Vulnerable House Internet Poker Opponents

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Might want to check their percentages in the '04 elections as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go for it. Should be interesting data.

[ChrisAJ]

58% Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54% (not 54 – 51.8% in 2006)
65% John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%
-- Brian Bilbray (R-CA) 53.2%
51% Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) 45.6%
52% Chris Shays (R-CT) 50.9%
61% Ric Keller (R-FL) 52.8%
63% Jim Marshall (D-GA) 50.5%
52% John Barrow (D-GA) 50.3%
52% Melissa Bean (D-IL) 50.9%
64% Mark Kirk (R-IL) 53.4%
69% Mark Souder (R-IN) 54.3%
55% Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 51.8%
54% Geoff Davis (R-KY) 51.7%
79% William Jefferson (D-LA) 30.1% (56.6% in run-off)
50% Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 55.0%
58% Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) 51.6%
57% Thad McCotter (R) 54.1%
61% Lee Terry (R-NE) 54.7%
57% Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) 49.4%
54% Heather Wilson (R-NM) 50.2%
90% Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8% (token opposition, no D in ’04)
56% Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%
51% Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%
56% Robin Hayes (R-NC) 50.1%
60% Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%
52% Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5% (the 52% was a ’05 special election, preceeding Rep., Rob Portman, regularly chalked up 75-25 wins)
60% Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%
53% Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 54.0%
60% Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%
51% Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%
59% Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%
55% Thelma Drake (R-VA) 51.3%
52% Dave Reichert (R-WA) 51.5%
55% Barbara Cubin (R-WY) 48.3%

Numbers to the left are '04 percentages.

Many of the Rs on this list were caught napping in '06, with many disregarding party warnings that they were in danger of losing. They will be much better prepared next year.

The Ds will also have to spend a lot of time and resources defending freshmen who won in districts that lean R, voted for Bush twice, etc.

[spatne]

Robin Hayes (NC-08) is a top target this cycle. Hayes will get a rematch from Larry Kissel, who I believe came within 400 votes of winning despite being outspent 4 to 1 and getting next to no support from the DCCC. The DCCC overlooked Kissell when they were doling out cash during the stretch run, missed a chance to put him over the top, and looked pretty foolish when the votes were counted. Kissell will probably get anything he wants/needs this time around, so look for a very competitive challenge.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
58% Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54% (not 54 – 51.8% in 2006)
65% John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Nice job. The data looks great. It shows that we're barking up the right tree. Almost all had tough challenges in '04 as well as '06, so they're almost always in a tough fight. As such, they may be more inclined to listen to their constituents than would someone who wins by 78% every time. Also, they're typically draw tough challengers, keeping them vulnerable.

[PokeReader]

Since this is what I do, I would be happy to put a list together. Just PM the bill numbers of the votes I should be using for the for/against standard, and I will be happy to put together a list of the most vunerable seats. The NCEC numbers won't be out for a while now, but if I use D perf for last two cycles, and previous two elections results, with a bonus to high swing numbers we will get a good solid list. What I need to know also is how many House and Senate, and if you could get me PPA numbers per House district that would be helpful. If there is any additional considerations you would like for for/against status let me know. I realize we don't really have the cleanest votes. After that we can start scoping out the challengers in those districts.

By the way, the whole PAC idea I think is what has to happen, but while I can help alot with that, setting up, fundraising, press, grassroot for PAC is a full time job at least. I cannot work for candidate then get publicly involved as a person running a PAC. So, I can do work behind the scenes, I can set things up and organize them and do the strategic work, give you press contacts, train folks in fundraising and stuff, but I can't call anyone myself, and I can't have my name used. I'm really sorry, I'd like to help more, but it wouldn't be fair to the person paying my salary.

Is there anyone else with any political experience, or if not a willing person with available time. Most of my campaign hires aren't experienced, so I'm sure we could train some people into being operatives if they were willing and able to put time into the PAC project. The key will really be the fundraising aspect. We will really need someone/s with contacts into both live and online players. They would need to be aggressive, not take no for an answer types. Because without the cash the whole thing just doesn't work.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Rep. Bachus was unopposed in 2002, 2004, and 2006! (WTF is with the people in that district???) Bush won 78% of that district's vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to live in his district. It is undoubtedly the most conservative, Bible-belted district in the country. It is highly unlikely that a non-Republican will ever win a seat in that district, and it is a virtual certainty that no one friendly to our cause will ever win a seat. Bachus is a moronic bung hole, but I am afraid that we are stuck with him. Focus your efforts elsewhere.

[Teldar]

This is a good discussion. I want to make a couple of points. First, if we are going to try to "Leach" some of these incumbents we better make darn sure that the candidate that replaces them is better on our issues, not worse.

Second, in regards to PokeReader, I am willing to devote a little time to this but it certainly wouldn't be full time. I know how to sell over the phone (I run a very successful retained search firm) and would be very good at fundraising. Why don't you IM me and we can have a discussion off line.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good discussion. I want to make a couple of points. First, if we are going to try to "Leach" some of these incumbents we better make darn sure that the candidate that replaces them is better on our issues, not worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I agree with the point you're trying to make, which to know the challengers. However, freshmen have little power in the House, so oftentimes we'll be better off with a new anti-gambling guy than the incumbant anti-gambling guy, especially if the new guy isn't an anti-gambling zealot. For example, Dave Loebsack is FAR better than Jim Leach. We'll have to look race-by-race once there are some declared challengers, I guess.

[Teldar]

Engineer,
My point is there are a ton of races we can fund but we will have somewhat limited resources. I would prefer to invest a significant amount of our money in 5-10 races where we can make an impact on a race that will definitely turn an opponent to a supporter then to spread that same money over 50 races where 40 of them are only marginally better and it puts our best 5-10 races at risk because we didn't donate enough to them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,
My point is there are a ton of races we can fund but we will have somewhat limited resources. I would prefer to invest a significant amount of our money in 5-10 races where we can make an impact on a race that will definitely turn an opponent to a supporter then to spread that same money over 50 races where 40 of them are only marginally better and it puts our best 5-10 races at risk because we didn't donate enough to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. My original post says we should make a list of ten or so vulnerable pro-UIGEA representatives. Again, that's just the list. Of these, I imagine we'd be actually put our focus on some fraction of these.