An analysis of the recent census data reveals that Texas (4), Florida (1), Utah (1), Nevada (1) and Arizona (1) will gain votes. Other scenarios suggest that Georgia or Oregon might gain votes at the expense of one in Texas. States likely to lose congressional districts are Ohio (2), Illinois (1), New York (1), Michigan (1), Pennsylvania (1), Massachusetts (1), and either New Jersey (1), Louisiana (1) or Iowa (1).  Overall, it appears that the Democrats will sustain a six-seat erosion attributable to population shifts.

Some might ask, “why does this matter?” The erosion of electoral votes in traditionally Democratic states might require the Democrats to pickup an additional, traditionally Republican state, to win a close presidential election. The 2000 election provides an interesting example, because though the focus of controversy was rightly placed on Florida, the unexpected loss of New Hampshire was equally important. Under the current the congressional allocations, a win in New Hampshire would have given Vice President Gore the presidency. However, if the expected reapportionment changes are applied, Gore would have fallen short of 270 electoral votes regardless of the outcome in New Hampshire.

President Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008, but the expected reallocation would reduce that number to 359. Clearly, the Obama victory margin makes reapportionment less influential, but in a competitive election, Indiana (11), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15) and Florida (27) would be in jeopardy. Should a Republican carry these states, Obama’s cushion is only 23 electoral votes.

Among the next group of toss-up states, a Republican would capture the White House, by winning Ohio (19 additional electoral votes), and only one state from the following group of targets: Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7) and of course, Michigan, which could prove to be unpredictable in the future.  Should the Republican candidate win Ohio plus New Hampshire, another possibility, it would reduce Obama’s number to the minimum, 270, setting up the potential for Electoral College controversy.

Clearly the current population shifts in the country will have a profound effect on coming presidential races, not to mention congressional elections.

Our study considers Abraham Lincoln to be the first Republican President in the modern, two-party era, elected in 1860. Including Lincoln , 23 presidents faced a mid-term election during their first term in office. This analysis includes Lyndon Johnson (1966), Harry Truman (1946), Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Chester Arthur (1882), who succeeded deceased Presidents, during their first terms.

Only two of the 23 Presidents, George W. Bush in 2002 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1934, served a first term, in which their party gaining seats in the first mid-term election.

The average mid-term loss for the president’s party in this 146 year period was 28 seats. Neither party fared better than the other, as the average Democratic loss was 28 seats, and the Republican loss averaged 29 seats.

Republican gains in 2002, which was the first midterm of George W. Bush’s presidency, was aided by positive redistricting, especially in Florida , Michigan , Ohio and Pennsylvania , and the backdrop of the 9-11 tragedy.

In the more recent political era, 1954-2008, the average mid-term election loss sustained in a president’s first term was 27 seats. Seven of the eight first-term presidents presided over a loss of seats (Bush 43 being the exception). Four Democratic Presidents, all of whom presided over losses, sustained an average loss of 30 seats; while the four Republican Presidents, sustained an average loss of 11 seats.

Accordingly, expectations of Democratic gains in 2010 are illusory, and even modest gains, against an average historical loss of 28 seats, would be an enormous achievement.

Moreover, the 2010 mid-term will be the first historical test of a first-term president’s party facing the voters, after two successive wave elections (defined as two successive gains of 20 seats or more), when the president’s party already gained seats in the second wave election, when the first wave restored their majority.

Tea-Party Republicans Taking Control of GOP, Fielding Primary Challenges

Barring a minor political miracle, the Democratic Party stands to lose seats in 2010. Historically, the party of the president loses an average of 24 seats in the midterm election of the first term. This will be especially true in 2010, given the size of the Democratic majority and the conservative lean of several districts captured since 2006. However, as the special election in NY-23 shows, even with a natural advantage, the Republicans will alienate voters further if right-wing extremists define the party and pick the candidates. Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, the far-right wing has succeeded in taking control of the Republican Party, as the leadership increasingly falls in line with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. While this fringe element has always existed within the GOP, it has gone from skulking along the ideological sidelines to defining the party and presenting challenges to Republican members of Congress and potential candidates. For example, Florida governor Charlie Crist, who was previously considered a lock for the GOP nomination in the upcoming Florida Senate race, is being seriously challenged by extreme conservative Marco Rubio. Rubio has received several high-profile endorsements from influential conservative groups such as the Club for Growth. Even with a Rubio victory in the primary, the Democrats are facing long odds in the Florida Senate race, but internal turmoil in the Republican Party helps our cause. Conservative candidates are entering primaries in at least 12 competitive races, such as the California and Connecticut senate races. If they win or significantly divide the conservative electorate, it could help Democrats immensely. This divide extends to the very top of the GOP, as an agreed upon leader for the party has yet to emerge. A recent Washington Post poll showed that 28% of Republican respondents said that the GOP had no leader, or that they couldn’t identify them.

Despite Turmoil, Republicans Lead on Generic Congressional Ballot

The results in NY-23 were a positive sign for Democrats in terms of 2010, but other signs are more troubling. For example, the recent Gallup generic congressional ballot poll, which shows the Republicans ahead by four points, also shows the drastic change from the last two election cycles, where Democrats consistently enjoyed double-digit advantages. The graph below shows the trend over the last year, taking an average of more than 100 polls. Of course, it is far too early to suggest that these conditions will remain unchanged over the next year, as positive signs in the economy or achievement in the health care debate could shift the public mood.

Another potentially troubling sign comes from the statewide results in Virginia as recent electoral trends were reversed in 2009. Over the last four years, Virginia has been a prime example of the factors that created the Democratic resurgence all over the country. Due in large part to an expanded share of the vote in suburban and exurban areas, the Democrats were able to pick up two Senate seats and three House seats in Virginia since 2006. As counties such as Fairfax grew, the Democratic share of the vote expanded. However, the recent election in Virginia bucked those trends, as the Democratic candidate for governor lost Fairfax County by nearly 4,000 votes. Other recent statewide Democratic candidates won this county handily. For example, President Obama carried Fairfax by more than 100,000 votes.

However, this may be a reflection on the candidate and not an indication of a permanent change, because other statewide down ballot candidates won Fairfax County, albeit by lower margins than in previous cycles. This is particularly troubling because Democrats face three competitive House races in Virginia, which could all potentially flip should these conditions hold.

Al Franken’s long awaited victory in the Minnesota recount has given Democrats a 60 seat majority in the U.S. Senate. This represents the first time since 1979 that either party has enjoyed this large of a majority. While we celebrate the success of the last 3 years, our attention is focused on 2010. Anchored by arguments about one-party rule, the Republicans are going to throw everything they have at us to reduce our filibuster-proof majority. As our table indicates, the outlook for the 2010 Senate races is far less one-sided than it was in 2008. This year there are seats we can lose.

Incumbent Democratic Senators Face Tough Reelection Battles

In 2008, the Senate outlook favored Democrats to such a degree that it was a stretch to suggest that even one incumbent Democrat was in danger. This is a luxury we will not enjoy in 2010. In traditional swing states, such as Colorado , Illinois , and Nevada we will see close Senate races, which will determine whether we can maintain our filibuster-proof majority. Other Democratic incumbents, such as Chris Dodd, have seen their popularity plummet during these difficult times, and are more vulnerable than in the past.

Colorado - Senator Michael Bennet was appointed to this seat in January after Ken Salazar was named Secretary of the Interior in the Obama administration. Bennet’s short history with Colorado voters dilutes the power of his incumbency, and assures a close race. Though Democrats have enjoyed wide-ranging success in Colorado since 2004, in statewide elections, Colorado will always be competitive. Democratic aspirations are tied to their margins of victory in the 5 most populous counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder , Denver , and Jefferson . If Democrats perform well there, they win. Along with Colorado ‘s inherent competitive nature, early polling shows Bennet’s vulnerability. According to a Public Policy Polling survey in April, his job approval rating was at 34%. Perhaps more troubling, the poll suggests that Democrats as a whole could be in trouble in Colorado, as President Obama and Democratic Governor Bill Ritter both have job performance ratings below 50%. Despite these polling numbers, the Republicans lack a major candidate to oppose Bennet, because other high-profile Republicans, such as former Congressman Tom Tancreado, remain focused on the upcoming governor’s race. So far, four relatively unknown Republican candidates have surfaced; Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck and Aurora City councilman Ryan Frazier are the only two candidates with any political experience.

Connecticut - In past cycles Senator Dodd would be considered a shoe-in for reelection, but the melt-down in the financial sector has spotlighted Dodd’s position as Chairman of the Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee. His approval ratings have suffered badly. Dodd’s vulnerability has drawn a strong Republican challenger, former Congressman Rob Simmons, into the race. Senator Dodd has received some favorable coverage recently following the passage of his Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, which increased consumer protections from credit card companies. Additionally, in the absence of Senator Ted Kennedy, Dodd has assumed a leading role on health care reform, but the latest polls show Dodd trailing former congressman Simmons by nine-points (47%-38%). There is hope that Dodd’s numbers have stabilized, which will cause his polling to improve in the coming months.

Delaware - Senator Ted Kaufman, who was appointed after Joe Biden became Vice President, has already announced that he will not seek reelection in 2010. Democrats have a natural advantage in Delaware , but speculation suggests that popular Republican Congressman Michael Castle may run, which could make the race very competitive. The Democrats have recruited Lieutenant Governor John Carney, a strong candidate, for the statewide House seat, which may push Castle into the Senate race or into retirement. Several potential Democratic candidates for the Senate remain, including Attorney General Beau Biden.

Illinois - All signs suggest that Roland Burris will not be the Democratic candidate for the Senate in 2010. His fundraising numbers have been anemic, and there is a long list of potential competitors vying for his seat. State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has already entered the race, and Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson has formed an exploratory committee. Further, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is being recruited by the DSCC. There is little support for Burris. On the Republican side, Congressman Mark Kirk is the preferred candidate, and early polling showed that he would easily beat Senator Burris, and run a competitive campaign against any of the other aforementioned candidates. However, Kirk has been noncommittal to the race, and has failed to adhere to several self imposed decision deadlines. Another option for Illinois Republicans is businessman and political novice Robert Zadek, who has already entered the race.

Nevada – Conventional wisdom suggests that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in for a tough reelection battle. Nevada is a very competitive state, in which neither party enjoys an advantage, and Senator Reid’s approval ratings are below 40% according to the most recent polling. However, the Republicans have had a tough time recruiting any noteworthy candidates to challenge Reid. Meanwhile, Senator Reid has been busy fundraising, and to-date has more than $5 million in cash-on-hand. Republican hopes are fixed on Congressman Dean Heller who, if he entered, would give the Republicans a credible challenger. Heller gave himself a deadline of June 30 to announce his plans, but no word has yet been given. Republican Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki considered running, but his candidacy was damaged when he was recently indicted on felony charges of misappropriating state funds. Another potential Republican candidate is former Nevada state representative Sharon Angle, a former four-term State Assemblywoman who lost a 2006 Congressional primary. The longer the Republicans struggle, the more likely the Democrats will hold this seat.

Republican Retirements Change the Balance and Create Big Opportunities in the Senate

Every year both parties watch for retirement announcements in Congress, because open-seat contests represent the best pickup opportunities in every election cycle. This year, several longtime Republican senators in competitive states have announced their retirements at the end of term. These retirements have created at least four prime pickup opportunities for Democrats in 2010.

Florida – President Obama’s victory in Florida last cycle shows that Democrats can still win statewide elections in this state, which was feared to be trending Republican. Senator Mel Martinez’s retirement creates an open seat contest. Republicans have successfully recruited Governor Charlie Crist to run for the seat, which hurts the Democrats’ chances due to his popularity. However, it is not certain that Crist will win the primary, because former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio has also entered the race. Rubio is a much more conservative Republican, which may help him in Florida ‘s closed Republican primary, as much of Crist’s popularity comes from moderates and independents. Rubio has received endorsements from popular Republicans such as former Governor Jeb Bush, and other conservative leaders. Recent polls show Crist well ahead of Rubio, but a large portion of the samples remain undecided. A long damaging primary, where Crist must show his true conservative colors, could push some of that moderate support back to the Democrats. On the Democratic side, the most prominent candidate to enter the race is Congressman Kendrick Meek. Additionally, Congresswoman Corrine Brown has formed an exploratory committee, but has yet to formally enter the race . Polls show that if Crist wins the nomination, Democrats are in trouble.

Kentucky - Senator Jim Bunning is short on money and short on support from his own party, as the NRSC has made it clear that they will not support him for reelection. However, Bunning remains defiant and intends to run for reelection. Early on in the cycle it appeared that Bunning was set to retire and yield to Republican Secretary of State Tray Grayson, who already has announced his candidacy, but Bunning has changed his mind. Bunning enjoys feeble approval ratings below 40%, and Grayson is outperforming Bunning in terms of fundraising. It’s clear that Republicans are eager to push Bunning out the door, but his retirement doesn’t assure continued Republican control of the seat. Early polls show that even with Grayson as the Republican candidate, the race will be close. The Democrats have several strong potential candidates including Congressman Ben Chandler, State Attorney General Jack Conaway, and Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo who narrowly lost to Bunning in 2004. As our graph shows, the most recent poll has these Democrats polling ahead or very close to Grayson in a head-to-head matchup.

Missouri - Senator Kit Bond announced earlier this year that he too will retire at the end of the term. Unlike Florida , the candidate field in Missouri is much clearer. Congressman Roy Blunt appears to be the likely Republican candidate, but he will first need to win a primary against State Senator Chuck Purgasson. Democrat Robin Carnahan, daughter of former senator Jean Carnahan, is so far running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. In the first quarter of the year, she raised more than $1 million for her campaign, which more than doubled Blunt’s numbers. However, Missouri will always be fiercely competitive at the statewide level, so this race is sure to be close. The early polls have been encouraging; the most recent poll shows Carnahan leading both potential Republican candidates.

North Carolina - President Obama’s victory in this state last November proved that the demographics of North Carolina are rapidly changing, and that Democrats can win here. Senator Richard Burr has become an obvious target for Democrats. Senator Burr is busy doing damage control after it was revealed that he encouraged his wife to “rush to the ATM” when the worst of the bank crisis was occurring. More recently, he defended his statement suggesting that he’d say it again. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ high profile candidate, Attorney General Roy Cooper, recently decided that he would not run. Early polls showed Cooper ahead or tied with Burr in a theoretical matchup. It’s unclear who the Democrats will turn to, but possible candidates include: Congressman Mike McIntyre, former State Senator and Iraq War veteran Cal Cunningham , North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, and former state Treasurer Richard Moore. Recent polling underscores Burr’s vulnerability. According to a poll released in June, Burr’s job performance rating was at just 33%.

New Hampshire - Judd Gregg, who earlier this year accepted, then refused, Obama’s appointment to his cabinet has opted to retire at the end of this term. Democrats would have mounted a serious challenge for this seat even if Gregg had run for reelection, but his retirement makes the race even more promising. Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes is the likely Democratic candidate, despite some underwhelming fundraising numbers in the first quarter ($300K). No candidate has surfaced yet for the Republican nomination. Rumors were circulating around former Senator John Sununu who lost in 2008 to former Governor, Democrat Jean Shaheen. However, Sununu has decided not to enter the race, which is good news for Democrats. Sununu enjoys wide name recognition with the voters, and a poll, released in June, showed Hodes in a close race with Sununu in a head-to-head matchup 40%-36%.

Ohio - Fresh from President Obama’s hard fought victory in Ohio , the Democrats are looking to take full control of the Ohio Senate delegation. Longtime Senator George Voinovich has joined several other Republicans in announcing his retirement but the Republicans have quickly countered with high-profile candidate Rob Portman, former U.S. Trade Representative and Budget Director. Portman raised more than $1.7 million for his campaign in the first quarter. Democrats can boast two strong candidates of their own, Lieutenant Governor Lee Fischer and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Both Democratic candidates raised more than $1 million in the first quarter for their respective campaigns. Along with strong fundraising numbers, the most recent polling shows both potential Democratic candidates leading Portman.

There are striking parallels between 1994 and 2010: Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses in Congress; presidential coattails enabled Democrats to win seats in historically Republican districts. Consequently, Democrats have far fewer election targets in 2010 than Republicans, much as they did in 1994. Our analysis shows that there are as many as 60 potentially vulnerable Democrats in the House this cycle.

Since World War II, the party of a first-term president has lost an average of 24 seats in the first midterm election. Only twice over the past 74 years has an incumbent president’s party gained seats in the next midterm election. George W. Bush saw the Republican majority expand by eight seats in 2002, but that occurred largely because of his high popularity following 9/11. Although highly popular, Barack Obama’s job approval, approximately 60%, might not be high enough to avoid losses in the next election. Moreover, if the president’s popularity lags and the economic crises extends into 2010, history shows that the incumbent president’s party might lose more than 25 House seats. Without at least a modest turnaround in the economy over the next year the Democrats could be facing a significant loss of seats.

NCEC Anticipates Shifts in the Electorate That Could Hurt Democrats

Beyond the hurdles of history, Democrats will face a different electorate in 2010, as midterm electorates inevitably diverge from presidential election years on a large scale. White voters make up a larger share of the electorate in midterm elections, which could hurt Democrats in competitive districts. Despite President Obama’s 7% victory in the national popular vote, his success didn’t extend to white voters. In 2008, white voters supported John McCain by a 55–43 margin. The overall effect of this gap was lessened by high turnouts among minorities and young voters, but this may not be the case in 2010. In 2006, white voters accounted for 79% of the total vote as opposed to 74% in 2008. Similarly, young voters (18–29), Obama’s strongest age group, will likely turn out in far lower numbers next year. Voters aged 18–29 years made up just 12% of the overall vote in 2006. In 2008, this age group came out in strong numbers, accounting for 18% of the total vote.

Additionally, it is almost certain that African-American voters will be less energized without Barack Obama at the head of the ticket. In 2006, African Americans made up 10% of the overall electorate versus 13% in 2008. These likely changes in the electorate could be very damaging in competitive districts all over the country.

A Majority This Size Is Difficult to Maintain

The huge successes enjoyed by the Democrats in the last two election cycles were historic, but extending them for a third cycle would be an even greater anomaly. While not long ago, the last time Democrats gained seats in three consecutive elections (1996, 1998, and 2000) resulted in a much smaller net gain of 15 seats, far short of the 53 seats gained by Democrats between 2006 and 2008. The last time Democrats won more than 50 seats in three elections occurred in the Depression era, from 1930–1934. Obviously, the type of success the Democrats have enjoyed in the last two cycles is hard to sustain. The last time one party won more than 20 seats in two consecutive elections it sustained sizable losses in the next election.

This “regression to the mean” typically emerges when one party wins too many seats in districts that usually vote for the opposition party. The Democratic majority has been built on winning competitive districts in America ‘s suburban counties, which historically voted Republican. We know already that John McCain won 49 districts with Democratic incumbents, and Obama carried more than 30 additional Democratic districts that were won by George Bush in 2004. Any slight change in the political environment could put the Democratic majorities at risk. The race on the generic congressional ballot, which compares a generic Democratic candidate against a generic Republican candidate, already looks tighter than it did in recent years. The most recent polls have the generic Democratic candidate leading the generic Republican candidate by just one point. Since early 2006, the Democrats have generally enjoyed a double-digit lead on the generic ballot. Without the polarization caused by George W. Bush, Democrats will need to find other reasons to stay motivated. NCEC will be a forefront of the effort to maintain our majorities. The expertise that we provide helps when the wind is at our backs as it has been since 2006, but can play an even more crucial role when we are trying to protect our majority in close elections.

NCEC Sees Reasons for Optimism Remain

The 1994 parallel is far from full proof, as not every electoral indicator favors the Republicans. First, in 1994, 22 of the seats gained by Republicans stemmed from Democratic retirements in competitive districts. So far in this cycle, only one Democrat from a competitive district—New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes—has indicated that he will vacate his seat in 2010. Hodes is seeking the Senate seat in New Hampshire . However, it is too early in the cycle to draw any conclusions about future retirements. Conversely, speculation suggests that several Republican incumbents, frustrated by minority status, could retire between now and Election Day.

Second, Barack Obama is off to a far more auspicious beginning than Bill Clinton was in 1993. That assumption must be tempered by the unclear economic climate. A slip in Obama’s approval rating due to the continued problems in the economy could raise the likelihood of the Democrats losing a significant number of seats. As the graph shows, the incumbent president’s approval rating going into a midterm election can have a huge effect on his party’s fortunes. If President Obama can maintain an approval rating above 60 percent, he can help mitigate some of the potential losses.

Third, regional dynamics that are no longer in place today helped produce the Republican takeover in 1994. For example, about half of the districts lost by Democrats in 1994 were located in the South, in border states , or in the rural West. Republican success in these regions continued through the 2004 election, but those trends have waned and partially reversed since 2006. Presently there are far fewer Democratic targets in those regions for the Republicans to unseat.

Conversely, from a regional standpoint, the Republicans have sustained a meltdown in the East, with no immediate end in sight. With the loss of Chris Shays seat in Connecticut in 2008, the Republicans have zero seats in all of New England . They have also sustained further losses in the West, which is sure to gain seats after the next census. Evidence of a potential Republican comeback will be scrutinized in 2009 gubernatorial contests in both New Jersey and Virginia . Previously, these off year elections have been useful indicators for the mood of the electorate heading into the midterm campaign. In 2005, Democrats won the gubernatorial races in both these states, which served as a precursor to the huge gains seen by Democrats in 2006. No Republican has won a gubernatorial election in either state in the 21st century.

Exit Polls Show Gains Among All Types of Voters

Election returns reveal that the Democratic victory was hardly a fluke: gains were amassed among virtually all demographic and geographic groups. The role of young voters is hard to overstate, as Obama amassed a 25% margin with voters 18-29 years old. He also won Moderates (45% of the electorate) by a 61%-38% margin, and was able to garner a surprising 22% among self-identified conservative voters. In comparison to 2004, these numbers are astounding. John Kerry received just 56% of the vote among voters 18-29, and just 13% among self-identified conservatives.

The demographics of Ohio ‘s electorate further reveal the fundamental changes that have lead to a Democratic majority. Most compelling is the dramatic change in Ohio ‘s partisan landscape. As recently as 2004, exit poll data confirmed a 5% Republican advantage (40%-35). 2008 produced a seismic change in partisanship, with Democrats possessing a 39%-31% advantage. The enormous change in the Ohio landscape is accentuated by John McCain’s narrowing of the gap among Independents to 8%, compared to the 19% deficit that George Bush trumped in 2004.  Obama’s 89%-10% margin among Democrats and historical 97%-2% margin with African-Americans was insurmountable.

The Democratic success in Ohio was also underpinned by pluralities among all education groups and most income levels. From non-high school educated voters to post-graduates, and every income earning up to $100,000 Democrats enjoyed an advantage. For example, middle-class voters (earning 30,000-$100,000 per year) – 58% of the electorate – accorded Obama a 6% advantage. Further, Obama received at least 40% support from all income levels above $100,000. Clearly, exit polls shows that the Obama campaign succeeded in gaining support across the electorate.

More Important than Demographics, Democrats Make Inroads in GOP Territory

More important than simple exit poll data is to look at how the voting trends in the state are shifting. Barack Obama outperformed John Kerry among voters in all geographic areas, signaling a shift in the state that could have tremendous effect on the future. While Obama’s exceeding John Kerry’s margins in urban areas ( Cleveland , Cincinnati , Columbus , Toledo , Dayton ) was not surprising, his breakthrough in suburban and exurban areas was enormously impressive. After all, it is in these areas where the majority of swing voters reside. Obama won 40.4% of the vote in Ohio ‘s exurban counties (3.6% above Kerry’s level); a solid majority in metropolitan and suburban counties (52.3%), overwhelming support in inner suburban counties with large populations (62.3%), and exceeded John Kerry’s vote by 3.5% in micropolitan and rural counties.

The importance of these numbers may get lost to the casual observer, but these gains in suburban and exurban counties were the most important factor for Democrats in Ohio . Exurban counties represent the fastest growing areas in Ohio , and continued success there could have an enormous impact on future elections. Three counties exemplify Ohio ‘s exurbs — Warren and Clermont in the Cincinnati media market and Delaware in the Columbus area. Obama sharply eroded Republican majorities in Warren (4,624 votes), Clermont (6,899 votes) and Delaware (8,273 votes) compared to John Kerry’s showing in 2004. This increased competitiveness was brought on by growth in these areas; projected voting age population has grown by 96,385 over the past years. Subsequently, Obama was able to dampen the Republican exurban margin by a crucial 64,002 votes -almost half of Kerry’s 2004 deficit. It’s not imperative for Democrats to win these counties to succeed in statewide races because of their natural advantage in urban counties, but if this level of competition becomes commonplace, Republican prospects in Ohio could be permanently damaged.

As the next election approaches, Republicans are facing a big dilemma in Ohio . How can they attack this situation? Democratic support is growing in exurban and suburban areas, and their advantage in urban areas remains intact. Overall, Obama’s margins in the large city-inner suburban counties exceed the McCain plurality in rural, micropolitan and exurban counties. In 2008, Obama’s advantage was 202,170 votes.  This formula envisions a Democratic majority in the state, as long as the Republicans fail to restore their hegemony in Ohio ‘s suburbs.

As suggested earlier, the Democratic advantage in Ohio ‘s urban counties remains strong. In fact, in the three largest counties in Ohio — Cuyahoga, Hamilton and Franklin — representing 28.6% of the state-wide vote, Obama amassed an insurmountable 363,453 margin. For the first time in 44 years, a Democratic candidate won a plurality in Republican Hamilton County , winning 52.6% of the vote. Obama also carried Franklin County ( Columbus ) by an astounding 99,806 votes – more than doubling John Kerry’s 2004 margin. As recently as 2000, this county was evenly divided between Al Gore and George W. Bush. In addition to the strong performance in the “big three counties”, Obama nearly tripled Kerry’s margin in blue-collar Stark ( Canton ) and Summit ( Akron ), and ran 18,309 votes ahead of Kerry in Lucas ( Toledo ).

 Other urban counties, such as Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) the largest county in Ohio accorded Obama a 435,604 plurality, generating a 242,707 margin – 15,804 greater than John Kerry’s margin. All this was achieved despite a 6.2% drop in overall turnout. Obviously, the Obama campaign was extremely successful getting Democrats to the polls, while Republicans remained unmotivated.

A complete analysis of Ohio ‘s counties also shows that Obama amassed a larger margin than Kerry in 76 of 88 counties, performing better than Kerry in every county accounting for 2% or more of the state-wide vote, with the exception of Mahoning and Trumbull.

The 2008 election was the culmination of a Democratic comeback in the state, precipitated by a sharp decline in Ohio ‘s economy, but equally impacted by a slow and steady erosion of Republican ranks among the better-educated and affluent, middle-class suburban Ohio voters.  Regarding the future, Republicans must be alarmed about their minority status in the suburbs and declining share of the vote in the fast-growing counties of Ohio , which just a few years ago, seemed to portend a bright future for the GOP. There simply aren’t enough rural and small-town voters in Ohio to sustain a Republican majority.

Current Majority Is Too Small to Overcome Republican Filibusters

Presently, the Democrats control the Senate by the thinnest of margins; control arises only because Independent candidates Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucus with the Democrats, giving them a two-seat advantage. Given that 60 votes are required to cut off debate in the Senate, the current majority is simply too small. From the moment the Democrats took control of the Senate, the Republicans have been waging a historic campaign of obstruction, executing a record number of filibusters. These filibusters have prevented the Democratic Congress from addressing some of the most pressing issues that face our country, such as the economic meltdown, the energy crisis, and the war in Iraq . These tactics are clearly political, designed to help the Republicans regain power. However, their strategy has backfired, and the pro-Democrat political environment has been sustained. This positive environment, coupled with some timely GOP retirements, has produced an unprecedented opportunity for the Democrats. In order to overcome the threat of Republican filibusters, Democrats need to win nine Senate seats (or 10, depending on the future of Joe Lieberman). Currently, NCEC labels 10 Republican seats as possible targets; if the momentum stays with the Democrats, reaching 60 is very possible.

Two Seats Already Going Blue

New Mexico : Ever since Senator Pete Domenici decided to retire, this seat has been safely in Democratic hands. Democratic candidate Tom Udall has been running away with this race since he joined the campaign. There is little to no chance that Republican Steve Pearce can win this race; an average of recent polls gives Udall a 16-point advantage, which has held steady throughout.

Virginia : When popular former governor Mark Warner decided to get in this race following the retirement of longtime Republican senator John Warner, this seat was as good as won for the Democrats. Mark Warner’s popularity in all areas of Virginia was just too much for Republican candidate Jim Gilmore to overcome. Should Barack Obama win here, Virginia , the state will have completed its metamorphosis into a Democratic state.

Likely to Go Blue

Colorado : Much like Virginia , Colorado has been going through a political shift since the ’04 election. The updated voter registration numbers for the ’08 election show this trend continuing. Democrats are registering new voters at a much higher rate than Republicans, all over the state. Democrat Mark Udall has been holding a steady lead over Republican Bob Schaffer, but the polls have become close at certain times in the campaign, so this race is far from decided. Statewide elections in Colorado are rarely decided by more than 3-4 percent, so we expect this race to remain close through Election Day.

New Hampshire : Months ago it seemed that this race would easily be placed in the previous category, but the polls have closed since then. In every poll taken, however, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen still leads over Republican John Sununu.

Leaning Blue

North Carolina : North Carolina has quietly been undergoing a Democratic shift over the past four years, as Democratic voter registration has outpaced Republican registration by 190,000 since 2004. These developments have put Elizabeth Dole in real danger of losing her seat to Democrat Kay Hagan. The polling has been extremely tight in this race throughout, but no public poll since mid-September has had Dole out in front. The presence of Libertarian candidate Chris Cole has been particularly damaging for Dole in the polling, because he is receiving 3-5 percent of votes. Should Cole’s poll numbers be accurate, it could have a devastating impact on Dole’s chances.

Oregon : Republican Gordon Smith has been dealing with an especially difficult political environment this year, because his state has a natural Democratic tilt to it even without the toxic political environment. In order to distance himself from the GOP, Smith has gone so far as to point out examples where he has sided with Barack Obama. For the first few months of the race it appeared that Smith had achieved his goal, as he maintained a small lead. However, over the past month, the polls have shown that Democratic candidate Jeff Merkley has jumped ahead and is pulling away.

The True Toss-ups

Alaska : The closing arguments have been made in the corruption trial of longtime Alaska senator Ted Stevens, but like the trial, his political career may be coming to a close. While Stevens has been bogged down with his legal troubles, Democrat Mark Begich has been campaigning hard for the seat. However, recent polling shows that the race has narrowed to a statistical tie, leading some to believe that it could hinge on the verdict in Stevens’ corruption trial.

Georgia : This race has transformed over the last two months from an easy Republican hold to a true toss-up. The high Democratic turnout, and specifically the African-American turnout, seen in the early voting makes us even more confident that this race is winnable, as Democrat Jim Martin could ride Barack Obama’s coattails to victory. Recent polls show this race in a statistical tie. Early voting lines in Georgia have been up to three hours long, so turnout is expected to be massive in comparison to previous years.

Minnesota : A few months ago it seemed that this race was getting away from Democrat Al Franken, but polling shows that Franken has come back and made this race a true toss-up against Republican Norm Coleman. Similar to North Carolina , the outcome of this race could depend on the third-party candidate. Former U.S. senator Dean Barkley has made this race especially hard to judge, because polling has shown him taking as much as 18 percent of the vote. Both Coleman and Franken have been leading in polls where Barkley took this significant share, so it is difficult to say who is being hurt more by his candidacy. The suburbs in and around the twin cities, such as Dakota, Scott, and Wright counties, will be especially vital in this election. These suburban areas helped deliver some Republican success in Minnesota in 2002.

Leaning Red

Kentucky : Mitch McConnell’s position as minority leader in the Senate puts him at the head of an unpopular party and makes him immediately vulnerable. Democrat Bruce Lunsford has been running a close campaign with McConnell for months, and the polls have remained tight with McConnell clinging to a small lead. High voter turnout in Jefferson County , where the city of Louisville is located, will be a key determinant in this race. The most recent poll showed the race tied at 48 percent.

Mississippi : The Democrats’ victory earlier this year in the Mississippi special election is evidence that Democrats can win in this state. The special election victory was powered by high turnout, but also by the Democratic candidate’s ability to attract votes from rural portions of the state. Democrat Ronnie Musgrove will be aided by a higher than usual black turnout, but in order to win, he’ll need to duplicate the success in the rural areas that helped win the special election. As of now, the polls are showing a statistical tie, but the GOP has a natural advantage in this state.

A Wealth of Open Seats Produces Opportunities

The power of incumbency cannot be overstated, as more than 90% of incumbents are typically reelected every cycle. In fact, even in years of extreme change, such as 1994 and 2006, incumbents were still reelected at a rate near or above 90%. The majority of the seat switches come from open contests, making open seats unpredictable. In 2008, Democrats captured 8 Republican open seats.

This precedent paints a positive picture for Democrats in the upcoming election, given the rash of Republican retirements this cycle. In fact, NCEC lists 19 Republican open seats as tier-one targets this cycle. The majority of Democratic pickups should come from this collection of open seats.

Many Republican Incumbents in Danger as Well

While open seats are the most likely to flip, there is a large number of Republican incumbents in danger as the Republican brand name deteriorates. Below is a list of some of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents as the election approaches.

Democrats Registering New Voters at Record Pace in Battleground States

Voter registration efforts are a part of every election cycle, but the motivation of young voters and the wide-ranging disenchantment with the Republican brand have made this year’s effort particularly effective. As registration deadlines approach or pass, it is becoming apparent that Democrats have created a clear advantage, with new voters in many vital states breaking clearly for the Democrats.

Colorado : As we have covered in previous editions of the Election Insider , Colorado is trending Democratic because of the growing population in key counties and stronger pull for Democrats in the suburbs. The massive influx of new voters gives us even more reason to believe that Barack Obama can carry the state. From January to September of this year, 215,000 people have registered to vote in Colorado . Of that total, there were nearly 30,000 more newly registered Democrats than Republicans. This represents an increase of 26,000 over the same period of time in 2004. The new registrations have favored Democrats overwhelmingly in the key counties in and around Denver , where Obama must perform especially well to win the state.

In fact, the Democratic registration advantage extends to areas where Democrats are typically outperformed by Republicans. As the table shows, Democrats have registered more voters than have Republicans in each of the 10 most populous counties in Colorado , including the Republican strongholds of Douglas and El Paso counties.

Florida : In Florida , where Democrats have struggled recently in statewide elections, the registration boom is increasingly important. According to the Division of Elections, more than 430,000 new voters have registered in Florida since the beginning of the year. Of these new voters, 58% are Democrats, while just 24% are Republicans. This surge in Democratic registration has given Democrats the overall registration lead in some key battleground counties, such as Pinellas County and Orange County .

Nevada : Nevada, which has been extremely close in the last two presidential elections, has seen a large increase in Democratic registration as well. The growing Latino population of Nevada will likely help Democrats, as they try to win the state for the first time since 1996. From January through September, Democrats gained 90,723 new registered voters in Nevada, compared to 21,535 for Republicans. These new voters have helped give the Democrats an advantage among registered voters by 70,000 over the GOP. However, winning Nevada still depends on performing well among Independent voters. According to the Nevada Secretary of State, there are more than 168,000 active nonpartisan registered voters in the state. The statewide numbers are compelling in their own right, but the location of these new voters is also worth noting. Clark county, which houses Las Vegas and is the major center of Democratic support in the state, registered more than 72,000 new Democratic voters this year. In Washoe County, which contains the city of Reno, Democrats registered an additional 13,000 voters this year.

North Carolina : The population of North Carolina has experienced a boom since the election in 2004, bringing in new voters as people move into the state. The voter rolls have increased by 500,000 since 2004, an astounding number. Much of this increase came during the buildup to the Democratic presidential primary, which Barack Obama won handily. In the lead-up to the presidential primary, Democratic registration outpaced Republican registration by 190,000 voters. Many of these new voters came from areas where Democrats typically perform well, such as Durham County , which saw an increase of 25,000 new voters, mostly Democratic. Similar increases were seen in and around Charlotte in the county of Mecklenburg , where 150,000 new voters have registered, giving Democrats an advantage over Republicans in this county of 85,000 voters.

Along with increasing registration numbers, it is important to remember that North Carolina has a sizable African-American population. In 2004, President Bush carried 14% of the African-American vote; it is unlikely that McCain will be able to duplicate that number. Looking deeper, it becomes evident that if McCain carries just 5% of the African-American vote, Obama will have gained an extra 100,000 votes.

Virginia : Virginia could be the most important of the new Democratic targets in 2008, and it has seen a surge in voter registration equal to that of the other states mentioned. Overall, more than 283,000 new voters have registered to vote in Virginia in the last year. While Virginia doesn’t register voters by party, the majority of new voters are young and come from areas that traditionally vote Democratic. For example, 62% of new voters are under 35 years old and 42% are younger than 25, according to the State Board of Elections. A large number of these new voters are coming from heavily black communities, such as Norfolk County , and from increasingly Democratic Northern Virginia. For example, new voters represent nearly 9% of the total electorate in heavily Democratic Arlington County and Alexandria County . Further, Fairfax County , the most populous county in the state, has seen an increase of 44,000 new voters, which is a good sign for Obama.

Why Registration Numbers Can Be Misleading

There is good reason to be enthusiastic when reading all these numbers, but if these new voters don’t get to the polls, then it makes no difference. In 2004, the Kerry campaign expended a great deal of resources in registering new voters, but this failed to make the all-important difference. It is important to remember that in some of these states, such as North Carolina , a lot of voters remain on the rolls as Democrats but continue to consistently vote Republican. There is no question that motivation among Democrats is at its peak, but organizing effective GOTV operations remains essential.