Posted on 11/13/2006 6:18:22 PM PST by WOSG
There are now 58 House Democrats elected in districts that voted for Bush in 2004. There are now only nine House Republicans elected in districts that voted for Kerry in 2004. Note the larger Bush Margins than Kerry margins. Those 58 Dem’s are in more difficult districts than the nine R’s.
If in 2008 the R's only won those districts that performed 58% or more for Bush in 2004 they would pick up 18seats.
If in 2008, the R's only win those districts that performed 55% or more for Bush in 2004, they would pick up 32 seats.
Remember, when Bush won in 2004 it was with only 51% of the vote. This is a low party vote for president, not a Reagan landslide number.
|
58 Democrats in Districts Carried by Bush
|
||||||||
|
|
U.S. Rep. |
District |
Bush % |
|
U.S. Rep. |
District |
|
Bush % |
|
Alan Mollohan |
WV-1 |
58% |
|
Mike McIntyre |
NC-7 |
56% |
||
|
Allen Boyd |
FL-2 |
54% |
|
|
Mike Ross |
AR-4 |
51% |
|
|
Bart Gordon |
TN-6 |
60% |
|
Nick Rahall |
WV-3 |
53% |
||
|
Bart Stupak |
MI-1 |
53% |
|
Rick Boucher |
VA-9 |
59% |
||
|
Ben Chandler |
KY-6 |
58% |
|
|
Ruben Hinojosa |
TX-15 |
55% |
|
|
Bob Etheridge |
NC-2 |
54% |
|
Sanford Bishop |
GA-2 |
54% |
||
|
Brian Baird |
|
WA-3 |
50% |
|
Solomon Ortiz |
TX-27 |
55% |
|
|
Bud Cramer |
AL-5 |
60% |
|
Stephanie Herseth |
SD-AL |
60% |
||
|
Charlie Melancon |
LA-3 |
58% |
|
|
Ted Strickland |
OH-6 |
51% |
|
|
Chet Edwards |
TX-17 |
70% |
|
Tim Bishop |
NY-1 |
49% |
||
|
Collin Peterson |
|
MN-7 |
55% |
|
Tim Holden |
PA-17 |
58% |
|
|
Dan Boren |
OK-2 |
59% |
|
Vic Snyder |
AR-2 |
51% |
||
|
Darlene Hooley |
OR-5 |
50% |
|
|
Harry Mitchell |
AZ-5 |
54% |
|
|
Dennis Cardoza |
CA-18 |
50% |
|
Gabrielle Giffords |
AZ-8 |
53% |
||
|
Dennis Moore |
|
KS-3 |
55% |
|
Jerry McNerney |
CA-11 |
54% |
|
|
Earl Pomeroy |
ND-AL |
63% |
|
Tim Mahoney |
FL-16 |
54% |
||
|
Gene Taylor |
MS-4 |
68% |
|
|
Joe Donnelly |
IN-2 |
56% |
|
|
Henry Cuellar |
TX-28 |
53% |
|
Brad Ellsworth |
IN-8 |
56% |
||
|
Ike Skelton |
|
MO-4 |
58% |
|
Baron Hill |
IN-9 |
59% |
|
|
Jim Marshall |
GA-3 |
55% |
|
Nancy Boyda |
KS-2 |
59% |
||
|
Jim Matheson |
UT-2 |
66% |
|
|
Tim Walz |
MN-1 |
51% |
|
|
John Salazar |
CO-3 |
55% |
|
Heath Shuler |
NC-11 |
57% |
||
|
John Spratt |
|
SC-5 |
57% |
|
Carol Shea-Porter |
NH-1 |
51% |
|
|
John Tanner |
TN-8 |
53% |
|
Kristen Gillibrand |
NY-20 |
54% |
||
|
Leonard Boswell |
IA-3 |
50% |
|
|
Mike Arcuri |
NY-24 |
53% |
|
|
Lincoln Davis |
TN-4 |
58% |
|
Zack Space |
OH-18 |
57% |
||
|
Loretta Sanchez |
|
CA-47 |
50% |
|
Jason Altmire |
PA-4 |
54% |
|
|
Marion Berry |
AR-1 |
52% |
|
Chris Carney |
PA-10 |
60% |
||
|
Melissa Bean |
IL-8 |
56% |
|
|
Steve Kagen |
WI-8 |
55% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
9 Republicans in Districts Carried by Kerry |
||||||||
|
U.S. Rep. |
District |
Kerry % |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charlie Dent |
PA-15 |
50% |
|
|
Jim Gerlach |
PA-6 |
51% |
|
|
Christopher Shays |
CT-4 |
54% |
|
Mark Kirk |
IL-10 |
53% |
||
|
Dave Reichert* |
|
WA-8 |
51% |
|
Michael Castle |
DE-AL |
53% |
|
|
Heather Wilson* |
NM-1 |
51% |
|
Rob Simmons* |
CT-2 |
54% |
||
|
James Walsh |
NY-25 |
50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
*indicates official election results not in |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
ping
Hang in there ... the pendulum always swings back.
If the House goes liberal, we will win back the House. We will smoke out the liberals in conservative districts like happened in 1994.
Rick Boucher
VA-9
59%
The Republicans won't get this one. Boucher could get caught with both a live boy and a dead woman and still win by 30% points. Having said that, he still votes against gun control every chance he gets.
To capture any of these 58 seats, the Republicans will need to forgo their historic policy of deference to Democrats who purport to espouse conservatism while in their districts. They also must find credible candidates and fund them sufficiently to expose the liberal voting records that these purported conservatives accumulate in the confines of Washington, DC.
Republicans also must nationalize the Congressional elections every single time, regardless of the poll numbers, rather than run on "local issues," a euphemism for insufferable boasting about odious pork-barrel spending. Most Americans find such spending corrupt, petty, and foolish--even if it occurs in their district. The federal government must cut spending to pay off the federal debt, and political pork only takes money away from our troops in the field who perform the primary duty of the national enterprise.
Why not beat him? Tie him to Pelosi....
Boucher is a Nancy Pelosi Boy now.
"To capture any of these 58 seats, the Republicans will need to forgo their historic policy of deference to Democrats who purport to espouse conservatism while in their districts. They also must find credible candidates and fund them sufficiently to expose the liberal voting records that these purported conservatives accumulate in the confines of Washington, DC.
Republicans also must nationalize the Congressional elections every single time, regardless of the poll numbers, rather than run on "local issues," a euphemism for insufferable boasting about odious pork-barrel spending. Most Americans find such spending corrupt, petty, and foolish--even if it occurs in their district."
You are absolutely correct.
I agree Republicans should always run on a national platform and clear issues. They didn't this time and it hurt them. The strategy was disjointed.
Exactly the same thing is seen in the Senate.
President Bush won 25 states with >54% of the vote in 2004. Those states had 11 Democrat senators prior to Tuesday. Now they have 14.
John Kerry won 13 states with >54% of the vote in 2004.Those states had 3 Republican senators prior to Tuesday. Now they have two, both from Maine. IOW, except for Maine, NO STATE which Kerry won big has a Republican in the Senate. TEN STATES which Bush won big have Democrats in the Senate, and four of them have TWO Democrats in the senate.
Republicans are not competitive - at all - in deep blue states. Democrats are competitive - very competitive - in deep red states.
Unless this changes, the Senate cannot be won back.
Pete King's (R) district voted for Bush?
That's true, and while the GOP should stay positive about winning back the House and Senate, I think the days of Reaganesque landslides are over. I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to see a conservative Republican wipe out Hillary, or Obama, or whatever phony moderate the Democtats nominate, but unless the Republican candidate can repeat the Reagan-Nixon feat of winning well over 60% of the white vote, then there will be no landslide.
Some of the newly elected Democrats (Nick Lampson, Chris Carney, and Tim Mahoney, for example) are not likely to survive 2008.
The Senate in 2008 looks a bit thin, but there are maybe 3-4 or so pickup possibilities. We could win back the Senate, barely in a good election..
What make these rich pickings in the House IMHO is the ability to tie the Democrat 'blue dogs' to their very liberal Democrat leadership. We should definitely look for bringing back 10 or more of these seats, at a minimum.
We didnt have leverage to do that when the GOP was the majority, but the ballgame changes when the Dems are the majority.
Perhaps one way to calibrate this is to look at ADA, NARAL, ACU, AFLCIO, and NTU ratings... and tie every Congresscritter as a "Liberal Democrat" who did "XZ" and help Nancy Pelosi do ABC.... the issues will pop up like mushrooms after a storm as the liberal warhorses, Conyers, Waxman, Dingell, etc. do their predictable liberal, confiscatory, thing.
I've often pondered why this hasn't happened. He's been in office for as long as I can remember. It's puzzling how our county voted for Allen over Webb by 60% to 40%, probably Allen's highest vote in the state by percentage, yet Boucher got about that same percentage, and he's a dem. The results were similar for Gore and Kerry as well, Gore/Kerry getting only 30-35% while Boucher being a dem gets 60-65% of the vote in the same elections. Apparently the locals here believe Boucher is separate from the national dem liberals. I've also noticed Boucher gets a higher ACU rating on election years.
If we get our A game up and recruit even better than we did in 2002 and 2004, then we could do well in the Senate.
We could be competitive in seats in Ark, LA, South Dakota, Montana, and even Michigan and West Virginia.
Think about it, at this point in 2004 if you would have told me that the Dems would have won in PA, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, etc...
I would have laughed!
The dems realize that they had to act like no seat was out of bounds, so do we!
"The dems realize that they had to act like no seat was out of bounds, so do we!"
I agree!
The Democrats contest *every* seat, and dont give up, and dont mind the long shot races.
When we discussed the Senate races in a thread, someone declared that the seat was not winnable. Hogwash. Montana this year proves that every race is winnable; and that wasnt even a good candidate. (Dems dont seem to mind voting for 2nd rate dunderheads.)
Your choice of targets is about right... we should be able to take MT, ND, LA, and possibly Ark and WV with good candidates. Also MI is a good possibility.
Rep. Denny Rehberg in Montana might take another shot at Baucus now that he's in the minority, and if he beats Baucus, he may well be the one that flips control back to the GOP. I'm sure we'll field a strong challenger to Landrieu here in Louisiana. I hope we get somebody to run against Johnson in SD, we could certainly use that seat.
Another pick for MT would be Marc Racicot.
In SD, I think the top guy would be Gov Johannes (sp?).
Of course, the other trick is not to lose any GOP seats, and that may happen in Maine if susan collins or snowe retires. With so few blue state seats in GOP hands we are getting to our 'natural low' in Senate representation.
If Democrats are competitive in some place I don't see how those places could be considered deep red.
If Democrats are competitive in some place I don't see how those places could be considered deep red.
as usual, Republicans tried to cut their own throats.
this time, it worked.
Republicans, the stupid party.
Voters are tired of the war.
what about that, don't people get?
I could see us winning back the House as early as '08 though if we run the right Presidential candidate.
What's even more odd is how liberal Rep Boucher is. He's no true boll weevil or 'conservative Democrat', he's a snake in the grass ...
not a raving moonbat, but definitely liberal. Got and A from NRA, but 100% NARAL, low ratings from taxpayers, overall much more liberal than conservative:
2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Representative Boucher voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 64 percent of the Representatives.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Representative Boucher voted more liberal on social policy issues than 61 percent of the Representatives.
2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2005, Representative Boucher voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 36 percent of the Representatives.
2005 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 90 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 92 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.
Conservative ratings:
2005 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste 15 percent in 2005.
2005 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 25 percent in 2005.
2006 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 0 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 42 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Representative Boucher supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 33 percent in 2005.
---
PS. The ratings from Chet Edwards of TX-17 are similar.
The MO looks similar. Have a few conservative votes on guns, a few throwaway votes on immigration, and vote for the local issues (eg farm economy); but then support the unions 100%, the secular social issues caucus as much as politically palatable, and vote against whatever tax reductions you can get away with without being tagged 'tax and spend'. oh, and use deficit hawkishness as a cover for supporting higher taxes ("I'm concerned about the deficit so we cant afford these giveaways ... and btw, vote for me because I bring home the bacon.")
These snakes in the grass can be destroyed by exposing their 2 weakest points - social issues hypocrisy and tax issues.
Actually 3 now: Their connection and support of the liberal Congressional leadership ties them.
They can only be defeated if the opponent nationalizes the campaign in a way that ties them to the liberal leadership.
It will be easier for a challenger in these districts to run against "Liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi's sidekick" than to run against mr entrenched local favorite.
"Barring a miracle, we don't have a chance to win back the Senate for at least six years. Even then it will be very tough."
You are way overly pessimistic.
LA politics has flipped due to katrina, and the Democrats have lost more votes than Landreiu won by in the last go around.
Expect that to be a better than 50/50 pickup.
MT is 50/50 and SD and Ark are close to that too, especially in Presidential year. The Senate shift this year guarantees we have a better campaign next time.
I'd say the over/under for the GOP in 2008 is a +2. We defend a lot of seats, but like the Dems this year, we are likely to not lost any of them, because the minority status will give us some issues to run on as Democrats overreach.
The Dems will also come hard after Coleman, Sununu and Gordon Smith (among others) as well. I think we are on the defensive again in '08.
Add John Warner as a likely retiree and Allard as another vulnerable GOP seat.
First step in retaking the House is retooling the leadership ...
That means getting Pence and Shadegg in there ... here is what I am sending to my Congressman, you might want to do the same:
I am crushed but not overly surprised by the Republican loss in the elections.
Republicans lost in 2006 because the Republican Congress failed to articulate sound principles and failed to show how you were keeping promises to the voters. In your particular campaign, I was disappointed that there was nary a hint of espousing the cosnrevative view of smaller Government and lower taxes.
The only way forward is a fresh start and a return to conservative values:
Please support Mike Pence for minority leader and John Shadegg for minority whip. And please support ending earmarks and a strong GOP resistance to the Democrats' liberal agenda.
I support Pence's statement about what the GOP in the House needs to do. Pence released a document containing a five-point vision in which he declared that ''our primary task these next two years: to expose, dismantle and defeat the 'principles to which we have been forced to succumb.'''
Please join him in that mission. You need to be gearing up to defend our freedom from Democrat policies. You need to defend Republican policies, views and positions more strongly, more forcefully and more successfully.
Those of us who voted for you are counting on you to truly represent us. Please do so by supporting Pence and Shadegg.
"This hasn't been mentioned by his opponents in the last 3 cycles."
Huh, what do they go after then?
As far as I've been able to tell no one really mounts a serious campaign against him. In this last cycle he was actually attacked for the first time that I can remember, and that was just for the terrible loss of jobs in our region. All of that was more due to NAFTA and trade with China than anything Boucher had supported lol. It's a start I guess...
It seems to me that Pence's media experience is a big asset. He might create a PR offensive that they need.
Also, compile and photos, footage, soundbites etc tying Pelosi's visage around these Nancy Boy's necks.
"Boucher could get caught with both a live boy and a dead woman and still win by 30% points."
btt
bump
driveby bump
bookmark
"BTW, that's what they used to say about RINO James Leach in the Democrat-leaning IA-02 (which gave Kerry his highest percentage in a GOP-held district) until he lost last Tuesday. Funny how a bad electoral environment can smoke out even "entrenched" incumbents. If Boucher faces a top-tier challenger and 2008 is a good GOP year, he may find that his local support was a mile wide and an inch deep."
That would be the hope. But it can only happen if we 'nationalize' these races on issues favorable to Republicans. that would be taxes, spending, social issues, and weak v strong on defense/national security.
However, so far, Bush is doing everything he can to annoint the Democrats with as much power as possible and meet in the middle. The frightening result of this will be the disaffection of conservatives and the ability of Democrats to mush up issues.
We need a) lots of liberal legislation voted on in Congress, *and* b) the veto pen needs to come out and it needs to strike thebad stuff down so people know where the GOP is, and c) challengeers need to run against these folks with a
"TOO LIBERAL, TOO LONG." Message.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.