Mississippi Musings

Almost unreported by the media on Tuesday night was Democrat Travis Childers' special election victory in Mississippi's First Congressional District. Democrats were ebullient, as well they should have been: Bush carried the First with 59% of the vote in 2000, and 62% in 2004; former Representative Roger Wicker (picked to serve out the remainder of retired Senator Trent Lott's term) won with 66% in '06 and a mind-boggling 79% in '04, when he didn't even have a real Democratic opponent.

What does this suggest? I'll take the optimistic position that it's a special election, that it means little or nothing. Only 107,239 votes were cast Tuesday night; Childers' win, by a margin of 57,800 votes, was a comfortable, though hardly earth-shattering 53.9%. Those 57,800 (a suspiciously nice number?) would admittedly have swung the election to the Democrat in the low-turnout '06 midterm, but in 2004 a swing of that magnitude would have reduced Wicker's margin of victory to a still-impressive 58%. Put another way, Childers received just 8,626 votes more than the Democratic candidate did in 2006. All in all, the numbers are a mixed message. Specials are all about turnout and some combination of pissed off/fired up Democrats, disaffected independents, and dispirited Republicans gave Childers the win. But in this "who knows what it says but it ain't earth-shattering," sky-is-partly-cloudy, glass-is-half-full analysis, I'm something of a voice in the wilderness.

Perhaps the dominant interpretation (voiced by Fred Barnes on Fox News last night) is that Mississippi's special election was driven by a rejection of Republicanism. It's plausible, given that this wasn't a truly anti-incumbent election, but rather may have been an anti-incumbent party election, which could be bad news. Yet while Mississippians sent a Democrat to Congress, McCain remains highly competitive with Obama nationally. Just how deep the GOP's woes are remains unclear, though retiring Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) released a 20-page memo outlining the dismal state of the party (in which he created a furor by using Obama and tar baby in the same paragraph, god forbid); this, of course, comes less than ten days after Newt Gingrich's widely-reported and similarly apocalyptic warnings.

The state of the party deserves a post in itself; right now I'm interested only in the state of the state (of Mississippi). Does Travis Childers' victory suggest that Mississippi is in play in November? This is a state that Bush carried easily, with 59% in '04 and 58% in 2000. On the face of things, it's a stretch to argue that Obama can make up that sort of deficit to put the Magnolia State in his column. But Mississippi also has one of the largest proportions of African-Americans in the nation - 36%, or using '06 census estimates from National Journal, 1,053,615(.48...) black voters. If all of the voting-age members of this demographic came out and voted, Obama would be in a much better place. If Childers' victory is indicative of widespread dissatisfaction among independents, and demoralized Republicans, it could be within the realm of possibility (thought at its outer reaches) that Obama could win. Perhaps more darkly still, if Obama wins, does Democratic Senate candidate Ronnie Musgrove win as well? Upsets like that are the sort that will give Democrats what I fear most: a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Good News in Maine?

Maine's a funny state: almost no one lives there (errant Canadians and moose aside). It's also a politically wacky state: Gore and Kerry won it, it has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Representatives, and two Republican Senators. Now Republican here is a loose usage of the term, less so than with Linc Chafee in Rhode Island, but Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are hardly conservative firebrands.

Democrats and the Left have been busy attempting to paint Senator Susan Collins, up for reelection next year, as an out of touch conservative as well as a warmonger. Democrats already have as good a candidate as they're going to get in Congressman Tom Allen, who represents Maine's 1st District - aka the inhabited one. The race has consistently been listed in the lower half of the top 10 most competitive races by Chris Cillizza (latest update is here, worth reading in full).

Yet things don't seem to be going the Democrats' way. Two polls show Snowe sitting pretty; one has her up 54-34, though it's worth noting that 12% of respondents (408 likely voters over an 18 day period) are presently undecided. The other (and I link to DailyKos because they commissioned it, though with a notably independent pollster) has 55% saying they'd reelect Collins and shows the incumbent with a 23 point lead over Allen.

Republicans meanwhile are trumpeting this race; this email was sent out by the NRSC yesterday:

Dear Republican Supporter,

The race in Maine is shaping up to be nothing like the Democrats imagined. They have mistakenly named Susan Collins as one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators running for re-election in 2008. But their predictions are turning out to be off the mark.

In a new poll out last week, Sen. Collins has a stunning 20-point lead. The poll shows Collins leading her opponent, Tom Allen, 54 percent -- 34 percent with only 12 percent of Maine voters undecided -- a great sign this early in the race. These results nearly mirror another poll out earlier this month that shows Sen. Collins leading the race with an even stronger 23 point lead.

Partisan Democrat U.S. Rep. Tom Allen cannot seem to gain the traction he is looking for to compete against Senator Collins, no matter how hard he tries. Though there is one thing that makes him stand out in the race: He has the grand distinction of being the Democrat that liberal extremist group MoveOn.org has donated the most money -- an astounding $250,000 so far this year. This distinction will show voters where his true loyalties lie.

Sen. Collins has an accomplished record of working hard for Mainers and its clear that the people of Maine respect that drive and dedication. Senator Collins has never missed a vote in the Senate and in contrast to that stellar record, her opponent, Rep. Tom Allen, has never had sponsored legislation enacted into law. It's this record that Tom Allen will be taking to Maine voters in his run against Sen. Susan Collins.

Not only is Tom Allen a MoveOn.org puppet, he's also an ineffective legislator.

Help us keep liberal, MoveOn.org-supported Democrat Tom Allen out of the U.S. Senate and support our efforts to ensure a Republican majority.

We're gaining the momentum we need to win. But we can't do it alone. Donate today, and together we will capture the U.S. Senate.

Thank you for your continued support.

Scott Bensing, Executive Director
National Republican Senatorial Committee

This is all well and good, but let's be clear: one race that doesn't look like a massacre in the making doesn't make up for Republican woes elsewhere. But I'll look at those separately.

DKos to be in Newsweek

Newsweek has apparently decided that its readership isn't satisfied with their in-house leftish nonsense; no they want more. Thus they've contracted with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Kos of DailyKos, to be among their 2008 correspondents. They've promised to find an equally obnoxious right-winger; my first thought is "what's David Duke up to?"

For his part, Ed Morrisey - far more fair-minded than I - views this as a fundamentally good thing for the blogosphere.

I also think, David Duke comments aside, that it'll be hard to find a right wing equivalent to Kos; as a whole, the left wing blogosphere is far angrier and more obscene; they lack the measured voices of a Captain Ed or a Glenn Reynolds (don't believe me? Take a look at firedoglake).

Huckabee Surprises

So it's no secret that I'm somewhat fond of Mike Huckabee - I like him as a human being, which is more than I can say about most other presidential candidates (and politicians in general), but I find him weak or poorly-informed on many crucial issues (especially foreign policy) and disturbingly populist on the economic front.

Therefore it's with mixed feelings that I report this latest CBS/New York Times poll, which has Huckabee at 21% in Iowa - only 6 points behind field leader Mitt Romney. Of course he's only really seeing progress in Iowa; the same poll found him polling at 6% (behind Crazy Uncle Ron) in the Granite State.

All of this may be irrelevant, yet for the same reason raises some interesting points about modern campaigning: $$$. Huckabee's basically broke, whereas Romney's spent a fortune in Iowa - and the two are only separated by six. But that's Iowa, and he's unlikely to translate even a strong second-place finish there into success elsewhere unless he collects a lot of checks in the interim.

While we're at it, the same poll also shows the widely accepted Democratic dead heat in Iowa - Clinton 25%, Obama 22%, Edwards 23%. It doesn't seem as if Iowa voters are bothered by her issues in recent weeks (even though some, like the planted questions mini-scandal, have occured in their backyard), but if on Thursday night in Las Vegas she turns in a debate performance like that in Philly, well that may begin to change.

New Democratic House Strategy

Huh. Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen and the rest of the crowd at the D-Trip have come up with an interesting new strategy for disbursing their financial resources: among Democratic incumbents, only spend in those districts where the NRCC is spending.

It's smart: they're playing a lot of offense next year, and unless incumbents are in deep trouble, they can take care of themselves. Given the enormous cash disparity between the two parties, Republicans won't be targeting many incumbent Democrats anyways. For those Dems who are already flush with cash and in conservative districts, not having the national party visible in their district may allow them to further themselves from their egregiously unpopular national party.

This is also emblematic of the way in which the Democratic Party's pulling ahead of the GOP on the ground - the money helps of course, and they still haven't beaten the Republican Party's infamous "72 Hour Plan" GOTV operation, but they're learning. Thankfully, the national environment in 08 is unlikely to be anywhere near as poisonous to Republicans as it was in 06.

Tom Tancred Out

Of the House at least - he's still running for "president." Some presidential candidates are actually running for Vice President (Huckabee); I wouldn't actually say Tancredo's that ambitious. He's more running for head of the Border Patrol than anything else.

Of course the media will likely play this as part of that big bad wave of GOP retirements. There's a certain wisdom in that, but I don't think most pundits have yet realized that 2008's environment may bear little resemblance to that of 2006. Some of the open seats will flip because they're not Republican strongholds but Tancredo's, the Colorado 7th, won't. Bush won the district with 60% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004, and Tancredo's won comfortably for years (67% in 2002, 59% in 2004, 60% in 2006). This is a bright red district in a purplish state.

CQ Looks West

Another CQ regional House race analysis, this time looking at the West.

Battleground: Heartland

CQ's regional examination of competitive House races in the Midwest...

A Most Unlikely Bright Spot

When Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan resigned to become Chancellor of UMass-Amherst, I never bothered to check the Fifth District's demographics - it's Massachusetts, right? Last time I checked, Republicans are hard-pressed to be elected anything other than governor there. That impression was reinforced when Niki Tsongas, wife of former Senator Paul Tsongas, won the Democratic primary. Game, set, match...right?

Well RCP's Reid Wilson suggests that maybe I shouldn't be so gloomily hasty, if for no other reason than the GOP's candidate in the MA-5 isn't your typical Republican. Jim Ogonowski has deep roots in the district, continues to run his family's three farms, and is a military veteran; his brother, another veteran, was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 on the morning of September 11th.

He's also polling pretty well - 51%-41% behind Tsongas according to internal campaign numbers - and his opponent hasn't released anything to contradict that which suggests they're looking at the same thing. It's also clear that Tsongas is being cautious if not alarmed - Bill Clinton and Pelosi have both come to stump for her.

Ogonowski's also doing himself a favor by running as the outsider, running ads featuring Pelosi, Murtha, DeLay, and Duke Cunningham (Pelosi's certainly in fine company there); his background as an agricultural activist and his support for green technology is also a boon.

The special election will be held October 16th, and will (as is the case with all special elections) be primarily a battle of get out the vote. It will also be worth watching.

Wilson also suggests that

A surprise showing from Ogonowski, even if it isn't a win, would dramatically change the conventional wisdom in Washington. While Congress' approval ratings are in the tank, few insiders believe that Democrats will not expand their majority in 2008, and a rash of recent articles have suggested that the Republican house is in shambles. Should Ogonowski come close to taking a seat for his party, pundits could take another look at the 2008 map, and perhaps conclude that a message like Ogonowski's - of change in Congress, no matter the party - could carry the day and hold some hope for Republicans.

Jim Ognowoski is on the web here; you can donate here (he is being strongly out-raised by Tsongas).

CQ's First House Race Listing

The fine folks at Congressional Quarterly have put together their first list of 78 potentially competitive House races for next year; I'll take a look at some of them (and hopefully remember to link to their regional analysis in the future...

First Thoughts.
Republican Held, No Clear Favorite
- NC-8: No one saw Robin Hayes' near-defeat coming, but that was 2006, this is 2008. He's won pretty comfortably in the past, and there's no promise that having failed to deliver a knockout blow last year, Democrats can do so this year. That being said, the D Trip paid exactly zero attention to this race, and with their tender concern, Hayes may be in serious trouble. It'll be fun to watch.
- OH-15: There are an obscene number of Ohio races on this list, but while last year was a bloodbath for the Ohio GOP (as it was for their Pennsylvania brethren), this year may not be as bad. However, a lot will come down to the presidential election - if the Republican carries the Buckeye state, most embattled Republican incumbents hold on; if Hillary takes it, we lose more ground here. Thanks Bob Taft!

Republican Held, Leans Republican
- AK at large: Don Young and the rest of the Alaska GOP are in increasingly hot water for potential ethical laxities...but whether or not Alaskans care may be another story entirely. Last I checked there wasn't much of an AK Democratic Party, but we'll see.
- CO-4: Chris Cilizza hits the nail on the head with this one, so I'll just quote him:

Every election we look at the strong Republican performance of this district and conclude that there is no way Rep. Marilyn Musgrave can lose the seat. And every election she barely manages to win. This time we won't be fooled. Democrats are heavily targeting this race and Musgrave has proven that she underperforms in this eastern Colorado seat.

I'll add that in addition, Republicans have been unable to find a strong candidate to run for Senate (Wayne Allard's retirement has opened up a seat) while Democrat Mark Udall has been waiting for this opportunity for years. The state did go for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but I'm leery of describing it as truly red anymore; if it shows its purplishness again next fall, Musgrave may be victim (purple people eater?).

- CT-4: Chris Shays holds a rather macabre distinction: he is the only remaining Republican Representative from New England. The rest were cut down last fall. Again to go to CC, Shays recently threatened retirement (and a de facto loss of the seat) if not given some perks in the House, but it still may be too much. A lot here rides on Iraq - if things are improving, voters may be a bit more forgiving.

- IL-10: Really, CQ? Democrat Dan Seals had no primary opposition last time and an impeccable environment. And he blew it. Now he's got a primary challenger in the person of Clinton White House staffer Jay Footlik (who may have been put up to the task by fellow ex-Clintonista Rahm Emanuel), and Mark Kirk ain't going to be sleeping on the job. But this is a pretty purple district, so a lot may out of Kirk's control. Namely Obama - should the Illinois darling win his party's nomination, Kirk may as well start looking for a position on a corporate board.

Democratic Held Seats, Leans Democratic
- AZ-8: (Again) - really CQ? The GOP held on to this district for as long as it did because Jim Kolbe was sufficiently moderate to do so; he also probably won points in Tucson, a big university town, for his sexual orientation. Conventional Republicans are at a disadvantage here, and Kathy Giffords showed herself to be mildly competent last time. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer once revealed one of his two secrets to advertising to be appear on a horse (the other one was hold a gun): Giffords has taken it to heart, appearing on horseback in many parades and promotional materials. [Note to Arizona Republicans: next time you redistrict, swap some land between the 8th and the neighboring majority-minority 7th. I.e. find the thirty-something percent that vote against Grijalva every two years and tie them into the 8th!]

Again, it's hard to predict much this far out, especially as we don't know who the presidential nominees will be. My guess is that if Hillary's nominated, some of these Republicans won't be feeling the heat so much as she'll turn off swing voters in many purple and light-red states. Many of the Democrats they list are here because they hold seats Bush won in '04, but I don't think that'll make much of a difference now. Long story short, and it's pathetic, but the GOP has little chance of retaking the House next fall.

This Larry Craig Kerfuffle

You have to give it up to Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Having recently been accused of being gay, he trots out the wife, denies the story, and goes on with his life. He then allegedly engages in lewd behavior/propositions an undercover cop in Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

Now it turns into a firestorm, with Mitt Romney, whom the Senator supported, calling his behavior "disgusting," and comparing it to Bill Clinton and Mark Foley. That is, of course, an entirely unfair comparison, given that we know, thanks to the little blue dress, the real nature of Clinton and Lewinsky's relationship, and thanks to instant message records, the explicit nature of Foley's advances to pages. However this is entirely different - Craig wasn't in a position of power over the fellow in the next stall, the cop presumably was of age, and it didn't happen in Craig's office. Ed Morrissey does a far better job of dissecting this than I, so be sure to read it.

But let's turn to the political side of things: Craig is up for reelection next year, and hasn't yet indicated whether or not he'll run again. Democrats are licking their chops, but this is a state that Bush won with 68% of the vote in '04, and which hasn't sent a Democrat to Washington since 1994. If Craig chooses to step down, the state's Republican governor will appoint another Republican to fill out his term, maintaining the balance of power. Even if more salacious tales come out (such as the one about Craig in a Union Station bathroom), it's entirely unclear whether or not the Democrats could find a viable candidate to run against him or his successor. Right now, as with Vitter in Louisiana, this doesn't look to change the political calculus - let's hope it stays that way.

Data Shows Durbin Vulnerable?

That's the claim from a poll cited on Illinois Review, which pegs the approval rating of the Senate's #2 Democrat at 49% favorable/24% unfavorable, and almost a dead heat (36%-33%) on whether he puts Illinois or Washington first.

As much as I'd love to see Durbin returned to private life, none of this data paints a picture of vulnerability by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually difficult to gauge any sort of vulnerability on Durbin's part due to a real paucity of polling data. No Senator's invulnerable, but Durbin's not exactly an endangered incumbent at present.

Oh and I treat these numbers with the greatest degree of skepticism because of the poll itself - only 400 respondents, MOE +/-4.9%, no notes as to who the pollster is etc.

Congressional Rematches

Politico reviews a bunch of Congressional rematch races - both Democrats who didn't quite make it last time, and Republicans who got sloppy and didn't put up a big enough fight. I agree with the general sentiment - that for Democrats, it's over; if they couldn't win last cycle under almost ideal circumstances, they probably can't win next year. Anyways, many of them have drawn primary challengers for exactly that reason.

Of course this doesn't mean that narrowly-victorious Republican incumbents should breathe easy, but should instead get ready for a fight. And can the defeated Republicans make a comeback? Probably not.

South Dakota Senate

Last night, I ran through the top 10 Senate races, including South Dakota's, where incumbent Democrat Tim Johnson's recent medical emergency has created some unique challenges for Republicans looking to run against him. Politico's got the story as well as some updates on his rehabilitation.

An Open Seat in Illinois

The Crypt reports that seven-term Republican incumbent Ray Lahood of Illinois will not seek reelection. Despite its giving Bush 58% of the vote in '04, the D-Trip has already expressed interest. They'll need a good bit of luck, including Obama as the nominee. Though personally speaking, I'm not sure if I buy into the conventional wisdom that Obama's clinching the nomination will radically affect the state's political dynamics. In Obama's only statewide race, he admittedly garnered 70% of the vote - but he was running against Alan Keyes! I think a lot depends on who the GOP's nominee is - if it's Giuliani, the Obama Effect may be muted.

So far this is the only open-seat race in Illinois, and I don't think any others are likely to arise.

Senate Race Notes

Chris Cillizza (second post referencing him - any guess where I am on my bloglines?) has another excellent roundup and ranking of next year's Senate contests, with a couple of surprises. The first one that hits you is Mitch McConnell's presence, even without a serious challenger (though check out CC's later post for a potential emergence of one); I'm not discounting the possibility of McConnell being in hot water for all the reasons he lists (Kentucky GOP and governor besieged, McConnell as the face of an unpopular party, etc.), but he's also an extraordinarily strong campaigner. So was Daschle - just saying.

Speaking of South Dakota, does Governor Mike Rounds run even if Senator Tim Johnson decides to seek reelection despite his recent brain surgery (from which he hasn't yet returned to work)? I dunno about that one, primarily because South Dakotans may be inclined to give Johnson the sympathy vote, even if Rounds may be more in line with many of their views (though the presidential dynamic may change things, as it likely did in Thune's victory over Daschle in 04). Talking to my sole friend from South Dakota, I get the sense that no one there wants another nasty, brutish, and overly-long race like the 04 contest, with an absurd amount of money spent by both candidates in a state with dirt cheap advertising. Everyone got sick of it pretty quick, and that's the sort of race Rounds may have to run to win.

Cilizza's got Nebraska too low on the list (#8) for my taste. Why? Because Hagel looks unlikely to seek reelection, even if he does, there's a credible Republican challenger in Jon Bruning (who also raised credible sums last quarter), and it's a very red state in a presidential year. There's also no serious Democratic contender at present, though Cillizza is the first credible source I've seen to note the rumors of Bob Kerrey coming back to run. I'd put this higher on the list, maybe replacing Oregon at #7, given that Democrats haven't got an announced, credible candidate yet.

His #6, Virginia, deserves to be higher, especially as the rumors of John Warner's retirement grow. If John Warner retires, Virginia Democrat friends tell me Mark Warner will run, and likely win (especially if ex-presidential nominee Jim Gilmore and Rep Tom Davis start attacking each other).

His #3 is Louisiana, but given the state's topsy-turvy politics, Mary Landrieu may not be in too much trouble, dropping this one a spot or two. We've got a Democrat-turned-Republican looking to run against her and (if I'm not mistaken) a Republican-turned-Democrat running for governor. Assuming that Rep Bobby Jindal wins this year's gubernatorial contest (seems likely), he won't run against her; he might be the GOP's best hope. On top of all of this is the Vitter mess, and the fact that he seems determined to tough it out, further muddying the waters (though if Jindal runs, I think the chances of Vitter resigning increase noticeably). I haven't recently talked to my Louisiana source, so maybe her insights will change my thinking.

Given what he says, I'd flip his #2 and #1 races, especially due to that New Hampshire poll showing Jeanne Shaheen just walloping John Sununu (not surprising since the state went left in a big way last year).

So let's sum it up; my ten:
1) New Hampshire
2) Colorado
3) Maine (blue state, not a good time for a Republican, even if she's a moderate)
4) Virginia
5) Minnesota (see logic on #3, but change pronoun)
6) Lousiana (I know, gasps of protest that it's dropped this far; also sad that this the Republicans' best pick-up opportunity)
7) Oregon
8) Nebraska (if we're sticking with CC's formula of likely to change parties, this may go RINO to R)
9) South Dakota
10) Kentucky

At present, I see no reason to put Dole on this list; the Democrats can't find anyone credible to run against her (best shot Mike Easley is a no-go, as are a lot of less-notable others), Dole's savvy and tough (and can always trot out Viagra Bob), and it's a presidential year.

But it's an overall bad picture for the GOP: I don't see them picking up a seat unless Landrieu blunders or Louisiana politics get a little more straightforward (ha!) or unless Johnson announces he's not running again, or something crazy happens elsewhere (still think Dick Durbin's more vulnerable than is acknowledged for all the crap he spews). Democrats stand to pick up some combination of at least two (VA if J.Warner backs out or NH if Shaheen gets in are my most likely). But again, a lot can change and if the environment for Republicans improves, they may be able to hold steady (and even if it doesn't, Warner's repositioned himself on the war to a degree that if he chooses to run again, he may be okay - and may help the Republican presidential nominee carry Virginia, a less surefire proposition than in 04). Sorry this is so lengthy and convoluted, hope it was at least somewhat insightful.

Rematches

Given how many close House contests there were last November, it's no surprise that many losers (on both sides of the aisle) are back for another go. CQ's got what looks to me like a pretty good list. Most are to be expected, though I feel that there should be more freshman Democrats in marginal districts on the list. As for the narrowly-victorious Republicans, a friend of mine who worked on the Seals campaign wasn't too optimistic - she felt that in many races (likely including most of the ones on this list), Democrats had missed the boat. Whether or not she's right remains to be seen, though the enormous Democratic financial advantage may partially mitigate a more balanced environment (which is itself an enormous assumption).

Cindy Sheehan (again)

More on crazy "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan's threat to run against "San Fran Nan" Pelosi. What's unclear, as far as I can tell, is whether Sheehan will run as a Democrat or a third-party candidate; I'm hoping it's the latter, which may be the more likely given the fact that she's publicly quit the Democratic Party. If so, she doesn't have to worry about winning a primary, and can run against Pelosi from now until next November.

I don't have a horse in this race (honestly I'd sell San Francisco to Canada or any other willing buyer for a buck fifty), but I hope Sheehan can run a quasi-credible campaign. If so, she might succeed in keeping Pelosi at home, rather than campaigning for Democrats across the country. It might also (if sufficiently threatening) cause the DNC and DCCC to pour resources into the district, resources that might otherwise be directed against Republicans. If Sheehan actually does have a shot, I wonder: will anti-war ultra-Leftists (Maxine Waters, Kucinich, et. al) who have publicly clashed with Pelosi endorse Sheehan? This could be a lot of fun.

Congressional Rematch

Last year in the northern suburbs of Chicago, Democrat Dan Seals gave Republican incumbent Representative Mark Kirk a run for his money. The funny thing about this race in the state's 14th district was its unexpected nature. Although the DCCC was targeting plenty of races around the country (including the nearby 6th District - Roskam and Duckworth), the 10th was largely ignored. Despite being largely ignored by the establishment, Seals ran a strong campaign; Kirk won 53-47, closer than most observers had expected.


Seals is back for a rematch, but he's got a primary challenger in Jay Footlik, a former Clinton administration aid. According to Politico, Kirk, Seals, and Footlik have all been fund raising at a frenzied pace. Combined with the fact that both the NRCC and DCCC will be pouring resources into the race, this'll be one to watch. Chicago's collar counties (basically suburbia) have been going purple over the last couple years as is the trend in suburban areas across the country (suburban Northern Virginia's move to the left helped both Kaine and Webb win there in 2005 and 2006); traditionally Republican voters have moved even further away from urban areas into "exurbia." This trend has been especially true of the 10th district, complicating Kirk's job.

In the big picture, watching the 10th will be instructive. If Republicans want to regain Congress and maintain their control of the White House, it's suburban districts and voters they'll have to win over.

UPDATE: I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but Rahm Emanuel is also a former Clinton staffer - perhaps he recruited an old buddy to run? Why? Is it because Seals is black in a predominantly white district? Ooh that'd make the CBC mad!

I Love the Democratic Party!

Apparently anti-war crazy Cindy Sheehan's threatening to run against Pelosi if Madame Speaker doesn't begin impeachment proceedings against the President. Given that that seems unlikely to happen, I think we could see the Democratic primary fight of the century. I just don't know who I'd more like to see win - the crazy who admits she's crazy or the crazy one who plays like she's sane?

And people wonder why Democrats have a hard time winning national elections? This fratricidal excuse for a party is not so much the big tent as the freak show on the side.