There has been a great deal of hand-wringing and despair about the Democrats' chances in November since Francine Busby lost to Brian Bilbray in the special run-off in CA-50 by 4.5% or some 7,000 votes. But is this justified? That there were simultaneous party primaries for a spot on the November ballot, and a run-off for the remainder of Duke Cunningham's term, allows some unique perspectives. From the numbers we can conclude that Busby did well among Democratic voters and overwhelmingly took the independent voters, while in the run-off Bilbray barely exceeded the total of Republicans voting in his party primary.  Busby's problem was that there were far more registered Republican voters, by a nearly 12% margin. Perhaps a more charismatic candidate could have won, but perhaps not. With a relatively middle-of-the-road positions, Busby came close in a very conservative district.

Far from portending defeat, Busby's results actually suggest that Democratic challengers have a good chance of success in districts where Republicans exceed Democrats by a much smaller margin, say up to 3-5%, and especially where Democratic voters actually exceed Republican voters. The Dems need 15 seats to take the House. There are at least 15 seats where a capable and reasonably well-funded challenger would seem to have a good-to-reasonable chance of winning, and several more seats where special factors would seem to give the Dem candidate a sufficient edge even though the margin of GOP voters is greater. There are additional seats where either Dems predominate or the GOP registration edge is small enough not to be an unsurmountable obstacle, or where the potential weakness of the GOP candidate may create an opening for the Dems, for a total of 32 competitive seats. Finally, there are 16 seats that at the moment must be considered long shots, but may be worth an investment of resources to broaden the playing field.

By contrast, no Dem incumbents seem genuinely endangered at this point, and Dem fundraising is well ahead of prior years, considerably narrowing the GOP's traditional financial edge. With the Dems' lead in the "generic" ballot running in double digits, there is cause for optimism that the Dems can take the House.

First the Busby numbers. More voters turned out for the run-off than turned out for the April special election, and Busby got more votes in the run-off than in the April special election. (69,710 v. 51,632.) Some have suggested that fewer Democrats must have turned out because Busby got fewer votes in the June 6 Democratic primary than she got in the run-off, but this ignores the ability of independents to have voted for Busby in the April election, swelling her total. It is likely that more Democrats turned out in June; Busby's June run-off total was 18,700 more than her total in the June Democratic primary. These included both those who voted for Chris Young in the Dem primary (5800), and independents. By contrast, Bilbray picked up only 1465 votes over the total of all voters in the GOP primary. In short, despite much speculation to the contrary, Busby lost neither her base nor the independents. She held both. But they were just not quite enough. There are enough Democrats and independents in many other places, however, for a Dem to prevail.

Open seats
Looking to November, potential Democratic pickups fall into three categories.  (Dem candidates are listed first, then Republicans; where designated, the candidate will be selected in a forthcoming primary.)  First, there are three open seats where party registration either favors the Dems (CO-07 (Beauprez' seat, primary) and IA-01 (Nussle's seat, Braley v. Whalen) or only slightly favors the GOP (AZ-08, Kolbe's seat, primary). In all three cases there are competitive Dem candidates. The Dems have a good chance of taking these seats. In addition, there are two open seats with slightly higher GOP registration that are potential pickups: IL-06 (Hyde's seat, Duckworth v. Roskam) and NY-24 (Boehlert's seat, primary).

Freshman incumbents
Often incumbents are weakest in their first re-election. Among vulnerable freshmen in districts with more Dems are PA-08 (P Murphy v. Fitzpatrick) and WA-08 (Darcy Burner v. Reichert). Both Dems need to step up fundraising to be competitive. In IN-09 Baron Hill is challenging Mike Sodrel. Despite a solid GOP edge, Hill represented the district for 6 years before narrowly losing to Sodrel in 2004. Sodrel is reportedly unpopular and Republicans are said to be dissatisfied with Governor Mitch Daniels and the GOP. Two more potential pickups are VA-02 (Kellam v. Drake) and KY-04, where former representative Ken Lucas is challenging his successor Geoff Davis. Like IN-09, registration favors the GOP, but Dems have won here.

Veterans
Veteran legislators are usually the hardest to dislodge. Leaving aside such GOP stalwarts as Jim Leach (IA-02) and Ann Northrup (KY-03), there are several districts where Dem registration exceeds Rep, and where the 2004 challenger is back with more seasoning and more money. Potential pickups in this category include CT-02 (Courtney v. Simmons) and CT-04 (Farrell v. Shays), NH-02 (Hodes v. Bass) and perhaps the best opportunity, PA-06 (Lois Murphy v. Gerlach). There are strong new challengers in NM-01, where Attorney General Patricia Madrid is challenging Heather Wilson and FL-22 (Klein v. Shaw), where Clay Shaw survived when his 2004 opponent became seriously ill during the race.   In addition, some Republicans who have not faced a serious (or any) challenge in years are facing serious contenders this year: NY-25 (Maffei v. Walsh), OH-01 (Cranley v. Chabot), OH-15 (Kilroy v. Pryce), and PA-07 (Sestak v. Weldon) are in this category. These probably represent the Dems' best chances against House veterans.

While the CA-50 race suggests that the corruption issue is not so potent as a generic issue, it may be decisive when the incumbent himself is directly tainted by such charges. The same is probably true of scandal generally. Thus, even despite favorable regsitration advantages, the incumbents in OH-18 (Space v. Ney) and PA-10 (Carney v. Sherwood) may be vulnerable. Unpopularity may weaken incumbents in districts such as IN-07 (Ellsworth v. Hostettler) and NJ-07 (Stender v. Ferguson).

In addition, there are some districts where Dems predominate but the incumbent has proven to be a survivor. If trends turn more favorable toward the Dems, some such as Nancy Johnson in CT-05 (C Murphy), Bradley in NH-01 (primary), Charles Taylor in NC-11 (Shuler), John Sweeney in NY-20 (Gillebrand), Melissa Hart in PA-04 (Altmire) and Jon Porter in NV-03 (Hafen) may be beaten.  A pair of attractive, young challengers to Mark Kirk and Jerry Weller in IL-10 and 11 (Dan Seals and John Pavich) may surprise in those districts.  That is 32 competitive and potentially competitive districts.

Long shots
Finally, there are races in AZ-05, CA-04, CA-11, C0-04, FL-13, FL-16, IN-02, MN-06, MT-AL, NV-02, NY-26, NY-29, TX-22, VA-05, WI-08 and WY-AL, where national or local factors could alone or in combination make the races potentially competitive, although at the moment they must be considered long shots.  Among these Marilyn Musgrave in CO-04 (Paccione) won by only 51% in 2004, and may be wearing our her welcome.

If the Dems can win half of the 32 races discussed above, they can take the House. When the second quarter fundraising reports become public we will have some indication of the relative strength of our candidates. Beyond the numbers and the money, are issues and strategy, subjects for another post.