their forecasts on redistricting and 2000 election results (not very different from the sportscasters). Yesterday's CBS poll clearly indicates that only 45% of the electorate approved of Bush's handling of the economy. Alter specifically says that the economy does not matter anymore, but cultural issues do. I think in good times as in 2000 economy may not matter as much. But, in hard times senior citizens who lost a ton in the stock market would turn out and vote. After all, you cannot eat culture and values.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/09/2002 06:24 AM PST
Mascara though did not retire, as he just moved over to attempt election in the 13th, a failed bid. Admittingly, I am trying to stretch a bit to attempt to make sense of Walker's statement.
I have Long ahead of Chocola, she's running a great campaign.
The only seat out of those 19 that the Dems are sure to lose is the OH- 3rd. Of the others, I'd say there's only a few that the GOP has in toss-up range. MI 10th and 11th are leaning toward the GOP, but might not Granholm have some coattails? NV 3rd, Herrera may have stopped the bleeding, that's probably a toss-up that leans GOP as well, at least right now. I just don't see the GOP there living down the Yucca vote anytime soon. PA 6th, Rendell will help Wofford a lot if his lead holds up. I don't think a single incumbent Dem is going to lose in Nov.
Posted by myDD @ 08/09/2002 08:35 AM PST
I think that Granholm would have some coattails. But, not as much as Richardson in New Mexico or for that matter Blagogoevich in Illinois. In Illinois, the GOP may be headed the way of the California GOP...and not due to minority or hispanic voters, but due to corruption. I think drawing similarities between the Ryans and the Enrons and Worldcoms would help wreck the GOP in Illinois.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/09/2002 09:18 AM PST
myDD, I have some problems with your political analysis.
Why do you think that the PA-17 congressional race leans towards Holden? I realize that Gekas has never had to run a modern campaign in his life, but, come on, this is central Pennsylvania! It's medieval out there!
And TEXAS! What makes you think that Kirk has a chance? Cornyn has no charisma, and has been lagging in the polls, however, it must be noted that neither sitting Texas senator has any charisma either (Gramm, Hutchinson). Also, regarding the polls, Kirk never garnered a majority, so the race lies with the undecideds, who probably would lean GOP.
Regarding any theories that a Hispanic turnout for Sanchez would help Kirk, I believe that you are dreaming. I'll bet that most of the Hispanic Democrats are bitter over Kirk's victory over Morales in the primary, and will probably not vote for Kirk in the numbers you expect (though I'm sure he'll get a majority).
Bottom line, you are WAY too confident in the electorate voting for Democrats. You have no idea how much power that Retch Limpdick, and other BU(LL)$H(IT) minions have on the people of this country.
Posted by Fred @ 08/09/2002 09:20 AM PST
The Gekas race would depend on the margin of Rendell's victory. He is over 50% in the polls. If he gets over 55%, Gekas is out. In general, undecideds break against the incumbents if they remain undecided in October. In Texas, I agree with you that there are many white people who would vote for Cornyn over Kirk. As I had said the only thing going for Cornyn is the color of his skin. People may be willing to commit financial suicide rather than racial suicide in Texas. Sanchez is still likely to loose, although the predominantly white doctors and automobile dealers are against Perry. The uneducated whites would still vote for Perry becuase they can only think along color lines. I do not agree with Mydd yet. But, I am willing to wait until November 5. So, the jury is still out.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/09/2002 09:27 AM PST
Holden fits the district very well ideologically, he's young, hungry, and raised more money. Gekas is tired, old, and fat. There have only been two polls out on the race, both of them showing a dead heat. We'll see how it develops.
Texas. Kirk is going to beat Cornyn if things don't change. The latino Democrats that are being registered are voting straight ticket. Kirk will get 70-80 percent of the latino vote, 90-95 percent of the black vote, and will only need about 25 percent of the white vote to win, Dallas will provide him the victory.
Conservatives have more power? Then why did Gore get more votes? Why did the Democrats beat the Republicans nationwide on election day 2001?
Posted by myDD @ 08/09/2002 10:49 AM PST
Perhaps Ms. Walter needs to think her analysis and her conclusions on the lack of anti-incumbent mood after reading this report. Tells you clearly that Washington insiders are totally out of touch with the rest of the country. But, at least they should read.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/aarp.poll.ap/index.html
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/09/2002 10:51 AM PST
Cook always has a Republican lean.
I will put this down for the record, there is no way in 2002 that Karen Thurman, Dennis Moore, Scott Matheson or Ken Lucas will lose.
Most of this years Democratic upsets will occur in these open seats.
89 days until Speaker Gephardt.
Posted by TOM @ 08/09/2002 11:01 AM PST
Kirk really knows how to toss back:
http://www.dallasnews.com/politics/statenews/stories/080902dntexkirk.4c7b9.html
"I have attracted the attention of some friends of ours on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and they have said some not terribly nice things about me," Mr. Kirk told several hundred supporters crammed into a small outdoor courtyard a few blocks from the Capitol.
"And that's hard," he went on, "to go home to your daughters and explain to them why the governor who used to be your buddy is now the president that says you're a bad man."
Mr. Bush, who is spending the rest of the month at his Texas ranch, had called Mr. Kirk an "obstructionist" during an interview with WFAA (Channel 8) in the spring.
On Thursday, the former Dallas mayor vowed victory on Election Day.
"They're going to call me a lot of names between now and Nov. 5," he said.
"But the most important thing is at about 10:30 on Tuesday night, they're going to call me senator."
Posted by myDD @ 08/09/2002 11:17 AM PST
Scott Matheson is a close call. But, Dennis Moore, Karen Thruman and Ken Lucas will not loose. Cook and Amy Walter have been too long inside the beltway. Obviously they have not been paying attention to the polling numbers. Even Ipos-Reid, the arm of the Cook Political Report which has a GOP bias, shows the Dems ahead by 5. I wonder why no one questions Walter and Cook on this.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/09/2002 12:28 PM PST
Before you start putting Ehrlich's old seat in the Democrat's win column, former Rep. Bentley is pretty much even in the latest poll out on the race. Bentley might even further benefit if Ehrlich's campaign continues to gain steam.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/09/2002 10:59 PM PST
If you consider all the second tier races as competitive, I think only 169 Republican seats can be considered totally safe. One important thing to keep in mind is that it doesn't take a huge shift in numbers to produce a fairly large change in the House. The 2000 election was 49%-48% Republican, a mere 3 point shift to 51-46 Democrat would probably give the Dems 240 seats.
At this point, one of the biggest problems for the Dems is peaking too soon.
On the negative side for the Democrats, even though they had the top of the ticket race in Pennsylvania and outpolled Republicans in the governers primary almost 2.5-1 George Gekas actually beat Tim Holden in the primary "beauty contest". Gekas received 39,734 votes to Holden's 35,940.
Posted by Adam @ 08/10/2002 02:53 AM PST
It depends on the economy and the stock market. Just watch the generic polls. If the stock market gets back over 10,000 it may end up at 218 or 217 for either party. If the stock market is still below 10,000 come late september or early october, there could well be a minor wave. If it is still below 9,000 by october, it could change into a major anti-incumbent wave.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/10/2002 12:58 PM PST
If that was the poll from a while ago in MD, the numbers don't reflect the new district, but the old.
Posted by myDD @ 08/10/2002 06:13 PM PST
I live in Maryland,the poll that had Bently trailing by 2% could not have been the heavily conservative old district which Erlich won with 63% even in his first race and Clinton failed to get 40% in that district even in 1996.Now the new distrit is even more Democratic than the state.The poll had Ruppersberg up 46%-44% over Bently and 49%-40% over Sauerbrey and was in the new district lines.In the old district,even Sauerbrey would lead by 10-15 points.
On the other races,you need to know Phelphs cant beat Shimkus.63% of the district is Shimkusis and only 34% is from Phelphs old lines.The new district(would have) gave Bush a 55%-40% victory,far more than either individual distrits,another words the new district takes the most conservative parts of both old districts.
In Gekasis district,Bush won 57%-40%.However Holden has won in a district about as conservative,and now its about 50% Gekasis district/50% Holdens.Starts out even based on that,but Gekasis wins bigger victorys typically and the conservative slant of the district can only favor Gekas.Gekas looks like Anthony Quinn's twin,is an impechment legend,talks in a totally none partisan way(Charles Grodin was amazed to no end at how sincere Gekas constantly sounds), and is just plain smart.
I disagree strongly on the Illionis prediction,and also disagree to a lesser extent on the Gekas race.
Ill brb and see where else I disagree.
Posted by MLM @ 08/11/2002 08:39 PM PST
Your getting way ahead of yoursel in the Iowa races and did Udall even win in in Arizona?
Dont underestimate Connie Morella and Bill Luthor was hung on a more conservative district plus lost 60% of his constiuents.He has no room to spare so even if other factors work toward his favor,he cant be given a lean in any way.
Open seat's in Alabama and New Hampshire arent better than 50%-50%.
Give Dem's a chance in Lousiana and look for a shocker in Utah perhaps?West Virginia might be a suprise.
Posted by MLM @ 08/11/2002 08:50 PM PST
WOA!!!!!
I found another disagreemnt. New Jersey does infact give Democrats a chance thanks to making the 5th district more moderate,but honestly now...a Democrate edge?
I agree things are looking good so far in Skeens race in New Mexico but it is a district Bush won easily:53%-43%.Id say we have a true slight lean here and one that can hold.Wish I could say the same in New Hampshire and in the Texas distrit Sessions fled.
Posted by MLM @ 08/11/2002 08:56 PM PST
I can't agree with MLM more about New Jersey's fifth. The only thing Sumers has going for her is that she's got money in the bank.
She's running in a district that voted for Bush in 2000 and for Schundler in 2001. To make matters worse, all serious GOP contenders for House seats in New Jersey far outpace the their national counterpart the year before -- conservative Rep. Mike Pappas outperformed Bob Dole's showing in his failed 1998 re-election bid. Rep. Martini outperformed Bob Dole's showing in his 1996 re-election bid. Bush carried two congressional districts in New Jersey, where as six Republicans (a thousand more votes for Zimmer would have made it seven) were elected to the House.
Don't forget that Garrett is highly popular within his Assembly district, which is (of course) part of the 5th... he beat his nearest challenger by 2-1.
And, for what it's worth, Sumer's campaign comes off to me, at least, as a bit unprofessional. (Whether or not that's a bad thing is up to you.) Garrett's not going to win this district by much, but this race in no way leans towards Sumers.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/11/2002 11:06 PM PST
Mr. Moderate-Helen Bentley would probably win that seat easily if she were about 15 years younger, but she's almost 80, and I doubt some swing voters will want to vote for someone who they'll probably have to replace in a few years. Can she win? Definitely. But I would still give a slight edge to Ruppersburger.
And I think Matheson might have an easier victory than expected. Had Jim Hansen stayed in the House, he would probably lose-but the open 1st creates another competitive race (the GOP will win, but it will probably be in the 55-60% range-much closer than any race Hansen would've had), siphoning off enough money to Bishop to help Matheson survive.
Posted by AVADem @ 08/12/2002 07:19 AM PST
"Mr. Moderate-Helen Bentley would probably win that seat easily if she were about 15 years younger, but she's almost 80, and I doubt some swing voters will want to vote for someone who they'll probably have to replace in a few years. Can she win? Definitely. But I would still give a slight edge to Ruppersburger."
I don't disagree that Ruppersburger has an edge, just that it's tighter than most assume. (I was under the impression that she was 70 years old.)
I think that the 'replace in a few years' is a bigger problem for Maloney in Connecticut's 5th. He's not backing down from his term limits pledge, which to me, means that Johnson will win a seat in the 5th (if not in 2002, then in 2004 upon his retirement). I'd have put a slight lean towards Johnson in this race.
And, as far as imperiled Republicans in Iowa, I believe Roll Call had a poll just last week that showed Leach with a 7 point or so lead in his race. It's a democratic district, but Leach is (1) a congressman, (2) a moderate, and (3) a Republican from Iowa. I wouldn't bet TOO much money on a turnover there.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/12/2002 10:13 AM PST
I've went back and forth on the CT-5th race, it's gotta be one of the best contests in the nation. With the Dems uniting behind a competitive Curry for Gov, I now give the edge to Maloney. As for term-limits, there are more who would vote for him than against because of this.
Posted by myDD @ 08/12/2002 10:28 AM PST
I don't know how competitive Curry is -- he's still trailing by 15. I can't even envision Rowland winning by less than ten -- I have him pegged as one of the strongest incumbent governors in the country. Wouldn't an expected victory by John Rowland give a slight boost to Johnson in what is essentially a 50/50 district?
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/12/2002 11:28 AM PST
My mistake -- that poll that showed up in Roll Call was for Rep. Nussle's district (R-IA), showing the race at 49R/43D with a 4.4% margin of error. For what its worth, the poll was done by the Hutchinson (D) campaign, so it may be biased in favor of the democrat.
Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/12/2002 01:19 PM PST
"Gekas looks like Anthony Quinn's twin,is an impechment legend,talks in a totally none partisan way(Charles Grodin was amazed to no end at how sincere Gekas constantly sounds), and is just plain smart."
Not very smart, the way he is flip-flopping on social security:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10484-2002Aug12.html
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/13/2002 10:56 AM PST
Mr Moderate,
I think you will be surprised at how closed the CT race will be. I think Rowland will win by 54-46 margin.
The interesting thing about the Nussle race is that even if you discount the Dem. poll, is that this race is probably about a 10% at this time. Thats much closer than you would expect. Its not a Dem pick up at this time, but I will be watching this one 10 days out.
Posted by TOM @ 08/13/2002 12:55 PM PST
Holden beats Gekas.
Bank it!
Posted by TOM @ 08/13/2002 12:56 PM PST
Holden needs a good sound bite..not on social security but on Gekas's credibility.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/13/2002 02:57 PM PST
I guess this thread has turned into a general Election 2002 forum, so I'll ask a question of MyDD or anyone who cares to answer: Why is Sen. Johnson in trouble in S.D.? (I don't know squat about him or his record, but of course would like to see him re-elected to help keep the Senate on the Dem. side.)
Posted by Oregonian @ 08/13/2002 04:28 PM PST
Oregonian-Johnson's vulnerability is not really of his own making, but rather has more to do with South Dakota being a Republican state. Bush carried it easily in 2000, and Johnson's narrow win in '96 had less to do with his relatively impressive record than the fact that his opponent, Larry Pressler, had become a joke. Also, Thune is a great candidate. And of course you have to factor in his senior Senator-if you believe the Bushies you would think Dascle is the spawn of Satan, and what better way to embarrass the man they love to hate than beat his top ally? But in the end, I think he'll win. Thune wanted to run for Gov, and would've won in a blowout, but the WH talked him into the Senate race. It will be very, very close, but it is a decision a lot of people aren't very happy about having to make. This naturally hurts the challenger, and I think that tips the race to Johnson by the slimmest of margins.
Posted by AVADem @ 08/13/2002 08:07 PM PST
It's a race between two incumbent holders of statewide office. Both have partisan advantages and disadvantages which AVADem points out. I figure Thune is already regretting that he was talked into this one, and it' made painful by having to watch relative nobodies vie for the Governor office.
Posted by C.D. @ 08/13/2002 10:07 PM PST
"Holden beats Gekas. Bank it!"-TOM
I honestly think the Dems can, and will, win all 4 I vs. I races.
CT 5-Sure, Johnson has the advantage in money, but as we learned in California in 2000, money sure as hell isn't everything. Maloney's insistence that he will still honor his term-limits pledge in '04 will help him, as it will say something about his integrity. Many thought Johnson could ride the coattails of a Rowland landslide, but we now see that won't happen. And in any district in Connecticut, a state where both nationally ambitious Democratic senators have higher approval ratings than the President, who was born there and whose grandfather was a Senator from there, the D beside his name will be a plus.
MS 3-I would be elevating Chimp Dickering if I called him a spoiled, self-righteous little brat, who thinks he can win on a sympathy vote because the Dems on the Judiciary Committee had the balls to stand up to W and keep his KKK-wannabe father off the bench (in a seat open only because Orrin Hatch wouldn't so much as give Clinton's nominee a hearing, mind you). Two months ago, I would've grudgingly conceded him the race, thanks to the most blatantly partisan move the Justice Department will ever make, but since Mississippi's own WorldCom went to hell, Pickering handed Shows an issue by keeping $85K in WorldCom donations, showing just how far his head is up corporate America's ass. While Shows is doing what he can to help people ruined by WorldCom's mistakes, Pickering is holding fundraisers for thousands a plate, then arguing corporate America should be defended from lawsuits. I think Shows will ride a populist wave to the upset.
PA 17-I think we've already gone over a lot of why Holden will pull off the upset. But the GOP lean of the district can be overcome by many factors; fat, old Gekas has never had a tough race in his life, therefore wouldn't know how to campaign if his life depended on it, and after 20-something years in the House only got appointed to the Agriculture Committee, vital to the district, at 3 AM the night before a recess as an election-year gimmick, while young, energetic Holden, one of the best campaigners around, is not only on the Agriculture Committee, he's probably about 10 years from chairing it.
IL 19-While the district certainly leans Republican, Phelps is the kind of conservative Democrat who can win these types of districts, and the fact that 2002 is shaping up to be a huge Democratic year in Illinois certainly can't hurt. Since Shimkus and Phelps were elected to the House a term apart, seniority is a non-issue. And while the district contains more of Shimkus' than Phelps', let's not forget that, before Shimkus, the 20th was represented for 7 terms by Dick Durbin, among the liberalest of Democrats, so that isn't the advantage Tom Davis makes it out to be. And with Durbin on the ballot, cruising to re-election, Phelps is in an even better spot.
Posted by AVADem @ 08/14/2002 08:30 AM PST
