A recent diary talked about possible primary targets in the House.  One simple method is to select those who meet three criteria:  the most conservative overall Democrat from their state's House delegation (44 possible), voted to continue funding for the war in Iraq (30 of the 44), and also come from districts either carried by John Kerry or effectively tied.  There are a total of six House members who meeet these criteria.  All of them, at leaast on paper, seem worthy of a primary challenge.  Let's look at the six.

At the top of my list is Rob Andrews.  Andrews is an embarrassment and a threat.  He comes from south Jersey, specifically the machine politics of NJ-1 (Camden County and surroundings).  Andrews comes from the most overwhelmingly Democratic district of any of the six (60.6% for Kerry).  He is the most conservative vote from the NJ Democrats in the House (a 78.34 score from Progressive Punch).  The heart of his district is Camden, the saddest city in New Jersey.  Back in the 1960's Camden had a population of over 100,000.  Today, it's 43,000 and dropping.  The city's literally bankrupt.  The State runs the schools.  And Rob Andrews?  He's the Harvad educated messenger boy for the Norcross machine.  The people deserve better.  The people need more.

The Norcross Machine is the bete noire of the state's biggest paper, the Newark Star Ledger.  It also is constantly fighting Democratic governors from a conservative view point.  George Norcross comes from a union management background.  But he carries water for the business interests.  It's not a nice picture.  And, to cap it off, unlike the Essex or Hudson machines, this one barely delivers at the polls.  Andrews has $2,074,365 cash on hand, one of the largest hordes of anybody in congress.  Every time an opening comes up for Governor or Senator in this state he is constantly mentioned as one of the front runners, solely because of his cash.  Just about the only loser the Democrats could nominate would be Andrews, who would be crucufied for his ties to the Norcross machine.  He needs to be ousted.  At the very least, a vigorous primary would cut that cash horde down to size.

Lately it seems that every day brings a new rumor that a Republican in the House may not seek re-election.  Sometimes it is age.  Other times personal health issues.  Then again it may be a unique (or at least rare) career opportunity.  It has been adding up at a rapid pace.  In 2006, 21 Republicans eventually did not run in the general election vs. 9 Democrats.  Karl Rove and the White House used a mix of pleas and threats to get as many incumbents to re-up as possible.  This year, without the threat of an effective White House and with Democrats controlling the House for the first time in 12 years, the numbers figured to go higher.  It looks like they will.

I've combed through all 202 Republican entries on the 2008 racetracker wiki and added what memory brings to mind from recent MyDD entries.  I've also included scandal entries as these proved to be an important source of open seats in 2006.  The list is naturally incomplete.  As filing deadlines near (and pass) and primaries come and go we will get a better handle on this.  At this point, 32 Republicans have some doubt attached to their names and 170 seem likely to run.

A list of the possible vacancies plus short comments follow below the break.

On a simple level, Democrats have 30 more House seats than Republicans and 31 more women in the House.  Similarly, Democrats have 11 women in the Senate, six more than Republicans.  Their margin in each chamber is exclusively among women members.

A study of House members elected from 1916 through 2004 showed some interesting results.  Republican women were more moderate politically, came from tougher districts to win than Republican men, were more urban or suburban and came from better educated , more white collar districts.  In the last 15 years, the number of women in the House boomed going from the high 20's to 74.  With 53 Democratic women and 21 Republicans, there is a huge gender gap on Capitol Hill.  In fact, in 2006 the number of Republican women in the House actually declined from 22 to 21.

Overall, 22.8% of House Democrats are women and 10.4% of House Republicans.  The figures are very similar for the Senate.  About half of the difference comes from one state: California.  Republicans elected 18 men and 1 woman; Democrats elected 18 men and 16 women.

I've looked at tthe voting records in Congress (taken from Progressive Punch), the voting nature of the congressional district (from the 2008 race tracker wiki) and the results of the 2006 congressional elections for the fifty most conservative Democratic House members.  The results revealed a number of facts about this group as well as a number of myths.  So, here we go.

Fact.  Conservative Democrats represent Republican leaning districts (at least on the national level).  An amazing 24 of the 25 most conservative House members represented districts carried by George W. Bush in 2004, with the lone exception being John Murtha's district (carried by Kerry, 51.4% to 48.5%).

Myth.  Democrats from these districts are in a precarious electoral position.  Only three of the top 25 districts and six of the top 50 were tight elections in 2006.  That would be GA-8 (Jim Marshall with 50.5%), GA-12 (John Barrow with 50.3%), IA-3 (Leonard Boswell with 51.8%), IN-9 (Baron Hill with 50.01% vs. 41% for the Republican), IL-8 (Melissa Bean with 51.18%), and TX-22 (Nick Lampson with 51.79%).  Boswell has health problems and is hardly dynamic on the stump and Lampson and Bean barely make the list at 47 and 48.

Chris Bowers linked to a story on Breaking Blue using the headline, "Democratic consultant trashes Pelosi."  My mind went to a couple of quick questions: who and what kind of won-lost record does the consultant have.  

The answer is that the "consultant" really is not a consultant but a speech writer-cum "intellectual" named Ken Baer.  Baer, Penn class of 1994 with a graduate degreee from Oxford, does have that one central career moment.  It was the writing of his graduate thesis, an effort thast lauded the political genius of Bill Clinton in the 1992 election.  Sound familiar?  Well, Baer turned the thesis (incidentally, despite Oxford, he is not a Rhodes Scholar) into a gig as a speechwriter for Gore in the Clinton administration.  He went on to work as a speechwriter for the Gore campaign in 2000 and for the Lieberman campaign in 2004.  He also worked for the losing campaign of a Philly area congressman in 1994.

Baer fancies himself a "progressive" and a "political consultant."  There is little evidence that he is either.  Instead, he is a wordsmith dedicating to promoting both Clintonism and above all rthe political genius of Gingrich/Rove Republicanism in all things and in all ways.  A quick look at Baer shows a trail of articles in political journals and influential newspapers.  All of them (plus the journal he founded) are negative attacks on Democrats, particularly those who are elected and progressive.  

Democrats won 30 House seats in 2006 and lost none.  That simple picture obscures a slightly more complex statistic.  Democrats in 2006 elected 42 new members to the House and "lost" just three members elected during the Bush years (2000 through 2005).  That is a lot of new blood.  Republicans lost 30 seats and managed to fill only 14 seats of departing members.  One of the interesting side stories of 2006 is that the largest class in the House had been the Republicans elected in 1994, the largest group for a full 12 years.  Now, not only is the class of 2006 Democrats the largest group but the largest Republican group is the bunch elected in thewar on terror scare of 2002.

Overall, aside from the 2006 totals, the Democrats largest advantage is now among the old bulls.  Fourteen Democrats and only six Republicans predate the Reagan administration.  The senior Republican, CW Bill Young of Florida, was first elected in 1970 a full fifteen years after John Dingell.  Totals by administration are:  George W. Bush (92 D, 92 R), Clinton (86 D, 74 R), George H. W. Bush (21 D, 13 R), Ronald Reagan (20 D, 17 r), and pre-Reagan (14 D, 6 R).

The year by year totals from the W years show a clear separation.  The Republicans had a clear advantage in bringing in fresh blood early in the Bush years:  10 D, 19 R from the class of 2000 remain, 2 D 6 R from 2001, 15 D and 29 R from 2002.  The middle years divided about evenly with 20 D and 21 R from 2004 and 0 and 1 and 1 and 2 edges from 2003 and 2005.

A recent comment warned about danger in the House for 2008 but also was optimistic about the chances of picking up another three Senate seats.  While the lore is that newly elected House members are in great jeopardy, several posts have showed little change of late after the wave.  What have been the facts over a longer period of time (and a larger sample)?  I looked at all elections from 1900 on in which one party gained 30 or more seats.  The results are shown below.

Large gains in a Presidential election year have been pretty much ephemeral.  Eight Presidential elections in the last century-plus have produced at least a 30 seat wave (1904,1912,1920,1928,1932,1948,1964, and 1980).  Overall, the waves gained 419 seats but lost over 73% of them back in the next election (319 seats).  The only exception to this rule was the election of 1932 when FDR led a gain of 97 House seats followed by a further gain of 9 more in 1934. The smallest number gained back in the remaining 7 elections was 27 seats in 1982; the smallest percentage gain was 37% in 1950 with every other gain being at least 77%).

Off year elections have produced decidedly different results in the next House election.  Overall, parties in the 12 wave elections picked up 649 seats and gained a total of 37 in the 12 succeeding elections.  Totals ranged from a further gain of 97 seats in 1932 (following 52 in 1930) to a loss of 75 seats in 1948 following Republican gains of 54 in 1946.

In 2000, Democrats won a small plurality of the presidential vote (+0.51%) but lost the war.  In 2004, George W. Bush won by a larger margin (+2.46%) but barely hung on.  Democrats came within 10 points of Bush in nine states that were carried by W.  Realistically, these nine states (plus possibly Arizona at +10.47%) are the Democratic targets on the Presidential level for 2008.

In summary, a tie in the popular vote in 2008 is likely to elect a Democrat.  A very tight Democratic win is likely to rely completely on non-southern states.  However, a Clinton sized win  will almost certainly include electoral votes from southern states.  

Three Bush states (Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio)showed a Democratic lean in 2004.  In each case, the state is trending more democratic compared to the national norm.  Any Democrat who carries the Kerry base states plus these three states wins the White House.  A fourth state, Nevada, had such a small Republican lean (+0.13%) that it would likely swing along in a tied or nearly tied election. Results from these states in 2006 showed a continued democratic trend.