Bass is somewhat more interesting. He refused calls to match Bradley's return of DeLay money, and that could hurt him. He also voted in favor of the mtBe bill, which was an extremely unpopular bill in NH; his stated reason was to get on the conference committee, but that failed badly. His challenger from last time, Paul Hodes, is running again, and others have started exploring the idea. Hodes' increased name recognition could give him a better shot this time around; he finished last time with a good chunk of people still not knowing who he was. Bass' reputation as a moderate has been under attack, with Democrats reminding everyone at every opportunity that Bass votes about 90% of the time with Tom DeLay.

I wouldn't put either of these seats into a top ten list. Bass would definitely be somewhere in the top thirty, and Bradley would be in the top 100. Even with the expected long coattails from the extremely-popular Governor Lynch, though, it'll take a good challenger with a smart campaign.

Highlights of Lynch's year in office so far: getting his agenda through a Republican-dominated legislature, expertly managing a flooding emergency, visibly demonstrating a commitment to bipartisanship by his nominations to various state posts (including state AG), and staying above the fray when in both the Senate and the House the moderate wing of the GOP rebelled, overthrowing the micro-DeLay leadership of both houses and replacing them with moderate Republicans with the support of a minority of Republicans and all the Democrats. He's also turned an expected $200 million deficit into an $80 million surplus and won fiscal-responsibility nods for putting it towards the depleted Rainy Day fund. The leading potential GOP contender, Bruce Keough, is looking more and more like he wants to sit the next cycle out, so Lynch will probably be facing a sacrificial lamb, leaving him free to support other Democrats in the state - but at best, his support would level the slight-GOP bias of the state in any Congressional races.

District 8: Tim Dunn, an Iraq war vet, is running agains tincumbent Robin hayes, and is making is CAFTA vote a huge issue(I think it was him who voted against, then got his arm twisted by Delay and switched his vote).Hayes got 56% of the vote in 04.

District 11: Charles Taylor, who also voted for CAFTA, is facing a challenge from Heath Schuler next year. Taylor got 55% of the vote in 04.

Pennsylvania:
District 8: An exciting candidate Partick Murphy, si running against first termer and right winger Mike Fitzpatrick in a moderate district(Kerry won by 9,000 votes). Fitzpatrick got 56% of the vote in 2004.

In MN, Mark Kennedy is leaving an open seat in MN-06 in order to run for the open Senate seat: Patty Wetterling could have taken that seat if she had chosen to run for House again, but she's stupidly running in the Dem primary for Senate instead. There will be a divisive Republican primary in MN-06, and if we field a strong candidate we should be able to take that increasingly-suburban district-- but I don't know who that candidate would be.

No other seat in MN will be competitive: 4 safe Dems, and most likely 3 safe Rs, though John Kline could be washed away if there's a blue tidal wave-- he represents outer suburbs, he's not "independent" in the way that Gutknecht and Ramstad are, and he's only in his second term. (One of the safe Dems is Blue Dog Colin Peterson, whose seat would be R-leaning if he ever retired.)

Most analysts expected Jon Corzine to win but only by 5-6%. Instead he won by over 11%. There are a lot of speculations about why Doug Forrester lost big.

First, before the race began, the Republicans were salivating over the prospect of running on what Forrester called New Jersey's "conga line of corruption." But high-profile Republican indictments brought, ironically, by a Republican US Attorney, largely defused that issue. In addition, most New Jerseyans know that corruption in the Garden State is an equal opportunity enterprise. Forrester also had to respond from the beginning of the campaign to the end to charges that HE was guilty of corrupt business practices.

Next, the Right's REAL candidate, Bret Schundler, was defeated in a crowded primary campaign that diluted the right-wing vote among multiple candidates, and then complained that Forrester had bought his nomination.  The lingering bitterness of Schundler's (and others') right-wing bases never truly evaporated.  I think that kept a lot of them home.

Next, especially in the last week, Forrester out-negatived Corzine to the point where a lot of MODERATE Republicans passed on voting out of disgust at the campaign. Overall turnoout was low across the state, but it looked to me that in the districts that Forrester won, the overall turnout was even lower and the margins thinner.

In addition, on the issue that most New Jerseyans felt a governor HAD to tackle, property taxes, Forrester's plans seemed both too ambitious, too simplistic, and too lacking in detail to be credible.

Finally, Forrester tried to have it both ways on reproductive rights. While he ran ads in which his wife said that he was pro-choice, which further alienated the Right, he failed to convince moderates that he would not cave into the Right on reproductive rights and on stem-cell research once in office.

Forrester's plight seems to me to encapsulate the plight that ALL Republicans will face in 2006. First, in order to win the nomination, a candidate will have to convince the last solid holdout groups in the Republican coalition - those who Andrew Kohut describes as Enterprisers and Social Conservatives - that he or she is truly one of them.

But, even if Republicans keep winning local elections - where I think we are still weak - more and more moderate Republicans are disillusioned with their party on a NATIONAL level. That means that getting the approval of primary voters for Congressional candidates, who tilt heavily to the Right, will likely drive away the moderate Republicans needed in general elections, as well as become a major turnout driver for Democrats and Independents.

Second, the message itself has to come first and, on this score, we are getting better and they are getting worse. On property taxes, Corzine kept hammering on the theme that this was rooted in a fundamental structural problem in the state that called for a PERMANENT solution, and either a special legislative session or a constitutional convention to deal with it.

This was a more credible message than Forrester's, which seemed to many like a quick fix that could only be accomplished by gutting the government at all levels. Corzine stayed on the message and never allowed himself to be drawn in by Forrester's charges of corruption.

Corzine also used messaging effectively to tie Forrester to George Bush and the Republican Right, while Forrester tried, with little success outside the Bush Base, to tie Corzine to the scandals connected to the former governor, Jim McGreevey.

I see this as a sign that the overall ability of the Republicans to send a convincing message to non-base voters is weakening, and weakening fast. They have lost too much credibility on too many issues to recover their spinning prowess in time for the next election

Corzine's Senate seat is up for grabs in 2006, and his choice of a successor will be critical in making that a hard or an easy win. But it will likely BE a win unless the then-incumbent dies, gets busted, or has a catastrophic gaffe.

On the House level, the widening rift between Republican Right primary voters and the moderates expected to support the resulting candidates in the general election is starting to create a serious problem.

With a few exceptions, most New Jersey Republican Representatives are moderate conservatives who usually have an easy time winning re-election. Few have had serious primary challenges from the Right, which has enabled them to avoid tacking Right to get the nominations and alienating general election voters in the process. Few have had effective Democratic challengers.

The challenge for us is to FIRST come together on a coherent Center-Left structure of principles-platform-message that will turn out our base while respecting and credibly addressing the concerns we share with independents and moderate Republicans. Not until we do that can we increase our chances of  finding and standing behind credible standard-bearers.

We have too long neglected the platform-and-message-first principle, but that also seems to be changing.

As Paul Begala observed after the 2002 election, the Republicans went to the voters with a clear combination of principles, platform, and message, while we went to them with virtually nothing. In general elections, something, even if it isn't good, usually beats nothing. Since we (I hope) are starting to come together on principles, platform and message, I think we can make a lot more Safe Republicans feel very unsafe.

Since there don't seem to be any other elections on the radar until next November, why hasn't this race garnered more attention?  I'm going to be walking a Santa Ana precinct this afternoon, but I am at a loss for anything to add in the way of a diary to what Big Dog has posted on this election.

Can someone explain why Steve Young is being ignored?  The election is only about ten days away. I don't get it.

Tim

Concievable targets per state

Arizona: AZ-1 (54/46 Bush), AZ-5 (54/46 Bush), AZ-8 (53/47 Bush) {unfortunately for us, we don't have strong candidates in the 1st and 5th. I'd sorta prefer somebody stronger than Jackson too. Hayworth isn't as strong as you think he is.}

California: CA-11 (54/46 Bush), CA-26 (56/44 Bush), and CA-50 (56/44 Bush) {Pombo is getting challengers. Dreier has a pretty good challenger. Busby might even win Duke's seat early if Duke resigns and they hold a special election in a few months}

Colorado: CO-4 and CO-7 {Although, to be honest, we might be aiming poorly with the Musgrave race. She did run far behind Bush though. Kerry won CO-7. And keep an eye on Bill Winter)

Connecticut: We won every friggin district in that state, so why not go for Simmons, Shays, and Johnson to get them all?

Florida: Shaw is vulnerable. Some other Florida incumbents are in purple districts, but nobody will think of putting up a strong challenger against a guy like Bill Young.

Illinois: How many more times will Mark Kirk have to put his foot in his mouth before more people state working to take him down? his district went 53/47 for Kerry. Also, Weller is in a pretty purple district. Same with Hyde (we should win IL-6 too)

Indiana: Hostettler (IN-8) and Sodrel (IN-9) were both helped out by Bush's popularity and they will both go down.

Iowa: IA-1 and IA-2 were both won by Kerry. At least we'll have a good shot in IA-1. The lack of a good challenger in IA-4 (51/49 Bush) is pretty sad too.

Kentucky: I would hope we find somebody good in KY-3, because that district went for Kerry.

Michigan: Purple districts include MI-6 (53/47 Bush), MI-9 (51/49 Bush), and MI-11 (53/47 Bush). But we will have to see if anybody serious is going to challenge those 3.

Minnesota: There are not 3 safe Republicans in Minnesota. Gutknecht is in a district that gave Bush 52%. Kline's district gave Bush 55%. Kennedy's district is actually the most Republican. And Ramstad, in a 51/49 district, is not being challenged. We have the potential to pick up the 1st, 2nd, and 6th.

New Hampshire: Bass should be vulnerable. Bradley might be covering his ass well.

New Jersey: If we had better candidates, we would have a decent shot to go for LoBiando, Saxton, and Ferguson. Although the only serious musing I hear is moves to try and get Garrett (who is in a 57/43 district)

New Mexico: Heather Wilson is a target

Nevada: If we had a candidate who wasn't directly billed as a "Convicted Felon", we'd have a better shot at winning the 51/49 NV-3

New York: Peter King. Vito Fossella. Sue Kelly. John Sweeney. John McHugh. Sherwood Boehlert. James Walsh. Tom Reynolds. Randy Kuhl. They all deserve serious challenges, and some of them will get serious challenges. King and Fossella aren't opposed yet. Kelly and Sweeney have unusually strong opponents (Aydelott and Gillibrand). Something about Dan Maffei makes he think he could give James Walsh a serious challenge. Jack Davis is running again and he faired well in 2004. As for NY-29: Eric Massa.

North Carolina: Shuler and Dunn. Probably nothing else, barring a huge scandal.

Ohio: Pryce and Ney. Although Chabot, Tiberi, and LaTourette are in purple districts. Chabot and Tiberi need strong opponents too.

Pennsylvania: Gerlach, Weldon, Fitzpatrick, and Dent are all in districts that John Kerry won. Other Congressmen should be targeted in districts that Bush won by 8 points.

Texas: Depends on if DeLay resigns.

Virginia: Tom Davis is in a very purple district. Wolf is in the same part of North Virginia which is trending blue.

Washington: Reichert's district was won by Kerry and he's getting some legit looking opposition.

Wisconsin: WI-8 is a winnable seat.

The fact is that we should aim for around 60 to 75 seats in order for us to win the House. Just targeting 15 seats will guarantee 2 more years of Tom DeLay running the house.

As for me using 2004 Presidential numbers. It's a good idea, because if you've noticed, Bush is much less popular these days. If need be, just morph the guy into Bush.

I think some of this "Oh, but he's saaaafe" mentality is a loser mentality. If you think he's safe, what's the harm in changing that?

The only reason why the Republicans would retain the House is if the Democrats don't do a good enough job making their candidates known.

First I don't think it is a top pick up because i expect there to be a special election as Ney is going to have to resign when indicted - which looks all but a done deal right now.

Next up is Sulzer - the guy might be touted as a good candidate, but i am hearing his fundraising isnt that strong, and he is practically invisible in the district - he never even gets a quote in the papers when Ney is mentioned

and now as Tim says up thread - a bunch of Ohio races are being messed with by statewide candidates - not to mention the ODP chair opening.

Ohio is a mess and it doesnt look like an lessons have been learned. It's going to take another disaster I fear for all this deadwood to be cleared out and new blood brought in.

We need to clean house in Ohio, but that process isnt going to be done in time for 2006.

The ODP chair race will give us a hint at which direction we are headed. If strickland and Refern win out we are in a world of hurt, but if we get a real selection process for ODP chair and a decent guy committed to the party and not a campaign we have a shot.

I'm puzzled, and troubled, though that he bumped Indiana 8 up over Indiana 9. That's not good news for Democrats.

This is going to be the David v. Goliath story of the 06 midterms.

Because he doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

WaPo played up his joining the team as someone with real insight into politics, having spent 4 years on Roll Call and the Cook Political Report prior to that.  

So far he's shown that he's nothing more than a stenographer for Republicans and Beltway Democrats who don't like Howard Dean.