NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

If what I have done this week hasn't already caused my fair share of winger heads to explode, this one will almost certainly allow me to meet my quota. I have acquired a leaked spreadsheet of the forty Republican-held seats the NRCC feels are most vulnerable, with detailed information on the way they are looking at each race. I also have an overview of eleven races the NRSC is looking at, and I combined it into one page. Here it all is:

NRCC defenses list, NRSC targets / defenses

I just got this, and I haven't had time to look it over closely, but offhand the story is this: even internal Republican figures show they are really struggling this year. It looks like right now, they expect to lose about four Senate seats and about 21 House seats. I had to remove to colors in order for this to post, but both pages were covered almost entirely in red (meaning a downward trend). I just don't have time for more commentary than that right now, but feel free to add your own.

Tags: election forecasts, House 2006, NRCC, NRSC, Senate 2006 (all tags)




This is amazing. You've got to cross-post at DailyKos.

by taylormattd 2006-10-24 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Chris -

Why not turn the thing into a PDF - that'll get the colors back in.  It would be a much more damning report than it appears if we saw the true GOP perception of the hemorraghing (SP?).  

If you can't turn it into a PDF, email me the spreadsheet.  I can do it for you.

by IrishAlum 2006-10-24 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Hmmm.  The list and assessments look a bit dated- maybe accurate for the situation around October 10.

The present status of things is definitely worse for them.  Menendez and Whitehouse are going to win, the House races rated "2" are dicier now than that and most of the "3" rated ones are clearly leaning D at present (e.g. Wilson/Madrid).

Interesting is that they dropped the Nevada and Arizona Senate races off their radar entirely.  Not a wise move, even if the mass of pundit and Beltway opinion and polling said it was reasonable to assume them safe for their side at the time.  

by killjoy 2006-10-24 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

The most recent polling date listed is 10/17, though, yes, some of this does look a little outdated.  

I don't get how Santorum isn't a 5 and that they're not tracking AZ-Sen at all.  

by danielj 2006-10-24 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

My guess, in looking at the list of House seats that are rated 4 or 5 (only 14 for some reason.... hmmm..), the Republicans are only looking at seats they need to keep in order to maintain control.  They must believe that if Nevada or Arizona Senate seats are in trouble they will lose the Senate anyway and can't do anything about it.  

by msstaley 2006-10-24 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Umm, you may want to trim the HTML, and quick -  the name of a person appears in the page source, and hopefully it's not the leaker!  Looks like a Microsoft Word document "saved as" HTML, and it kept the header information.

by aip 2006-10-24 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

nevermind, looks like Chris's made-up company name.

by aip 2006-10-24 02:49PM | 0 recs

It's interesting they think OH-15 (Pryce (R) vs Kilroy (D)) leans Democrat.  We haven't seen alot of polling in that district, but obviously the GOP has done some polling they're not releasing.

by CA Pol Junkie 2006-10-24 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

wow - amazing intel

by grokgov 2006-10-24 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

They gave Burns a 5, but Santorum a 4?  Are they delusional?  Santorum has been our best pick up chance the whole way through.  He was the first incumbent confirmed in serious trouble.  

They also only put Negron in FL-16 at 4.  With Foley on the ballot.  Riiiight.

by scientician 2006-10-24 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Notice there are 14 House races that they rate as likely to lose.  There were another 15 rated Democrat.  If we end up with all 14 of our leans and say 7 (about half) of the toss ups that puts us at 21 Seats.  Now factor in if there was a wave and we picked up all our leans and 10 toss ups with 2 or 3 lean republican seats.  We could be looking at a nice little majority in November even by internal Republican numbers.

by blueryan 2006-10-24 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

I see those 14 house seats they rate as likely to lose and I remember that story (I'm sorry I can't remember the cite) that the GOP was confident they'd only lose 14 seats and retain the House.


I'm guessing they're confident their GOTV will carry every toss-up.

by Daaaaave 2006-10-24 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

I'm guessing they're confident their GOTV will carry every toss-up

And I'm guessing they're full of shit.

Seriously, these "we're confident of keeping control of Congress" stories really shouldn't be taken at face value. It's pure spin ...

by BriVT 2006-10-24 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Bowers is God. Whoever leaked this at the NRCC or NRSC must be kicking themselves all over the place right now.

by dpinzow 2006-10-24 02:22PM | 0 recs
Chris: I appreciate all the work you are doing

and I think it's a well-intended effort. And, I really do wish we could all just focus on the election coming up in 2 weeks, like you are trying to do.

But did you really think David Wade was talking about (and insulting) you when he talked about "anonymous websites"? Or was he counting you in the "real netroots"?

I thought the latter. If you did too, could you please have a discussion with Markos?  He seems to be speaking for you, and if he's not, you might want to clear that up.

Please see his front page post about you feeling insulted. I'd be curious to know if you agree with his take on it. If you don't, I hope you will say so, loudly. If you do...well, I've left plenty of comments on that diary already (along with many other people who aren't even Kerry supporters), so I don't need to say any more.

by MH in PA 2006-10-24 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Uh.  Everyone work your asses off!

by beeswax49 2006-10-24 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Focusing on CA for a minute.  It is interesting to see that they think CA-11 is less vulnerable than CA-04.  It really should be the other way around.  They have put way more cash into CA-11 than they have into Doolittle's district.  They do have a crappy cartoon themed mailer that was getting ripped in the conservative blogs today.

CA-50 is not on the list at all, though now polling seems to indicate that it is in play.

Very interesting.  I wonder who is going to get shit-canned for this leak :)

by juls 2006-10-24 02:32PM | 0 recs
OK, look at some of those money totals

Vic Wulsin and Jack Davis really need money.

Tester does too. I'm not sold on Tester being a sure thing yet. Tester is only ahead of Burns by 3 in the latest Mason-Dixon poll.

by Ben P 2006-10-24 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: OK, look at some of those money totals

I believe Davis is self-funding.  Unfortunately, I hear he's not doing much in the way of campaigning.

by danielj 2006-10-24 02:53PM | 0 recs
On the other hand

I think Santorum is cooked. DeWine is close to being cooked as well. But Santorum's situation is hopeless.

by Ben P 2006-10-24 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Thanks for continuing to kick ass, Chris. When this is all over, you'd better take a couple of weeks off.

by Spiffarino 2006-10-24 03:05PM | 0 recs
Help an amateur

What does a 5 mean?  4? 3?

What is the significance of each column?

It took me 3 hours to figure out how to cut and paste for a google bomb, so feel sorry for me.

I'm also trying to figure out how to set my clock on my VCR.

by magster 2006-10-24 03:05PM | 0 recs

I scrolled to the bottom.

by magster 2006-10-24 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Nevermind

Did that solve your VCR problem, too? :)

by forecaster15 2006-10-24 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Nevermind
If not, get a grandchild to help.
;-) Works for me.
by Woody 2006-10-24 05:48PM | 0 recs
Ohh, Ohhh, OH-2

Wooo!  Thanks a lot for this, Chris!  You rock in many ways.  

I was especially excited to see that Republican internals have Wulsin/Schmidt -- the race I'll be flying out to help for the first week of November -- is within the margin of error!  

by Neil the Ethical Werewolf 2006-10-24 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

This is why I come here and am a mydd junkie.  Way to go!

I am sure heads are exploding as I type this.  I am LAUGHING as I type.

by jgarcia 2006-10-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

This is fun to look at, but I'd be careful about putting too much faith in it. At least not without more info about from whence it comes. Not that I think this is the case, but I wouldn't put it past them to leak on purpose for misdirection. A lot of the info (especially the money, I think) seems dated. The polls, according to the legend, are all public nonpartisan, which means the really valuable info--their internals--isn't here.
Chaffee is a lot more endangered than Talent. Reynolds has himself as highly endangered, while that may be true, it strikes me as something an egotist (something I tend to think of most republicans) would leak, with the thought "maybe I can get them to waste their money targetting me."

I don't know, but I'd read with some skepticism

by jujube 2006-10-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Well... I don't think it'd be a waste to target Reynolds.  Several polls after the Foley scandal showed him trailing his challenger, and he didn't exactly have a stellar performance in 2004.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-10-24 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

agreed.  it definitely isn't up to date on the NY races.   If this is legit, its definitely old.  However, the newer info looks worse for them, at least in NY.

they've got Sweeney with a poll having him up 19.  today in the times union they said he had an internal poll with him up 7, while Gillibrand has an internal poll with her up 2.  This one is a lot closer than Sweeney plus 19.  

And if they believed Arcuri was polling at 31% they wouldnt' have run the ridiculous ad about him calling sex hotlines that has since been pulled by 3 stations.

grain of salt.  Or a very good sign that the super magical GOP machine is generally as incompetent as most large organizations.

by democracyinalbany 2006-10-24 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

After reviewing it, I'm starting to think the common assumption that insiders know more than a halftime amateur like me is granting them too much credit.

I disagree with some of their race assessments, which only leaves three options:

1)They ARE better informed.
2) I am better informed.
3) The leaked document is bogus.

The fourth option is it's based on outdated polling, since only four polls are shown after 10/4.

Why would they list just one for 10/10, two for 10/11, one for 10/12, then one for 10/17? I know of many more polls on many of those races between 10/4 and 10/17. After all, that was the period when Foley was leading much of the bad news.

Considering all that, I can narrow it down to just two options: #2 and #3.

Legend has it that Rove is way shrewder than this document's author. If this is truly an example of best the GOP House and GOP Senate handicappers can do, then they are truly a pathetic bunch of incompetents (ESPECIALLY the Senate assessments, where Burns and Whitehouse should be 4s, Casey and Brown should be 5s, Ford should be a 2, and Cardin - which they don't even name for MD !!! - should be a 3 or 4. I mean, look at Steele's money advantage as well as more interim polls).

I won't even go into the House discrepancies (and, yes, I use Cook's PVI ratings in my assessments, too)

So, are they really clueless or is this a hamhanded effort to leak a BS document? (No offense intended towards Chris, as I suspect it's real and they ARE this incompetent. And THEY get paid the big money for this? Man, I went into the wrong biz.....)

by KevinHayden 2006-10-24 07:25PM | 0 recs
scary convergence

Over the weekend I was telling my husband my prediction: we pick up 21 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate.

I hate to agree with Republicans about anything...

by desmoinesdem 2006-10-24 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists


Greetings from the beautiful mountains and trails of Asheville NC. Things have been heating up on the SHULER vs. TAYLOR front.
Charles Taylor is a long-time congressman, multimillionaire, bank and large-scale landowner, apologist for GWB, and is strongly anti-conservation). Remember `Mr. Potter' from the Christmas movie? You get the idea.

Heath Schuler has beat back some mud and lies, most recently in a well-funded direct mail blitz from Taylor. And now the good news:

Heath has received endorsements from the Hendersonville paper, AFL-CIO, NEA, League of Coservation Voters, etc. Recent polls show that his message is getting out and that the voters may be ready for a BIG change. For comparison, two polls from Constituent Dynamics-

10/12 Shuler (D) 51% Taylor (R) 43%
9/6 50% 47%

We're running out of lawn signs!

by tfitznc 2006-10-24 03:43PM | 0 recs
Do What The GOP Would Do!

We're running out of lawn signs!
Burn the lawns!

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-10-24 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Do What The GOP Would Do!

Hah! Thanks for the screenspray!

by KevinHayden 2006-10-24 07:28PM | 0 recs
Was He Ever???

In particular, I like that Hostettler is apparently "not listening"

So, now they notice!

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-10-24 04:14PM | 0 recs
Ron Lewis KY-02 vulnerable?

They think Lewis is vulnerable? We dont even show that race as top tier. Apparantly the Repubs have some concern about him though. Time to make that one yet another Republican self-fulfilling  prophecy of doom. Go Weaver! The playing field continues to expand even in these last two weeks.

(Also love their comment about Count Chocula on the right "not listening"!) Wonder who he pissed off at the NRCC?

by mike20169 2006-10-24 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists
Some of these rankings, as have been noted, are curious, so they must be slightly outdated.
So they're already expecting to lose AT LEAST 14. And we need 15. Thats great.
Lets remember one thing here: if we win 15 seats, we are likely chalking back up the majority in 2008. I dont mean to be a downer, but thats the truth because no doubt a couple of these wins will get picked off by strong GOP challenges in the next cycle- look at the the crop of '94 GOP House memberes in '96 and Senators in '00.
We NEED to win 20+ seats in order to have a very good chance at staying in the majority after the next Presidential cycle. Lets work our asses off!
by AC4508 2006-10-24 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

I think on balance we are likely to win more seats in 2008.  Bush will have 2 more years to fuck up.  The President gets blamed when things go badly, even if the opposition holds one or both houses of Congress.  With Bush, it is pretty much a lock that things will go badly.  So, even though we may not hold evey seat in 2008 that we win in 2006, on balance we will gain more then we lose.

by Andy Katz 2006-10-24 06:35PM | 0 recs
What's new with these lists ?

Actually, I didn't find much new in this
listing at all.

Cynic that I am, I've long assumed that
the Famous Fearful Forecasters -- you know
their names, and I'm not talking about Chris,
the other guys -- they get their rankings
the easy way: They talk to somebody at the
RCCC and somebody at the DCCC, gather up
the fundraising totals and CoH figures, take
a hunch on which way the wind is blowing,
assign a figure to every race, subtract
5 points from all Democratic candidates
because they're afraid to offend The Powers,
and announce their rankings. I mean, to do it
otherwise would mean a lot of real reporting,
and the travel budget does not allow it.

So these rankings follow the rankings from
the various Famous Fearful Forecasters.
What a f--ing surprise. Not.

by Woody 2006-10-24 05:47PM | 0 recs
IN-09- Sodrel working identity voters

The NRCC is continuing heavy play of the same basic ad on radio and TV in the IN-09 race. It's an identity message that says Baron Hill is too negative and only Sodrel will protect us against gay marriage, flag desecration, taxes and liberals.

They literally say that Sodrel is "one of us" and that he shares our values.

They don't mention Iraq or the economy. Even though the money looks relatively even on the chart, to this point I've come across Sodrel ads much more often than anything from pro Baron Hill groups.

by Curt Matlock 2006-10-24 06:03PM | 0 recs

Given this crowd's track record, I would say we need to assume that this was leaked on purpose.  The Republican strategists know that MyDD is more influential/credible among insider-ish types.  I would be very careful to make sure you're not being "Rathered".  I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but it can't hurt you to assume so.  It would, after all, be a cheap way to disseminate some disinformation among relatively influential Democrats.

In my opinion, even if the numbers check out, it's kind of a waste this late in the game to spend any time analyzing it.

by CranesAreFlying 2006-10-24 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: PA-04 Altmire within 4 of Hart

The Trib has a new poll out for the 4th from the Susquehanna Poll. It shows Hart 46, Altmire 42, 10%

No direct link to the poll, but here's the Trib story: ghtrib/news/cityregion/s_476533.html

by phillydem 2006-10-25 01:58AM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

I posted this comment on another thread. What jumps out at me is the amount of money they still have. Talent has 7 million. Is he not going to spend it? Can you spend that much in two weeks (or even four, if this doc is a little old)?

Why are they hanging on to so much money in so many places? Golden parachutes?

by frenchman 2006-10-25 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: NRCC, NRSC Target / Defense Lists

Maybe they're saving it for a rainy day.  Or a legal defense fund!

by CranesAreFlying 2006-10-25 09:59AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads