Targeting 75 House seats?

[Sam Spade]

I suspect a 25 seat strategy is more likely and productive. Below are the 25 GOP seats that seem possibly in play  in no order of vulnerability. A few are close to wishful thinking, but 25  has a certain ring to it. * seats have no incumbent, and the ** seat probably will have no incumbent.

1   Florida   Harris*   13
2   Texas   Delay   22
3   N.M   Wilson   2
4   Arizona   Renzi   1
5   Calif   Drier   26
6   Nev   Porter   3
7   Wash   Reichert   8
8   Conn   Simmons   2
9   Conn   Shays   4
10   Penn   Fitzpatrick   8
11   Penn   Gerlach   6
12   Ohio   Tiberi   12
13   Ohio   Pryce   15
14   Minn   Kennedy*   6
15   Iowa   Nussle*   1
16   Illinois   Hyde*   6
17   N. C.   Taylor   11
18   Indiana   Sodrel   9
19   Indiana   Chicola   2
20   Indiana   Hostettler   8
21   Wisconsin   Green*   8
22   Colorado   Musgrave   4
23   W.V.   Capito**   2
24   Calif   Cunningham*   50
25   Kentucky   Northrup   3

How many House  seats do I think the Dems will gain in 2006 as of the moment?  The answer is 8. But it could easily bump up to 15 without much of a shock.  I think the higher number would result in  a Dem takeover. I recall the GOP has 231 seats (I could be off), and 231-15= 216. 435-216=219.

And there you  have it.

This looks like a good list to me.

I guarantee much money will be spent on DeLay's race from the Democrat side, but I don't think it will be won unless the GOP loses the House nationally.  It may not even still be won then, unless the Democrats in Texas learn how to revamp their GOTV efforts (which have been terrible in recent years).  The District may be trending Dem, but slowly and only in Fort Bend County (not Brazoria). 

And the Galveston County part is already set in against DeLay.  I don't know whether any candidate (Nick Lampson) can bring any more votes against DeLay from that area than there already are.

[Sam Spade]

I suspect a 25 seat strategy is more likely and productive. Below are the 25 GOP seats that seem possibly in play  in no order of vulnerability. A few are close to wishful thinking, but 25  has a certain ring to it. * seats have no incumbent, and the ** seat probably will have no incumbent.

1   Florida   Harris*   13
2   Texas   Delay   22
3   N.M   Wilson   2
4   Arizona   Renzi   1
5   Calif   Drier   26
6   Nev   Porter   3
7   Wash   Reichert   8
8   Conn   Simmons   2
9   Conn   Shays   4
10   Penn   Fitzpatrick   8
11   Penn   Gerlach   6
12   Ohio   Tiberi   12
13   Ohio   Pryce   15
14   Minn   Kennedy*   6
15   Iowa   Nussle*   1
16   Illinois   Hyde*   6
17   N. C.   Taylor   11
18   Indiana   Sodrel   9
19   Indiana   Chicola   2
20   Indiana   Hostettler   8
21   Wisconsin   Green*   8
22   Colorado   Musgrave   4
23   W.V.   Capito**   2
24   Calif   Cunningham*   50
25   Kentucky   Northrup   3

How many House  seats do I think the Dems will gain in 2006 as of the moment?  The answer is 8. But it could easily bump up to 15 without much of a shock.  I think the higher number would result in  a Dem takeover. I recall the GOP has 231 seats (I could be off), and 231-15= 216. 435-216=219.

And there you  have it.

This looks like a good list to me.

I guarantee much money will be spent on DeLay's race from the Democrat side, but I don't think it will be won unless the GOP loses the House nationally.  It may not even still be won then, unless the Democrats in Texas learn how to revamp their GOTV efforts (which have been terrible in recent years).  The District may be trending Dem, but slowly and only in Fort Bend County (not Brazoria). 

And the Galveston County part is already set in against DeLay.  I don't know whether any candidate (Nick Lampson) can bring any more votes against DeLay from that area than there already are.

I tend to agree with your analysis, though I think the seat can be won with a great targeted campaign even without a wave.

The most obvious opportunity the list is missing is C0-07 Beauzprez (open), Perlemutter being the Dem here...

Other than that, I would include the following races on a target list:

LA-07, if Chris John runs, this is definitely top tier...

FL-22, I have my doubts about the ability of Dems to win against Shaw here, but State Sen.  Klein will make it a race...

PA-18 should also be included if Hafer runs, especially since there might be a good coattail effect from Casey....

NC-08, Hayes is really asking for a challenge now that he's been pivotal in not one, but two trade votes...

That said, I'd probably take Porter and maybe Renzi off the list because they're becoming more entrenched by the day.  Northup, too, seems to be nearly invincible in her district and I dont think too many dems are going to be stepping up for the challenge...we'll have to wait for her to take a shot at the senate. 

I'd forgotten about Beauprez.  In all honesty, take Harris off of the list and put Beauprez on it, even though Torie has it as #1.  IIRC, Harris always underperformed in that district as compared to Bush and that district is a decently Republican one (for central Florida). I could be wrong on this, corrections will be noted (this is StatesRights territory)

Besides, the state Democrat party in Florida is close to being on life support and in order to run strongly in local races, your state party needs to be in order (no matter how much money is spent nationally).  It's one of the reasons why I rate DeLay higher than does Torie.

I agree with regards to Renzi.  Of course, if he doesn't run, then the seat becomes swing again.  Porter also has the advantage of a strong state Republican party in Nevada that Northrup does not have as much of in Kentucky.  For that reason, I rate her higher.

In short, the Democrats' best chance to pick up seats in 2006 is probably within the Rust Belt/Ohio Valley and the two Connecticut seats.  Just my gut feeling on the matter.

[Sam Spade]

The GOP didn't take out 50+ Dems in '94. They got 30-something (34?) in a once-in-a-generation, maybe not even that likely, event.

I don't know about incumbents, but this indicates a net pickup of 54 (108 swing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_election,_1994

True, though most of the victories were localized.  Most of the switches occurred in the South or in Washington State, where I think there was something like a 7-seat switch, which went back to being evenly split later.

[Sam Spade]

The GOP didn't take out 50+ Dems in '94. They got 30-something (34?) in a once-in-a-generation, maybe not even that likely, event.

I don't know about incumbents, but this indicates a net pickup of 54 (108 swing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_election,_1994

True, though most of the victories were localized.  Most of the switches occurred in the South or in Washington State, where I think there was something like a 7-seat switch, which went back to being evenly split later.

I find it amazing that the House Speaker lost his seat in that election, especially since Nethercutt broke his promise on term limits.  What happened there to cause that?

Well, obviously no one knew Nethercutt was going to break his election promise before he did, so I doubt that could be an issue. 

Honestly, I don't know much about what caused such a crazy shift in Washington State in 1994, especially since it wasn't mirrored by Oregon or any surrounding states and I really don't think it had anything to do with the Southern movement.  Maybe it had to do with the corruption issues that got Rostenkowski.

Maybe Alcon or Vorlon knows.  Thoughts?