In 2006, I began compiling composite rankings from the various individuals and publications that rank the likelihood of turnover in House seats, in addition to my own ratings.  I plan to do the same thing this year, and this is the first installment.  

This is an attempt to objectively assess the state of the primary race.  Full disclosure: I was an ardent Edwards supporter, voted for Obama in Illinois after he dropped out, and would be satisfied with either candidate as the nominee--although I think Obama has a slight electability edge in a race against McCain.  

This is my first go at rating the House races this cycle.  Like 2006, there appear to be far more targets for the Democrats than the Republicans--despite the fact that the Dems now hold more seats and have a large freshman class.  These factors are offset by the rash of GOP retirements, the fact that the GOP won most of the close races in 2006, and the money disparities both between the DCCC and NRCC and between individual Dem and GOP candidates.

I will get back to the House race profiles shortly, but with all of the recent developments on the Senate side, it seemed like a good time to do a Senate diary.

In sum, the question in the Senate in 2008 is not "which party will gain seats?", it is "how many seats will the Democrats gain?"  There are 22 Republican seats up, and only 12 Democratic ones.  Even more importantly, there are 5 open GOP seats to none on the Dem side, with the potential for 1 more Republican retirement (with that incumbent under investigation with the potential for indictment).

Next, add in the facts that 6 of the 12 Dem incumbents are basically untouchable, only one Dem incumbent is vulnerable and has a potential top tier challenger, Dems have top challengers to a host of potentially vulnerable Republican incumbents, and the DSCC has a massive financial edge over the NRSC, and you have the recipe for another blowout like 2006, 1994, 1986 or 1980.

This is to be the fourth of 20 diaries looking at the House districts which look most likely to be in play in 2008.  This is supposed to be a weekly feature but I’ve been AWOL for about two months due to various work and home issues (and the fact that I’ve been drawn into discussions on threads when I have had dKos time rather than working on these).  I include my vulnerability score in each profile.  A higher number means more vulnerable.  Generally, if a district is on the list, the score is above 90, and above 100 means likely top tier.  The next two paragraphs are the intro which will appear at the top of each, so feel free to skip.

This is to be the second of 20 diaries looking at the House districts which look most likely to be in play in 2008.  This is supposed to be a weekly feature but I missed last week.  I added my vulnerability score for each district in this round and will go back and edit the previous diaries to include this.  A higher number means more vulnerable.  Generally, if a district is on the list, the score is above 90, and above 100 means likely top tier.  The next two paragraphs are the intro which will appear at the top of each, so feel free to skip.

This is to be the second of 20 diaries looking at the House districts which look most likely to be in play in 2008.  This is supposed to be a weekly feature but I missed last week.  The next two paragraphs are the intro which will appear at the top of each, so feel free to skip.

The goal is to put up one a week, which will finish the series before the holidays.  These are largely districts that I mentioned in my overview diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/...  In addition, I decided to add 19 "50 State Strategy" districts.  These are districts which would not otherwise make my list but where the Democratic nominee in 2006 a) improved by at least 5 percentage points on 2004 performance and b) held the incumbent under 60%.  Finally, recent developments have added a couple of seats.  I will look at the seats regionally, and look at both GOP-held and Dem-held seats together.  Of the 20 groupings I came up with, there are two which contain only GOP seats to target.  The rest are a mix.  Each profiles between 5 and 9 races.

This is to be the first of 20 diaries looking at the House districts which look most likely to be in play in 2008.  The goal is to put up one a week, which will finish the series before the holidays.  These are largely districts that I mentioned in my overview diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/...  In addition, I decided to add 19 "50 State Strategy" districts.  These are districts which would not otherwise make my list but where the Democratic nominee in 2006 a) improved by at least 5 percentage points on 2004 performance and b) held the incumbent under 60%.  Finally, recent developments have added a couple of seats.  I will look at the seats regionally, and look at both GOP-held and Dem-held seats together.  Of the 20 groupings I came up with, there are two which contain only GOP seats to target.  The rest are a mix.  Each profiles between 5 and 9 races.

Eugene has a very well thought out and well argued diary on the rec list right now which explores what building a Progressive movement means and posits that it requires "moving on" from the goal of electing "any old Democrat."  In considering the issue, eugene makes many good points (which I admit is as per usual even though I am usually arguing against him).  Nonetheless, I think that it is possible to build a progressive movement without engaging and attacking the currently entrenched non-progressive elements of the party.

This diary is intended to be an overview of the 2008 House elections picture.  In the coming weeks, I will profile each district and race listed below (plus those which later look competitive due to retirements, scandals, or exceptional challengers) and also put together vulnerability rankings as I did in 2006.  Overall, the successes of 2006 (winning fully 30 seats previously held by Republicans and holding all of our own marginal seats) mean that there will be a healthy dose of defense this time.  Nonetheless, there are numerous potential Republican targets as well.  And this is before most retirement announcements.  I include 59 GOP seats and 44 Dem seats here.

The first quarter of fundraising for the 2007-08 election cycle is over and the campaigns were supposed to file reports with the FEC on Sunday.  I say supposed to because 47 incumbents' summaries were unavailable on the FEC website as of this writing (not counting the 4 we know are out).  Of the remaining 384, I looked for clues about who raised little in the quarter (I defined little as under $25,000).  When the remaining reports are up, I will update this.  

I looked through Bowers’ Top 50 list and agree with much of it, but I thought he put too much emphasis as a whole on the "candidate quality" of the Republican incumbent, and too little on the makeup of the district.  Connie Morella was a helluva politician surviving numerous tough challenges in a Dem-leaning district, but all it took was a Chris Van Hollen (our new DCCC chair) to take her down.  If you look at the incumbents defeated in recent times, most lost because they were fundamentally out of step with their districts and ran up against a challenger who was able to competently remind voters of it and present a viable alternative.  At this stage in the cycle, we have to figure and hope and work to get the best possible challenger in every race.  With that in mind, it’s hard to make the case that, say, Marilyn Musgrave is in more danger of losing than, say, Chris Shays if each has an equally strong challenger.

Well, now that Ciro Rodriguez’s win in TX-23 is in the books, all 2006 races are now decided (with the exception that Christine Jennings may yet succeed in invalidating the FL-13 result and securing a new election).  I figure that now is as good time as any to recap and analyze the results and try to figure what they may mean for 2008 and beyond.  

Tester held a 3,128-vote lead over Burns with only one county left to count its votes. That county had fewer than 1,000 votes to report. An AP canvass of Montana counties estimated there were not enough provisional ballots still to be counted for Burns to overcome his deficit.

Not much to add.  With Webb's lead likely to hold up, this should mean a Dem Senate!