Obviously the loser factor of the Republican candidate makes this a poor test of the scope of the Democratic advantage. On the other hand, why couldn't the R's find someone better to run for such a Republican seat?

A few comments. There are arguments to be made that this election is a harbinger of GOP doom in the fall but there are some things unique to this race that may not make it the disaster to the GOP that it appears at first blush. (Initially, as the previous poster noted, IL-8 is already in Dem hands) It should also be noted, the IL GOP establishment did not "pick" Oberweis as its candidate for this election, there was a primary and he beat out another well known candidate in the area both to fill the remainder of Hastert's term and to run for a new term in November. In the process of doing that, Oberweis really pissed off his opponent, Sen. Lautzen, who demanded an apology from Oberweis for sleazy campaign tactics (at which Oberweis excels), which he never got. As a consequence, Sen. Lautzen refused to endorse Oberweis. If you look at the vote in the most GOP county in the district on Sat. it was about 1/2 of the total turn out from the primary, about 1/2 of which went to Lautzen. In addition, the Chicago Tribune, hardly a bastion of liberal democracy, lambasted Oberweis for misleading and grandstanding campaign tactics (of which he was blatantly guilty). It is also correct that Oberweis has run so many times and lost, he is slowly becoming the Harold Stassen of IL politics. He merely looks like a check book looking for an office to buy.

On the other hand, this was a pretty safe GOP seat, held by the speaker of the house. The RCCC poured over a million dollars into this race (most of it spend on really misleading TV ads) and Oberweis poured a lot of his own money into the race (without properly reporting a lot of it in violation of the millionaire rule); Foster was clearly outspent. This race was also run on the big issues of the day. Foster is not some Blue Dog Dem pretending to be a Republican. He made it clear he was opposed to the war, to tax cuts for the wealthy and to amnesty for the telcos. The GOP lost no time in painting Foster as a liberal Dem. In a really GOP leaning district, you'd think this would be the kiss of death, but Foster won anyway.

If Obama is on the top of the ticket in November, the Dems will hold this seat and might pick up 2-3 more in IL.

Chris- Illinois' 8th district isn't GOP-held. It's held by Melissa Bean, a proud Blue Dog Democrat.

My problem with FL is they have the worst state party of any "major state". FL has a democratic party registration advantage, yet they can't control the state house so they get redistricted into oblivion at both the state and US House level. The DNC may be better off spending money on getting the party into shape down there 1st.

Posted by: dopper0189 | March 10, 2008 01:51 PM

There are only a few hundred thousand more Ds than Rs in Florida and around 2 million unaffiliated voters. Most of the independents have been voting Republican. Many are quite conservative.

Please let it be true.

Signed,
Blue in the Minnesota 6th

Wait until November when many more GOP Congressional seat losses are put "in context."

I'm now buried down here in the weeds, but in case phoenix2000x is still reading, tell me, if Oberweis was such a loser, WHY DID THE REPUBLICANS KEEP RUNNING HIM?

Yes to Chris, BUT: As is acknowledged only obliquely in the posting, this was an open seat. Defeating an incumbent is a lot harder.

ALSO, from the metaphor police: It's not that the playing field is tilted--that suggests unfairness. Rather, the Dems vs. the GOP this year could be Green Bay (13-3) vs. the Ravens (5-11), i.e., a strong team against a weak one.

Veto-proof = 67 seats. That would be an eye-popper. A filibuster-proof majority is possible, but not very probable. I'd be happy with a gain of 4 and thrilled with 6.

'Before anyone points this out, I acknowledge that it is not possible for the Dems to gain a veto-proof majority in the Senate this year.'

why do you say this?

The Illinois Repub picked Oberweis to run because frankly they didn't have a whole lot of options. Republicans in Illinois have been on a slow decline since Rep. Governor Ryan was forced to resign in 2002 (he's currently in jail).

Remember Alan Keyes for Senate in 2004? The party infighting that led to that fratricidal insanity has never been fully resolved. You just don't hear much from the Illinois Repubs these days despite the fact that our Democratic governor (Blagojevich) and half the Democratic legislature is literally begging to be knocked out of office.

As a strong Democrat from Illinois I can assure you that this whole State (well maybe not Chicago!) would welcome a strong and reenergized Republican party. But from the looks of things it's going to be a long wait. For the time being look for self-financing to be the main trait of Illinois GOP candidates.

Peixegato: you asked why the national Republican leadership didn't come up with a better candidate. I can think of two reasons:

(a) there isn't any such thing (who "came up with" McCain?)

(b) even if there was such a thing, the Illinois Republican organization is if anything even more divided and chaotic than the Republican's are nationally. The last Republican governor of Illinois is in jail. The last Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Illinois was Alan Keyes - that is, before this year's sacrificial victim, Steve Sauerberg, whom I actually don't know anything about, such was the low level of publicity of the primary candidates.

Anyway, as to the actual issues on which Foster won and Oberweis lost, let me say something about the TV commercials here.

Oberweis ran on two issues. First, he made the war an issue, boasting of his support for Bush and charging that "Bill Foster doesn't even support the troops." Second, he charged that "Bill Foster wants to raise your taxes" by some huge sum of money, $3000 per person or $8000 per family or something. It developed that Team Oberweis had taken some number and ground it through an on-line calculator at the Heritage Foundation site, and then multiplied that number by five to measure the additional hit over five years .... it was so bogus I can't imagine it convincing very many undecideds.

Foster's commercials hit Oberweis for a couple things, not necessarily from the left. First, they China-baited him. They pointed out that an investment firm of his invests in Chinese companies that "take jobs" from Illinois. By contrast, Foster emphasized his own record building a local business. Second, they claimed Oberweis was a hypocrite on the immigration issue because undocumented workers had been found at his own dairy. Third, they had a quote from him from 2004 that "I support Bush on just about everything." Those are the main things I remember.

Anyway, what I get out of this is not so much that Foster won by running against the war, as that Oberweis lost by running for the war. Also, being tagged as a loyal Bushie didn't help him any, and there was also this protectionist theme.... these are "national issues" if you like, but will they play everywhere for every race? Not sure.

Just like other discredited Parties of the past, there will be a period when no one will admit to having been a member and the the "Neo" form will appear. Neo-Nazis, Neo-Conservatives and coming soon....Neo-Republicans. They'll march with signs saying, "Down with Government!", "No Taxes!" and our children will ask. "who are those crazy people?"

Just like other dicreditted Parties of the past, there will be a period when no one will admit to having been a member and the the "Neo" form will appear. Neo-nazis, Neo-conservatives and coming soon....neoRepublicans. They'll march with signs saying, "Down with Government!", "No Taxes!" and our children will ask. "who are those crazy people?"

I really can't read drindl anymore. Her hatred and jealous of everyone is just too nauseating.

I really can't read Maureen Dowd anymore. Her hatred and jealous of other women is just too nauseating.

"People will have to choose which of America's sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?"

Duh ... racism.

I wonder if 59 Dems + Lieberman = enough votes to cut off debate (on, e.g., health care reform).

Good job Chris. I suppose Karl Rove's 50+1 electoral strategy for the GOP appears to spell doom for them for a long time to come. What instead Rove has created is a 60+1 electoral base for the Dem's.

As for Bill Foster, he has a PhD in physics and started a theatre lighting company with his brother. Foster also worked at Fermi-Lab (n the 14th district) for over 20 years. I don't think he's ever run for office before. He does not seem like a typical politician--very scholarly, very soft-spoken (acc to my sister who lives in that district).

During the primary, his ads made a big deal about all the Nobel Prize winners who endorsed him.

During his victory speech, one of the first things he mentioned is how he will be another superdelegate supporting Obama.

Foster is expected to be part of the Blue Dog Democrat group.

Before anyone points this out, I acknowledge that it is not possible for the Dems to gain a veto-proof majority in the Senate this year.

PG

If Oberweis is such a horrible candidate, then why did the Repub party pick him to run? If he ran because nobody else would, then what does that say about the Party as a whole? Sounds like the Repubs in that district are getting tired of how their party is doing things on the national level and don't want to take a dance with the devil.

To make things worse, it looks like Oberweis will be the "choice of the party" once again in November. WHY would a party continue choose someone when its members complain that he is such a horrible candidate? Seriously, will somone please explain this to me?

I hope Repubs continue to believe the "its not the message, its the messenger" mentality. It will help us Dems pick up a veto-proof majority in BOTH houses of Congress (even though we won't need it with Obama in the WH).

PG

No matter how resounding the defeat, it's only temporary. People have short memories; if they didn't, Ohio wouldn't have bought Hillary's line on NAFTA. The Goldwater landslide loss in 64 was followed by Nixon in 68. Republicans thought they'd achieved an ongoing majority -- maybe they figured if they could get Bush re-elected, they could do anything. Obviously, they miscalculated. Allowing for the fact that the Repub candidate was a loser, you still have to take from this that the GOP base is dispirited (or has flipped) and it's the Dems' election to lose (read: nominate the Dems' answer to Oberweis, Hillary Clinton).

Those who the Gods would destroy, they first make vain.

Dems won't need a veto-proof majority with a Dem President. But they do need 60 in the Senate to cut off debate and keep Repubs from blocking votes on legislation.

Oberweis is a sleazy politician who is unloved even by many Republicans for his (often) blatantly erroneous attack ads. He ought to stick to the dairy business (his ice cream is outstanding) and forget politics.

If a Republican can't win IL 14, it's going to be a challenge for them everywhere.

"Well, we will have Hillary Clinton to kick around some more, at least for another few weeks. The Mummy kicked open the sarcophagus door and, despite the rotting bandages dating back to Iowa, began staggering around terrorizing folks all over again. "She is a monster," Obama adviser Samantha Power told a reporter from the Scotsman -- and not a monster in a cute Loch Ness blurry long-distance kind of way but something far more repulsive and in your face. "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh,'" continued Ms. Power, warming to her theme perhaps more than is advisable even in an interview with an overseas newspaper.

The New York Times took a different line. The only monster is you -- yes, you, the American people. Surveying the Hillary-Barack death match, Maureen Dowd wrote: "People will have to choose which of America's sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjczMDE2Zjk3ODlhNDUwMGQyOGExNTU5YTE1OTBjMTE=

Oberweis had the most money to spend (self-finance) as well as name-recognition, which are at a premium in the primary stage of a Congressional campaign. Yes, he already lost several races beforehand.

Former IL state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger was asked by Hastert to run for re-election in 2006 so that he could stay on to succeed Hastert at some point. I know this because I know Rauschenberger. But, because two of the candidates in the special election were self-financing millionaires, Rauschenberger decided to take a pass and to leave the IL Senate.

Had it not been for Oberweis and that other self-funder, IL-14 might have had a Republican candidate who would have succeeded Hastert.

As it stands now, Oberweis will get his re-match in November but will lose to Foster.

Now, for the "working majority" -- it's not how big the majority is in the House (unless you're talking a veto-proof 2/3, which is 290 seats), but whether you have 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. I just don't see how the Democrats can get to 60 in November. They could win 3-4 more Senate seats, and 5-6 if it's a real landslide, but that still doesn't get them to the magic 60.

So I guess this disqualifies Spitzer as AG in a D Admin.

For those of you who missed this tidbit from NPR:

After the polls closed, more than 1 million Texans also attended caucuses, the results of which determine how about one-third of the state's delegates get awarded.

The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegated to Clinton's 30 delegates.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

bsimon, you can turn away from the car wreck again.

People mention Oberweis's obvious flaws as a candidate, but my impression is that Foster was hardly a seasoned pro himself. Was this not his first run for office. Moreover, I've read that he was pretty stiff on the campaign stump. Anyone have more info on him.

"Mrs. Spitzer just caught up to Hill in executive experience."

Ouch!

"Can you do something soon on the Spitzer matter and how it affects Hillary?"

Mrs. Spitzer just caught up to Hill in executive experience.

cpu111

While the Trib didn't endorse Oberweis, the self-proclaiimed "progressive" Sun-Times DID. Shows you the power of newspaper endorsements.

Scientician @ 2:40
"Can someone detail please the unique flaws in Oberweis the candidate that make him so much worse than many other Republicans who have won or held contested seats in recent elections, notably in 2006 a Democratic tide year?"

Go back and read phoenix2000x @ 1:27. To paraphrase, Oberweis is a nasty old selfish rich jerk who doesn't generate any sort of excitement among R's. He won the primary because Denny Hastert endorsed him -- for whatever reason. Any half-decent R should have been able to hold IL-14.

With all those districts at stake in Florida and Michigan, the Democrats better figure out how to do right by their voters there!

I think you are way overdoing the national angle - understandably so for a national reporter. I think the big thing is that Oberweis is just simply an absolutely horrible candidate. Bad enough that the Chicago Tribune didn't endorse him. That is super-duper-bad.

People here remember him from his past pathetic performances as a self-funder candidate. Go look at his commercial on Soldier Field and illegal immigration that was denounced by many Republicans. I think the Republicans could have easily won with a different candidate.

Prediction: Oberweis will not be on the ballot in November at the "urging" of the NRCC.
If that doesn't happen, he'll be toasted again.

On the assumption that Obama would turn her down should she win the nomination, Clinton/Spitzer 08!

Wow, Time Magazines "Crusader of the Year"!

"The Times reported that a person with knowledge of the governor's role believes the governor is identified as a client in court papers. Four people allegedly connected to a high-end prostitution ring called Emperors Club VIP were arrested last week.

The Web site of the Emperors Club VIP displays photographs of scantily clad women with their faces hidden, along with hourly rates depending on whether the prostitutes were rated with one diamond, the lowest ranking, or seven diamonds, the highest. The most highly ranked prostitutes cost $5,500 an hour, prosecutors said.

Spitzer, 48, built his political legacy on rooting out corruption, including several headline-making battles with Wall Street while serving as attorney general. He stormed into the governor's office in 2006 with a historic share of the vote, vowing to continue his no-nonsense approach to fixing one of the nation's worst governments.

Time magazine had named him "Crusader of the Year" when he was attorney general and the tabloids proclaimed him "Eliot Ness."

But his stint as governor has been marred by several problems, including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plot by his aides to smear Spitzer's main Republican nemesis.

Spitzer had been expected to testify to the state Public Integrity Commission he had created to answer for his role in the scandal, in which his aides were accused of misusing state police to compile travel records to embarrass Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno."

At what point, Chris, do you plan to point out that the closing ads for Foster were by Obama, that Mr Foster is closely aligned to Obama and has already said that he plans, as a superdelegate, to endorsed Obama? Or is that not pro-Hillary enough?

From the "mind" of a Red State Republican:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/03/10/dnt.ok.lawmaker.anti.gay.kwtv

One more thing worth mentioning. Every election has its currents and cross-currents and eddies. One cross-current I haven't seen mentioned much is that voters are in a surly mood. Right direction/wrong track numbers and presidential and congressional approval numbers all point to an electorate in a throw-the-bums-out mood.

The R's seem to be getting the brunt of this, given the rising Democratic partisan affiliation numbers and primary turnout and a few other indicators, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a few entrenched D incumbents lose in November as well (and a few more to lose primaries). People are fed up, and having a D next to your name isn't necessarily going to be enough.

All this feeds into the realignment rumbling we've been hearing lately. Something is afoot. We've been in a partisan stalemate since '94, if not earlier, and this stalemate is getting really stale. What it resolves into is anyone's guess, but it won't look like anything we've seen before, which means tools like PVI and tracking funds raised and spent might not be any more helpful in '08 and beyond than they were at predicting Nancy Boyda or Carol Shea-Porter in '06.

But he never said that prostutites were wrong. so it is OK with dingbat drindl. especially since he is a Dem.

Can you do something soon on the Spitzer matter and how it affects Hillary?
----------------

Now she can run for NY Governor. Perfect set up for 2012 or 2016.

He's toast, but at least it wasn't in a public toilet stall!

"The question -- at the moment -- seems to be . . . whether Democrats will be able to claim a true governing majority in January 2009."

No, the REAL question is what, in the eyes of beltway hacks like Cillizza, would constitute a "true governing majority." Considering that the Democratic edge is already wider than the GOP ever enjoyed during its 12-year reign of error, and given that Pelosi and company have had reasonably good success at pushing their bills through the House (albeit without veto-proof majorities, which again, the Gingrich-Delay era Republicans also never enjoyed) I'd say the Dems ALREADY have a "true governing majority" -- true, that is, except in the eyes of GOP diehards and feeble minded political columinists who fall, consciously or unconsciously, for their ridiculous spin.

Just curious, if someone were to go back and pour through all the dreck copy that Cillizza churned out during the days of the GOP House majority, would we find any questions raised about the "true" legitimacy of their majority? Any at all?

Dunno, but somehow I doubt it.

Chris, Great analysis. You are da man.

Can you do something soon on the Spitzer matter and how it affects Hillary?

Thanks

Wolfson really laughable now:

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's chief spokesman, said during a conference call with reporters that Clinton would not pick a running mate who has not met the "national security threshold" -- as Clinton's military advisers and Wolfson put it on the call -- but that it is possible Obama could meet that threshold by this summer's Democratic convention.
-----------------

Maybe Obama just needs a tan?

Dave,

"The other missing part, identified by others, is that Oberweis is a pretty poor candidate. If you are going to title your post "Putting the Haster Seat loss in Context", the least you could do is to provide the full context of the story."

Can someone detail please the unique flaws in Oberweis the candidate that make him so much worse than many other Republicans who have won or held contested seats in recent elections, notably in 2006 a Democratic tide year?

I named Salo in Idaho for one. Renzi for another. Mnteng points out Bilbray in CA-50 which is a pretty good one as far as sorry GOP candidates still managing to win goes.

What makes Oberweis so uniquely bad? If so why did the RNCC support him and the Republicans of IL-14 nominate him twice (he is already the nominee for the IL-14 General this November).

Let's also remember that Il-14 has been very well treated by the Republican majority with Hastert as speaker, so if anything they have less reason than most to be mad at Republicans.

It's not enough to claim he is flawed. What flaws of his would cause Republican voters in this district to not support him or provoke ordinarily non-voting people to show up and support his opponent?

If Republicans won Pelosi's seat after she retired, I would certainly be worried for the Democrats.

Drindl,

I know you like to expose corruption or miss use of funds or bad behavior especially with R, but I just saw on CNN that the Gov of your state is spending time with prostitutes. Yes, the family values man. I guess R aren't the only ones with problems. I guess we can cross him off potential vice (not speaking of his own) pres. list of candidates.

Of course, as the old saying goes, it isn't the size of the win, it's what you do with it.

Even with a strong Dem result in the elections, if it's more Reid and Pelosi show, Repubs will rebound in 4-8 years.

Post Gingrich, the Repubs abandoned conservatism and embraced personal politics. Will Dems focus on real solutions and undercut the partisan crap?

That is the only real test of whether the coming electoral tsunami is successful or not. Tsunamis can drag you right back out into the ocean as well.

'Bill Foster won in Dennis Hastert's solidly Republican districts by running against retroactive immunity for telecoms who illegally spied on US citizens.

The Republicans tried to make an issue out of it:

[W]ould Foster have sided with Nancy Pelosi and the trial lawyers who provide the financial underpinnings of the Democratic Party, or with America's intelligence community and the American citizens it protects on a daily basis?

"Yesterday, the liberal Democrats who now control the House of Representatives played politics with our national security -- and today, America's security is today at greater risk," said Oberweis.

But it simply didn't work.

And really, why would it? No one will rush to the ballot box to defend the right of the hated telephone companies to break the law. This isn't 2002 anymore.

Some Blue Dogs may hide behind their district in their efforts to carry water for the telecoms, but the reality is unfortunately more selfish, corrupt, and crass.

As for Republicans, they hit Foster with the same old b.s. of the last decade -- he wanted to "raise the white flag" in Iraq, he wanted to raise your taxes, he was insufficiently hateful toward evil brown people.'

Looking through the list, IL-13 isn't going to change from R to D. Biggert is a pro-choice moderate R who is well-liked among her constituents. CA-50 might be a pick-up for the D's, though it is heavily R (Camp Pendleton). How that doofus Bilbray keeps getting elected in San Diego County is beyond me. Though what do you expect from Duke Cunningham's district?

"I just want everybody to absolutely clear: I am not running for vice president. I am running to be president of the United States of America."

Whew! Glad we got that cleared up. I was heavily confused for the last 8 months or so. Obama, stick to what you do best - talk about hope and change. Otherwise, many times you come off sounding condescending or wind up making idiotic statements like the one above.

CC, Interesting but slightly flawed analysis. One of them is your quote - "The fact that voters in an exurban district that went for Bush by double digits in 2000 and 2004 opted for the Democratic national message is telling." In the last post on this you said the district went 54% and 55% for Bush. I will grant you 10% is double digits but 8% is not. I am also not sure that 55% is a number worthy of "double digits" type hyperbole.

The other missing part, identified by others, is that Oberweis is a pretty poor candidate. If you are going to title your post "Putting the Haster Seat loss in Context", the least you could do is to provide the full context of the story.

"The fact that voters in an exurban district that went for Bush by double digits in 2000 and 2004 opted for the Democratic national message is telling. It suggests that the national political landscape is decidedly tilted in Democrats' favor -- that the uneven playing field of the 2006 election is still alive and well."

Does this mean that CC will FINALLY stop using numbers from 2004 as a set of inviolate "tea leaves" from which one can predict the outcome of the 2008 election?

Probably not.

Chris, this is exactly what I've been trying to tell you for a while, this is the Year of the Blue Tidal Wave - that makes the 2006 4-6 footer look like a baby.

There are no "safe" Red Bushie districts any more.

None.

Every seat is up for grabs. And they could easily lose.

I could raise $10 million to run a Dem in a Dark Red Bushie House seat right now on Facebook - and have the money within 10 days.

Prepare for the wilderness, Red Bushies, cause America is sending you there for Forty Years.

dopper0189 writes
"I would also note that a number of suburban districts in Blue states have swung more democratic. Thus I would focus on NJ,MN,NY, 2 suburban Detroit Mich districts, IL."

Here in MN, there are a lot of ticket-splitters. If you compare the victories of Reps Bachmann, Kline & Ramstad to their PVI scores, all three do far better than the GOP Pres candidate in their districts. To look at it on a statewide basis, Sen Klobuchar won her seat by a large margin, yet we reelected a GOP governor (by a very slim margin). Having said that, I think it is interesting to look at demographic changes in the districts of the above candidates. Rep Ramstad's seat is already on the line (due to pending retirement). Bachmann's district (6) is undergoing demographic changes & she's a freshman, but won in 2006 by a wide margin. I don't know if Kline (2) has ever had much of a fight for his seat.

bsimon:

"Is the donor base so tapped out that the party has to nominate candidates who don't need donors?"

Much of the GOP "donor base" were a variety of lobby groups that don't expect the GOP to retake the Majority and thus would see very little reward for their money in helping to elect their candidates.

That was the whole point of the K-Street project.

These were companies acting in simple self-interest without regard to ideology or even morality (as corporations do) - electing Republicans meant a more favourable regulatory and tax climate so they did it. Now Dems look poised to maintain or expand majorities for the near future, they will make the best of it by supporting them in hopes for damping down whatever "harm" they might fear from Democratic measures.

And it often works, if one notes that Jay Rockefeller saw a huge increase in donations from the telco lobby after becomming Chairman, and lo and behold he is the strongest Democratic propoent of granting telcos immunity. Quel coincidence!

lovin it!:

COLUMBUS, Miss -- Sen. Barack Obama delivered an animated rebuke today of suggestions from the Clintons in recent days that he could run as her vice president.

"Now first of all with all due respect, with all due respect," he said here during a town hall meeting. "I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don't' know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now.

He referenced comments from Bill Clinton in 1992 that his "most important criteria" for vice president was that person must be ready to be commander in chief.

"They have been spending the last two or three weeks" arguing that he is not ready to be commander in chief, Obama said.

"I don't understand. If I am not ready, why do you think I would be such a great vice president?" Obama asked the crowd, which gave him a standing ovation during his defense. "I don't understand."

"You can't say he is not ready on day one, then you want him to be your vice president," Obama continued. "I just want everybody to absolutely clear: I am not running for vice president. I am running to be president of the United States of America."

It's my understanding that Oberweis is the republican nominee for the seat in the general. Perhaps they will pressure him to step down though, in lieu of a more electible nominee.

As to what the race indicates for the GOP's chances in November, it would be Rove-level delusional to not see this as a huge warning shot across the GOP bow. Oberweis may be a flawed nominee, but the GOP has held strong Republican seats with extremely flawed candidates before. There was a seat in Idaho I believe, and a Republican candidate named Salo who was detested by State level Republicans. His competitor in the primary refused to endorse him and still he won against a fairly strong Democratic challenger.

Renzi held his seat despite strong hints of corruption, now borne out in multiple indictments.

Foster on the other hand was apparently not exactly Obama-esque as far as personality and charisma factors go. So it's not like Oberweis lost to some kind of Democratic dynamo.

Foster was also emphatically anti-war and anti-telecom immunity. He didn't run as a "Republican lite" like many Dems in deep Red Districts are tempted to do.

"Word is that it will be Oberweis in the fall as well, though maybe the GOP will change their minds?"

Perhaps they will...

Seems like the problem is the GOP's habit (need?) of seeking self-funded candidates. Of what is that an indicator? Is the donor base so tapped out that the party has to nominate candidates who don't need donors? Pretty shocking, if that's the case.

Sorry for the repeat above. One other thing the Dems should focus on REGIONS where the PVIs are shifting. Based on Dem victories last cycle in Indiana and KT, I would say the "border" midwest is swinging more Blue. So I would foucs on all the Ohio seats, and MO.

I would also note that a number of suburban districts in Blue states have swung more democratic. Thus I would focus on NJ,MN,NY, 2 suburban Detroit Mich districts, IL.

The only places in dixie I would target are. FL and VA. Va is becoming more mid Adlantic then southern (It will be like Delaware soon) while FL has a number of interesting seats. A couple suburban, a couple where Latino GOP backlash could come into play. My problem with FL is they have the worst state party of any "major state". FL has a democratic party registration advantage, yet they can't control the state house so they get redistricted into oblivion at both the state and US House level. The DNC may be better off spending money on getting the party into shape down there 1st.

I not sure about Wisc (maybe) but the NC 8th seat is an exception to the rule (didn't Larry Kissel lose by only 400 votes last cycle to a GOP incumbent when the DCCC didn't send him any money? It's also 30% AA)

phoenix2000x: Thanks for the cogent analysis of Oberweis. I still can't think why Hastert backed him in the primary. Any guesses?

bsimon: Word is that it will be Oberweis in the fall as well, though maybe the GOP will change their minds?

After all this glorified detailed analysis, the Fix overlooked this one very important fact: Barack Obama. He has coattails, and in fact directly put his reputation on the line by campaigning for Foster. Of course, if the Dems are so stupid as to nominate Hillary, they'll see coattails all right...from the other side, right back to a Republican majority, like in '94. She'll do more for Republicans than John McCain could ever do!

Good piece, Chris.

I'd agree with other commenters that Oberweis's history in the district means that it's hard to extrapolate vote swings from IL-14 to the nation, but you can say at very least that it's not a good harbinger for NRCC recruiting and campaigning. They should have been able to get a better candidate through the primary. Conversely, if you're a Democrat running for the House, it's as good a time as any to be running.

One interesting twist here is that while the best prospects for House gains seem to lie in 'Clinton-friendly' states -- if you go by SUSA's map -- the Senate's potential pickups lie elsewhere, in states that have turned out for Obama. At very least, you can say that there's a very different playing field for the two chambers in 2008. (One exception: Minnesota, with potential House and Senate gains.)

Ideally, Dem party strategists won't want it to be an either/or, but if it comes down to sacrificing House pickups for Senate gains, my guess is that they'd accept it, given the problems of a Liebermajority over the past year.

R+4/5 seems overgenerous, though good candidates with decent funding will make a few of those districts feel competitive. It does make you wonder whether there'll be pressure to get Crist on the ticket to secure Florida, even if he's anathema to red-meat conservatives.

Sorry Republicans, you can't just blame the loss on having a weak candidate. In red districts like this, even crazy wingnuts are supposed to get elected. But Foster ran hard against the war, against the warrantless wiretapping, and in favor of children's health insurance. Milk Dud Oberweis should have been able to pull it off considering how red his district is, but voters are fed up with Republicans.

This race also shows that Obama's coattails are real. He cut an ad for Foster that helped his name recognition and energized voters.

GREAT ANALYSIS. Something else to consider is that Congressional realignment is coming up in 3 years so if Dems take house, Senate and White House and the economy rebounds then it should allow them to control many of the state's redistricting. Care to see 3 GOPers be in the same CD in Texas?

The GOP made a major error in 2000. They used a method called "packing" when creating House ditricts. They packed Latinos, Blacks, and urban Catholics into ditricts. This created a number of Democratic ditricts with PVIs over 15%. They they had a majority of ditricts with GOP PVIs between 5 and 10.

This worked great until a "major realignment" event created a ntionwide PVI swing of 5%. Iraq, inflation, and a week economy was caused this swing (my basis is that the war on terror before 2006 caused a 5% GOP swing). This 5% swing meants that all those GOP ditricts between 5 and 10% are in danger. On the other hand the GOP 5% swing couldn't break the Dems 15% PVI advantage leading to Delay's mid decade dedistricting in TX and GA.

Bush and Delay (who led most of the nation dedistricting) have damaged the GOP for the next 10 to 15 years.

foecke303 asks
"Does your analysis take into account that Oberweis has lost 7 elections in a row? Was he a typical Republican candidate?"

Its a reasonable question. It should also be noted that the seat was open, whereas many of the other seats in the R+1 to R+5 range will have GOP incumbents.

However, regarding foecke's question - if Oberweis was such a terrible candidate, why did the GOP put him up?

Followup question: is Oberweis going to run again in Nov, or will the GOP try another candidate to challenge Foster?

Great post. It's worth mentioning though that turnout is quite different from special election to general election, especially in a presidential year, so extrapolating from one Saturday contest is dangerous.

What's clear from Saturday's result (and a bunch of other indicators) is that D voters are much more motivated than R voters at the moment, and that matters. The boys at the NRCC (and the NRSC and Team McCain) have to be worried.

The danger in extrapolating from IL-14 is that the GOP and Denny Hastert backed the wrong horse. Yes, Oberweis is rich and can self-finance, but he's a four-time loser. Even the Republicans don't like him very much. So, regardless of the national mood, Oberweis was going to have a hard time. Expanding the playing field to R+5 will be a waste of resources for the DCCC.

The GOP made a serious error in the 2000. They decided they wanted to control the House for the next generation. To do this they used a method called "Packing" when creating House ditricts. They basically created a bunch of very democratic ditricts. PVIs over 15% by packing Latinos, Blacks, and Urban Ctholics into disticts., They then had a bunch of GOP leaning districts with PVIs between 5 and 10. This was a great method until a "major realignment event" happened.

The Iraq war, inflation, and a week economy is enough to swing the nation's PVI by 5% to the Dems (9/11 swung the nation 5% towards the GOP before 2006 this is my basis). This 5% national PVI is enough to imperil 20% of all GOP house seats. The GOP by getting gready when they redistricted have put themselves in a position to face back to back Democratic waves a very rare event!

The Texas duo of Bush and Delay have sunk the GOP for at least a decade!

and isn't it interesting that on meet the press yesterday -- the premiere political program in duh-merica (thanks, g.e. advertising dept!) -- hastert's name was only mentioned once.

mymymy. all that expert gasbaggery -- dan balz, gwen ifill, ron brownstein, and of course, fat russert -- and no obsessive commentary on how this republican stronghold and seat to the republican house majority leader -- switched hands to a first-time democratic candidate -- and scientist!

but then, fat russert has his nantucket sugar daddy to keep hap-hap-happy; so i'm not surprised that he stuck to his rnc-provided script.

Let's really put this race in context.

Any Republican besides Jim Oberweis would have held this seat without a great deal of difficulty.

Oberweis first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2002, comparing pro-life voters to the Taliban. He was reincarnated as a right winger in his 2004 race for the Senate, which he also lost.

Then came his race for governor in 2006. Oberweis spent millions of his own money attacking the presumptive nominee, softening her up for defeat by a governor under four criminal investigations. He also took his sweet time in endorsing her after his inevitable defeat.

Throughout his career as a losing candidate, Oberweis has never failed to criticize the Illinois GOP as corrupt, or the process as unfair.

His numerous vanity campaigns have been solely about gaining power for himself. As alluded to earlier, he's a nasty guy with sharp elbows who makes enemies for no good reason. He was also caught on television making a cruel mockery of his opponent before a debate, something which got tons of press the week before the race.

As a Republican activist with strong ties to Illinois 14, a former employee of Speaker Hastert, and someone who has a friend on the campaign, a part of me was absolutely thrilled the old crank was beaten.

If Oberweis cared about anyone but himself, which he does not, he would step aside as the nominee and let someone replace him. I can name a dozen off hand who would win without difficulty. This is NOT part of a trend, and this election can only be viewed as a rejection of Jim Oberweis.

Good article Chris. The Florida delegation in particular has been far out of whack with the state's voter breakdown. Looks like that will change somewhat.

The state legislature is also heavily tilted towards the GOP.

Does your analysis take into account that Oberweis has lost 7 elections in a row? Was he a typical Republican candidate?

The power of incumbency and being in the president's party (so being able to get legislation passed) protected a lot of Republicans in 2006. We can expect to many states become a lot bluer in 2008.

CC, good analysis and I think what it really says is that the GOP should pray that they can hold the White House because it looks like the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC are setting themselves up to be the majority party for a very long time.
That being said for the Democrats to get a "true working majority" they need 2/3 of the house and I just can't believe that will happen. They might get 60 in the Senate but to have 2/3 in the house (a veto proof majority) they would need close to a 145 person majority.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.