After their third special election loss in a row, Republican House leaders set up a 6-member panel to figure out what Republicans were doing wrong and what they need to do better moving forward to improve their chances in November. On Thursday, House leaders met to discuss their findings.

This observation struck me as particularly, well, spot on:

While the review said the national political environment was largely to blame for the losses, it also said Republican candidates themselves were less than optimal and their campaigns were flawed.

Understatement of the year.

And then there was this:

House Republicans lost three recent elections when customary campaign themes failed to sway voters and their candidates could not overcome the "negative perception of the national party," according to an internal review that underscores the potential for widespread losses this fall.

Umm, ya think?

But what's even richer is their prescription for what ails them:

GOP candidates on the ballot in November must show "deep empathy towards the voters" and rely on local rather than national issues, according to the report, ordered by party leaders after the loss of formerly safe seats in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi that stunned the rank and file.

In other words, pretend to give a shit. But that is a particularly uphill battle when all evidence is to the contrary. After all, it's the Republicans who vote against expanding healthcare for poor children, against college benefits for returning veterans, against an increase in the minimum wage and against the extension of unemployment insurance benefits for those hardest hit by the economic downturn. They actually don't care and voters know it.

What makes this even sweeter is that Democrats chose yesterday, the day the Republicans were wallowing in their own failure, to shoot a warning shot across the bow:

House Republicans on Thursday reviewed the defeats as Democrats signaled an intention to spend heavily in three competitive seats in New York, Oregon and Colorado. Officials said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had reserved a combined $4 million worth of television advertising time.

The races in question:

The DCCC has reserved $2.1 million for advertising for a seat in New York City in which Republican Rep. Vito Fossella intends to retire. Fossella, who is married with children, recently acknowledged fathering a child out of wedlock.

Democrats also said they will spend $1.2 million in the Portland, Ore., area, hoping to hold the seat of Democratic Rep. Darlene Hooley, who is retiring.

The third target is the seat held by Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, where Democrats said they had reserved nearly $700,000 in advertising time.

Flaunting our financial advantage and kicking them while they're down. Love it.

There's more...

The breaking news out of Oregon this morning was that Congresswoman Darlene Hooley has decided not to run for reelection in the state's fifth congressional district, which has a Cook PVI of D+1 (it tends to lean about 1 point more Democratic than the nation as a whole in Presidential elections). The Republicans have a self-funder in the district who proved to have little electoral appeal in 2006, and other names may join in the mix on that side, as well. But for those interested, Kari Chisholm gives us an idea of some of the many names on the Democratic side who could make for strong nominees. I'm summarizing his list (which is in alphabetical order), so for more head over to Blue Oregon.

• State Rep. Brian Clem, a freshman from a swing portion of the district who overwhelmingly defeated a Republican incumbent (with over 60 percent) in 2006.
  
• State Senate President Peter Courtney, who also represents a swing portion of the district.
  
• Iraq War veteran Paul Evans, a former mayor and unsuccessful 2006 state Senate candidate.
  
• House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, who comes from the heart of Clackamas County (one of the two big counties in the district).
  
• John Kroger or Greg Macpherson, who are running against each other for Attorney General in a Democratic primary.
  
• State Senator Kurt Schrader or Clackamas County Commissioner Martha Schrader, both of whom have a record of winning in red portions of the district.

One other name being floated is apparently that of Steve Novick, who is currently running for Senate in the state in a Democratic primary against House Speaker Jeff Merkley. It's not clear that he has a particular incentive to or interest in running for the House rather than the Senate. However, Novick would have the advantage of being able to transfer all of the funds from his Senate campaign to a House campaign (candidates with state campaign accounts cannot transfer those funds to a federal race).

More broadly, the trends in the district look good for the Democrats, so even though it's no doubt more difficult for a party to hold a seat left open by a retirement than it is to hold one in which a popular incumbent is running for reelection, this isn't necessarily a terrible situation for the Democrats. For instance, in 2002 Democrat Ted Kulongoski lost (.pdf) Clackamas and Marion counties, the two largest counties in the district; in 2006 he won both.

Again, obviously in a situation like this the Democrats would rather see the popular incumbent seek reelection rather than retire, opening up a seat in a competitive district. At the same time, the Democrats should hold this seat, both because of the trends in the districts and broader trends (including the fact that the DCCC has well over $30 million more in the bank than the NRCC).

There's more...

Congressional Quarterly recently updated its 2006 Projections. Of the 18 contests with new ratings, sixteen have moved in our direction.  Both of the seats moving in the Republican direction are already Republican seats, so no change there.

Of the three Senate seats, Nevada (John Ensign-R) has moved to "Safe Republican," New Mexico (Jeff Bingaman-D) has moved to "Safe Democratic," and Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee-R) is now a tossup.

In the House, only California-50 (Brian Bilbray-R) is moving toward the Republicans.  Arizona-08, Illinois-06, Minnesota-06, and Connecticut-04, all Republican seats, are now tossups.  Arizona-01, Illinois-10, and Nebraska-01 have entered the list, going from "Safe Republican" to "Republican Favored." Democratic seats in New York-27 and Oregon-05 have dropped off the list, becoming "Safe Democratic." Connecticut-05, Nevada-02, New York-20, Wisconsin-08, and Wyoming-At Large have all been upgraded to "Leans Republican."

There's more...

Congressional Quarterly recently updated its 2006 Projections. Of the 18 contests with new ratings, sixteen have moved in our direction.  Both of the seats moving in the Republican direction are already Republican seats, so no change there.

Of the three Senate seats, Nevada (John Ensign-R) has moved to "Safe Republican," New Mexico (Jeff Bingaman-D) has moved to "Safe Democratic," and Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee-R) is now a tossup.

In the House, only California-50 (Brian Bilbray-R) is moving toward the Republicans.  Arizona-08, Illinois-06, Minnesota-06, and Connecticut-04, all Republican seats, are now tossups.  Arizona-01, Illinois-10, and Nebraska-01 have entered the list, going from "Safe Republican" to "Republican Favored." Democratic seats in New York-27 and Oregon-05 have dropped off the list, becoming "Safe Democratic." Connecticut-05, Nevada-02, New York-20, Wisconsin-08, and Wyoming-At Large have all been upgraded to "Leans Republican."

There's more...