Two Emerging Memes On House Races
By Reid Wilson
Two big storylines are emerging on the national landscape, though they send mixed messages for the GOP: First, the NRCC is doing a better job than Dems in putting seats in play. But the seats they are missing are seats the party needs to win to take back the Speaker's gavel.
The NRCC is bragging about more than 60 candidates they have running for Congress, and in some cases those recruits are top notch. Conversely, the DCCC has lost several recruits lately as challengers apparently decide their party isn't going to have a stellar cycle next year.
In recent days, Dems running against Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH) have dropped out, giving those two incumbents easier looks at re-election. Another candidate dropped out of the race to succeed GOV candidate/Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), taking more pressure off the GOP there.
As Cook Political Report's David Wasserman, Politico's Josh Kraushaar and Swing State Project all note, Dems dropping their challenges to potentially vulnerable GOP incumbents could be a troubling sign: If candidates begin to feel they can't win in '10, Dems will only be able to play defense -- something DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen has already acknowledged is a great way to repeat the big GOP sweep of '94.
But not all is rosy for the NRCC: In fact, as Wasserman points out, just 14 of 53 Blue Dog Dems are vulnerable, so far, in the '10 elections.
Over the weekend, the NRCC lost two top recruits against Blue Dogs. State Sen. Ross Tolleson (R) said he would not run against Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) in '10, though he left open the door for a bid in '12. And state Sen. Steve Ogden (R) said he was not interested in a bid against Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX).
Marshall and Edwards represent districts Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) won in '08, but they are anything but easy GOP targets. Tolleson's and Ogden's decisions leave both Marshall and Edwards without top-tier -- or even second-tier -- challengers.
In truth, few Blue Dogs will have targets on their backs. The NRCC has had success recruiting against Reps. Mike Arcuri (D-NY), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Bobby Bright (D-AL), Travis Childers (D-MS), Frank Kratovil (D-MD), Walt Minnick (D-ID), Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) and Glenn Nye (D-VA). Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), a longtime Blue Dog leader, announced yesterday he would step down after 11 terms.
But as The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel already noticed, many Blue Dogs -- including those who represent districts in which they feel the need to apologize for their leadership -- simply aren't on the GOP's map. The party has been slow to find challengers for many of the 43 Blue Dogs we didn't mention.
Take a look at the GOP's best candidates, those who have made the second level of the NRCC's Young Guns program: Just 3 of 9 are running against Blue Dogs. The other 6 are running against Reps. Betsy Markey (D-CO), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Harry Teague (D-NM), Steve Driehaus (D-OH) and Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), as well as for an open seat in FL.
And the candidates who most excite party strategists lately include challengers to Reps. Vic Snyder (D-AR), Bill Foster (D-IL), Tim Bishop (D-NY), John Boccieri (D-OH) and other non-Blue Dogs, as well as for Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-PA) open seat.
GOPers will have to contest a lot -- if not most -- Blue Dog seats if they're going to take back the majority. In '94, entrenched Dems, including then-Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) and three committee chairs, lost their seats. This time around, most still believe the GOP hasn't quite gotten there yet.
The first signal that many intrenched Blue Dogs are in trouble may be their calling it quits, like in TN & KS. They have a much better feel for their districts than pundits in DC.
They might also look at the way the leadership is forcing them to walk the plant and decide it's not worth fighting to keep a seat the party doesn't apparently want.
This meme spread among political pundits this week about comparative recruiting by Dems and the GOP has been very lazy journalism. A more thoughtful analysis requires taking a comprehensive look at recruiting so far, and comparing both each party's recruiting and also comparing it to recruiting at this stage by each party in several past cycles, including not just 2006 and 2008 but also in older cycles where Republicans did not run into a headwind.
In reality the 3 districts where Dems lost recruits recently are not favorable targets in the first place. These are heavily Republican districts, and Democrats should not be expected to have any more luck recruiting there than Republicans should have in many safe Democratic districts.
Meanwhile, Democrats have had VERY FEW retirements in vulnerable districts, with only 2 so far that are true retirements rather than incumbents trying to move up to statewide office. And yet one of those, Tanner, had a top Democratic recruit jump in literally only hours after Tanner's retirement was revealed. And somehow this is ignored in the recruitment meme.
A thoughtful analysis shows that Republican recruiting is good but not great, which Hotline (unlike some other analysts) correctly notes, while Democratic recruiting is better than pundits recognize. It's almost as if pundits forget that with 258 seats, Democrats have very little low-hanging fruit left to pick. That doesn't mean they're going to lose 20 seats.
Harry Mitchell Watch has been following Arizona's CD-5 Harry Mitchell and he is anything but a "Blue Dog" Democrat. Based on his FEC filings and his latest votes, he is leaning heavily on the support of a more liberal demographic (primarily in Tempe where Arizona State University is located) to get him through the 2010 General Election. The last two election cycles he got very lucky as the GOP was in the political doghouse. This next election, he won't be that fortunate. Arizona conservatives are also watching CD-1 and CD-8 where Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabirielle Giffords (respectively) are vulnerable.