THE POLITI OF TRAUMA

CS The Rhodes Cook Letter

September 2005 The Rhodes Cook Letter SEPTEMBER 2005 / VOL. 6, NO. 5 (ISSN 1552-8189) Contents

The Politics of Trauma ...... 3

Chart & Graph: Rep. Strength in Congress since the Election of Bush I . . . . . 3 Chart: Presidents and Their Parties in the 6-Year Midterm Elections ...... 4 Chart: Bush Coattail Pull in 2004 ...... 5 Chart: Targets of Opportunity in 2006? ...... 6 Chart: Bush Coattails in Historical Terms ...... 7 Chart & Map: Senators up in ‘06: How They Ran in 2000...... 8 Chart & Map: The 2nd Special Election: A Harbinger for ‘06? ...... 9 Chart: The GOP’s Evolving Congressional Base ...... 10 Wrapping Up 2004: Party Registration ...... 11

Chart & Map: Dems. Reps., Others: Where They Stood by State in Nov. ‘04 . 11 Chart & Map : The Prescience of Party Registration Totals in 2004...... 12 Chart & Map : Registration by State from Election to Election, 2000-04 . . . 13

In the News ...... 16

Chart: The Changing Composition of the 109th Congress...... 16 Chart: What’s up in 2006...... 16

The Rhodes Cook Letter is published by Rhodes Cook. Web: tion for six issues is $99. Make check payable to “The Rhodes rhodescook.com. E-mail: [email protected]. Design by Cook Letter” and send it, along with your e-mail address, to Landslide Design, Rockville, MD. “The Rhodes Cook Letter” P.O. Box 574, Annandale, VA. 22003. See the last page of this is published on a bimonthly basis. An individual subscrip- newsletter for a subscription form.

All contents are copyrighted ©2005 Rhodes Cook. Use of the material is welcome with attribution, although the author retains full copyright over the material contained herein.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 2 The Politics of Trauma

rive around the suburbs of Northern Virginia these days and one sees plenty of political Dbumper stickers. Not for this fall’s gubernatorial can- didates, but for the combatants Republican Strength in Congress in last fall’s high-voltage presi- Since the Election of Bush I dential election. Some are for President Bush, many are for Through much of the latter half of the 20th century, Republicans looked like a per- manent minority in Congress. But since their dramatic breakthrough in 1994, they , and nearly all of have had the look of a semi-permanent majority. Changes in their House majority them are well-scrubbed and in since then have been incremental. And except for the period from mid-2001 to the mint condition – as though the end of 2002 when control slipped briefly to the Democrats, the GOP has consistently 2004 presidential race went from had the upper hand in the Senate as well. campaign mode, to the election, and now back to the campaign, Republican Share of: without missing a beat. Senate Seats The next round in this ongoing House Seats partisan battling will take place in 2006, with the Republicans seemingly well positioned to hold their clear-cut congres- sional majorities. Democrats are on the defen- sive in the Senate, where most of the seats that are up are theirs. And the House has been mired for a decade now in a “small ball era,” where changes from one election to another have been incremen- tal. Yet the great equalizer for the Democrats could be a new Republican Seats % of Chamber Election President political backdrop, one that House Senate House Senate could be considered stage two 1988 G. Bush (R) 174 45 40.0% 45.0% of the “politics of trauma.” Stage one was 9/11, the open- 1990 G. Bush (R) 167 44 38.4% 44.0% ing salvos of the war in , 1992 Clinton (D) 176 43 40.5% 43.0% and on through the 2004 elec- 1994 Clinton (D) 230 53 52.9% 53.0% tion. But this year, it seems that 1996 Clinton (D) 227 55 52.2% 55.0% a corner has been turned. Criti- 1998 Clinton (D) 223 55 51.3% 55.0% cism of the war’s never-ending 2000 G.W. Bush (R) 221 50 50.8% 50.0% nature, the government’s shaky response to , 2002 G.W. Bush (R) 229 51 52.6% 51.0% and rising oil prices threaten to 2004 G.W. Bush (R) 232 55 53.3% 55.0% alter the political terrain once Source: Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to U.S. Elections Vol II. so favorable to the Republi-

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 3 cans. If it does change, it has a model: the traumatic political environment of the 1960s, which first benefited the then-ruling Democrats before becoming an ally of the Republicans. The 9/11 of the 1960s came on Nov. 22, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. It was a shocking, numbing, saddening event, which abruptly ended a period of innocence (at least viewed retrospectively) in the nation’s history. The Democrats, who controlled both ends of Avenue, were the immediate beneficiaries. A sweeping victory for the party at both the presidential and congres- sional levels in 1964 gave the Democrats a mandate to pur- Presidents and Their Parties in the sue an unabashedly activist 6-Year Midterm Elections liberal agenda. One of the verities of politics through the middle and late 20th century was that Yet as the 1960s continued the president’s party almost invariably lost congressional seats in midterm elec- to unfold, the politics of trau- tions, with the losses particularly severe at the six-year mark. But that pattern was ma entered a second stage broken in 1998, when six years into Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Democrats gained as serious problems arose five House seats and held their own in the Senate. But is the “six year itch” gone for good? George W. Bush heads toward his last midterm election with a presi- – urban rioting, a lingering dential approval rating significantly lower than Clinton’s, and for that matter, any war in Vietnam, and more other postwar president at a similar time in their presidency except for Richard political assassinations – all Nixon, who resigned before his sixth-year midterm was held. problems that the Democrats could not solve. Nor could Gallup Presidential Approval Ratings President’s Party they escape the fact that gain/loss of seats President In Sept. Last 6-Year these crises were happening of Year before Midterm on their watch. They lost 47 Before Midterm House Senate House seats and three Senate Franklin Roosevelt (D) 1938 - 52% - 71 - 6 seats in the midterm elec- Dwight Eisenhower (R) 1958 59% 57% - 47 - 13 tion of 1966. Two years later, they lost the White House. John Kennedy (D)/ Lyndon Johnson (D)* 1966 63% 44% - 47 - 3 Could the midterms of 2006 Richard Nixon (R)/ be a comeback opportunity for the Democrats as it was Gerald Ford (R)* 1974 33% 54% -43 - 3 for the GOP back in 1966? (R) 1986 60% 63% - 5 - 8 Bill Clinton (D) 1998 58% 66% + 5 0 There are certainly some George W. Bush (R) 2006 40% - - - good reasons to say no. The NNote:ote: AAnn aasterisksterisk ((*)*) iindicatesndicates tthathat tthehe ppresidentresident iinitiallynitially eelectedlected wwasas nnoo llongeronger six-year midterm, so notori- iinn oofficeffice bbyy tthehe ttimeime ooff hhisis pparty’sarty’s ssixth-yearixth-year mmidtermidterm eelection.lection. JJohnohn KKennedyennedy wwasas ous through the middle of aassassinatedssassinated iinn NNovemberovember 11963.963. RRichardichard NNixonixon rresignedesigned iinn AAugustugust 11974.974. the 20th century as a debacle SSources:ources: GGallupallup PPolloll fforor ppresidentialresidential aapprovalpproval rratings;atings; CCongressionalongressional QQuarterlyuarterly’s for the president’s party, lost GGuideuide ttoo UU.S..S. EElectionslections VVol.ol. IIII forfor midtermmidterm eelectionlection rresults,esults, with changes tending to its bite in 1998 when the be measured from immediately before to immediately after the election. Democrats (six years into Bill Clinton’s presidency) gained seats in the House and held their own in the Senate. No longer is there much talk of a “six year itch” that automatically means big losses for the president’s party. Nor is there the ebb and flow in congressional politics these days to readily create the opportunity for a big comeback by the opposition. A generation ago, there was volatility in House elections due in no small part to the considerable length of presidential coattails. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson ran ahead of nearly half of the Democratic House winners (134 of 295), helping to create a House supermajority for the Democrats that evaporated two years later when the party’s coattail recipients were on their own.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 4 These days, House members are no longer so dependent on Bush’s Coattail Pull in 2004 presidential coattails. They have larger campaign chests, safer President Bush last November ran ahead of nine Republican Senate winners and 37 districts, and consequently are GOP House winners. Nearly all of Bush’s coattails pals were in “Red America,” and most were from the South. Among them were 11 Texas Republican House winners, not nearly as exposed as their including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who trailed the president by 9 percentage predecessors were a generation points in his Houston-area district. The list below includes all the GOP Senate win- ago. In 2004, President Bush ners who drew a lower percentage of the total vote in their state than Bush, as well as the 14 Republican House winners who ran more than 5 points behind Bush in ran ahead of just 37 Republican their district. An asterisk (*) indicates an incumbent. House winners. And only 18 House Republicans are in hostile terrain, representing districts that GOP SENATE WINNERS Senate Bush % - voted Democratic for president GOP Winner State Bush % Winner’s % GOP Senate % last November. (By contrast, 41 House Democrats represent dis- Tom Coburn Okla. 53% 66% +13% tricts that were won by Bush in Lisa Murkowski* 49% 61% +12% 2004.) Jim Bunning* Ky. 51% 60% + 9% So limited are the targets in the John Thune S.D. 51% 60% + 9% House for either party that to David Vitter La. 51% 57% + 6% create a “top 50” list of poten- Richard Burr N.C. 52% 56% + 4% tially endangered incumbents, Jim DeMint S.C. 54% 58% + 4% one needs to go well above the Robert Bennett* Utah 69% 72% + 3% 55% mark that normally sepa- Mel Martinez Fla. 49% 52% + 3% rates the marginal members from GOP HOUSE WINNERS those that are fairly safe. Add- ing to the Democrats’ difficulty, (GOP House winners who trailed Bush by more than 5 percentage points in their district) House Bush % - the list includes several promi- GOP Winner District Bush % Winner’s % GOP House % nent Republican leaders, such as Majority Leader Tom DeLay Randy Neugebauer* Texas 19 58% 77% +19% of Texas, House Rules Commit- Chris Cannon* Utah 3 63% 77% +14% tee Chairman David Dreier of Barbara Cubin* Wyo. AL 55% 69% +14% , and National Repub- Mike Sodrel Ind. 9 49% 59% +10% lican Congressional Committee Geoff Davis Ky. 4 54% 63% + 9% (NRCC) Chairman Tom Reynolds Tom DeLay* Texas 22 55% 64% + 9% of New York, who could be expected to raise 8-figure cam- Jeff Fortenberry Neb. 1 54% 63% + 9% paign chests if necessary to hold John Hostettler* Ind. 8 53% 62% + 9% their seats. Louie Gohmert Texas 1 61% 69% + 8% N.C. 5 59% 66% + 7% Nor, on the surface, does the situation look more promising Marilyn Musgrave* Colo. 4 51% 58% + 7% for the Democrats in next year’s Ted Poe Texas 2 56% 63% + 7% Senate races. They must defend Michael Oxley* Ohio 4 59% 65% + 6% 17 seats – actually, 18 if the seat Pete Sessions* Texas 32 54% 60% + 6% being vacated by Independent Note: The number of GOP congressional winners that trailed President Bush in 2004 James Jeffords of Vermont is do not include those in states and congressional districts where the share of the total included. The Republicans must vote (in whole percentage points) received by Republican Senate and House winners defend 15. And for every pro- equaled the share of the total vote won by Bush. spective Republican target, such Source: The Almanac of American Politics 2006 (National Journal) for the 2004 presi- dential vote by congressional district. as of Pennsyl- (Continued on Page 7) The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 5 TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY IN ‘06? House Members With the 50 Lowest Winning Percentages in 2004

Listed below are the 50 House members with the lowest winning percentages in 2004. Fully a third (17) are freshmen, most of whom would be expected to benefit from the proverbial “sophomore surge” in 2006. But the group of incumbents on the “top 50” list includes some of the most prominent Republicans in the House: Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, Rules Commit- tee chairman David Dreier of California, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman (NRCC) Tom Reynolds of New York, and former Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois (who is retiring). A total of 31 Republicans and 19 Demo- crats are on this “top 50” list. An asterisk (*) in the last column indicates that the district was won by the other party’s presiden- tial candidate in 2004. Vote percentages are based on the total vote. Terms in office are expressed in full terms. Republicans are listed in BOLD. House members are listed in order of their winning percentage in 2004, starting with the lowest.

Candidate Status in 04 Current Term in Office % of Total Vote 04 Pres. Winner 1 Mike Sodrel, R-Ind. 9 Challenger 1 49.5% Bush (59%) 2 Charlie Melancon, D-La. 3 Open Seat 1 50.2% Bush (58%)* 3 John Salazar, D-Colo. 3 Open Seat 1 50.6% Bush (55%)* 4 Brian Higgins, D-N.Y. 27 Open Seat 1 50.7% Kerry (53%) Randy Kuhl, R-N.Y. 29 Open Seat 1 50.7% Bush (56%) 6 Jim Gerlach, R-Pa. 6 Incumbent 2 51.0% Kerry (51%)* Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo. 4 Incumbent 2 51.0% Bush (58%) 8 Chet Edwards, D-Texas 17 Incumbent 8 51.2% Bush (70%)* 9 Dave Reichert, R-Wash. 8 Open Seat 1 51.5% Kerry (51%)* 10 Melissa Bean, D-Ill. 8 Challenger 1 51.7% Bush (56%)* 11 John Barrow, D-Ga. 12 Challenger 1 51.8% Kerry (54%) 12 Christopher Shays, R-Conn. 4 Incumbent 9 52.4% Kerry (52%)* 13 Russ Carnahan, D-Mo. 3 Open Seat 1 52.9% Kerry (57%) Darlene Hooley, D-Ore. 5 Incumbent 5 52.9% Bush (50%)* 15 Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D. AL Incumbent 1 53.4% Bush (60%)* Jim Costa, D-Calif. 20 Open Seat 1 53.4% Kerry (51%) John Hostettler, R-Ind. 8 Incumbent 6 53.4% Bush (62%) 18 David Dreier, R-Calif. 26 Incumbent 13 53.6% Bush (55%) 19 Mark Kennedy, R-Minn. 6 Incumbent 3 54.0% Bush (57%) 20 Chris Chocola, R-Ind. 2 Incumbent 2 54.2% Bush (56%) Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb. 1 Open Seat 1 54.2% Bush (63%) Rob Simmons, R-Conn. 2 Incumbent 3 54.2% Kerry (54%)* 23 Pete Sessions, R-Texas 32 Incumbent 5 54.3% (Bush 60%) 24 Julia Carson, D-Ind. 7 Incumbent 5 54.4% Kerry (58%) Geoff Davis, R-Ky. 4 Open Seat 1 54.4% Bush (63%) Heather Wilson, R-N.M. 1 Incumbent 4 54.4% Kerry (51%)* 27 Jon Porter, R-Nev. 3 Incumbent 2 54.5% Bush (50%) 28 Bob Beauprez, R-Colo. 7 Incumbent 2 54.7% Kerry (51%)* 29 Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. 4 Incumbent 2 54.8% Bush (58%)* Jim Matheson, D-Utah 2 Incumbent 3 54.8% Bush (66%)* Dennis Moore, D-Kan. 3 Incumbent 4 54.8% Bush (55%)* 32 Charles Taylor, R-N.C. 11 Incumbent 8 54.9% Bush (57%) 33 Charles Boustany, R-La. 7 Open Seat 1 55.0% Bush (60%)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 6 Candidate Status in 04 Current Term in Office % of Total Vote 04 Pres. Winner 34 Thelma Drake, R-Va. 2 Open Seat 1 55.1% Bush (58%) 35 Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa 3 Incumbent 5 55.2% Bush (50%)* Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Mo. 5 Open Seat 1 55.2% Kerry (59%) Tom DeLay, R-Texas 22 Incumbent 11 55.2% Bush (64%) Jim Nussle, R-Iowa 1 Incumbent 8 55.2% Kerry (53%)* 39 Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo. AL Incumbent 6 55.3% Bush (69%) Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. 8 Open Seat 1 55.3% Kerry (51%)* Katherine Harris, R-Fla. 13 Incumbent 2 55.3% Bush (56%) 42 Robin Hayes, R-N.C. 8 Incumbent 4 55.5% Bush (54%) Ted Poe, R-Texas 2 Challenger 1 55.5% Bush (63%) 44 Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y. 26 Incumbent 4 55.6% Bush (55%) 45 Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa. 13 Open Seat 1 55.7% Kerry (56%) 46 Henry Hyde, R-Ill. 6 Incumbent 16 55.8% Bush (53%) 47 Jim Ryun, R-Kan. 2 Incumbent 5 56.1% Bush (59%) 48 Timothy Bishop, D-N.Y. 1 Incumbent 2 56.2% Bush (49%)* 49 Ron Kind, D-Wis. 3 Incumbent 5 56.4% Kerry (51%) John Kline, R-Minn. 2 Incumbent 2 56.4% Bush (54%) Source: The Almanac of American Politics 2006 (National Journal) for terms in office, as well as the 2004 presidential winner and vote percentage by district.

(Continued from Page 5) Bush’s Coattails in Historical Terms vania or Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, both of whom President George W. Bush ran ahead of three dozen Republican House winners in 2004, represents states that backed exhibiting longer coattails than most recent presidents have shown but far shorter than those of Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon a generation ago. Each John Kerry in last year’s pres- of these earlier presidents ran ahead of more than 100 House winners of their party in idential contest, the Demo- the years they won easy reelection. An asterisk (*) indicates an incumbent president. crats must defend an endan- gered incumbent or two of Districts House winners % their own. It’s a list that starts Election president ran from president’s president ahead party ran ahead with the two Nelsons, Ben of Nebraska and Bill of , Dwight Eisenhower (R)* 1956 155 201 77% who represent states carried John Kennedy (D) 1960 22 263 8% by Bush in 2004. Lyndon Johnson (D)* 1964 134 295 45% Yet even with these signifi- Richard Nixon (R) 1968 - - - cant GOP advantages, it is Richard Nixon (R)* 1972 104 192 54% equally clear that Republicans (D) 1976 22 292 8% need to be on guard as they Ronald Reagan (R) 1980 38 192 20% approach 2006. President Ronald Reagan (R)* 1984 59 182 32% Bush’s approval rating sank George Bush (R) 1988 26 174 15% to 40% this month, the lowest Bill Clinton (D) 1992 4 258 2% mark of his presidency, and 4 percentage points lower than Bill Clinton (D)* 1996 27 207 13% Johnson’s on the eve of the George W. Bush (R) 2000 26 221 12% 1966 midterm elections. George W. Bush (R)* 2004 37 232 16% Note: The coattail figures tend to be based on the number of districts in which the presi- To be sure, Bush will not be dential winner drew a higher percentage of the total vote than his party’s victorious on the ballot in 2006. But House candidates. he has been the face of the Source: Vital Statistics on Congress 2001-2002 (American Enterprise Institute) for coat- Republican Party the last five tail figures through 2000; The Almanac of American Politics 2006 (National Journal) years and doubts about his was used to compile coattail figures for 2004. No totals are available for the election of 1968, which Richard Nixon won with just 43% of the popular vote. (Continued on Page 9) The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 7 SENATORS UP IN ‘06: How They Ran in 2000

It will be a tall order for the Democrats to win control of the Senate in 2006. Not only are they defending more seats than the Republicans (17 to 15, with one indepen- dent), but only three Republican senators up next year are in states that voted for John Kerry in last fall’s presidential election. An asterisk (*) in the last column indicates that the state was won by the other party’s presidential candi- date in 2004. A pound sign (#) indicates that Republican Jim Talent of Missouri won his seat in a special election in 2002. Vote percentages are based on the total vote. Terms in office are expressed in full terms. Republicans are listed in BOLD. Senators are listed in order of their winning per- centage in their last election, from lowest to highest.

Status in Current Term % of ‘00 ‘04 Pres. ‘00 in Office Total Vote Winner 1 Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. Challenger 1 48.7% Kerry (53%) 2 , D-Minn. Challenger 1 48.8% Kerry (51%) 3 , D-Mich. Challenger 1 49.5% Kerry (51%) 4 Jim Talent, R-Mo. Challenger 1 49.8%# Bush (53%) 5 Jon Corzine, D-N.J. Open Seat 1 50.1% Kerry (53%) 6 Conrad Burns, R-Mont. Incumbent 3 50.6% Bush (59%) 7 Ben Nelson, D-Neb. Open Seat 1 51.0% Bush (66%)* Bill Nelson, D-Fla. Open Seat 1 51.0% Bush (52%)* 9 George Allen, R-Va. Challenger 1 52.3% Bush (54%) 10 Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Incumbent 2 52.4% Kerry (51%)* 11 John Ensign, R-Nev. Open Seat 1 55.1% Bush (50%) 12 , D-N.Y. Open Seat 1 55.3% Kerry (58%) 13 Tom Carper, D-Del. Challenger 1 55.5% Kerry (53%) 14 Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Incumbent 2 55.8% Kerry (54%) 15 Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. Incumbent 1 56.8% Kerry (59%)* 16 Mike DeWine, R-Ohio Incumbent 2 59.9% Bush (51%) 17 Kent Conrad, D-N.D. Incumbent 3 61.4% Bush (63%)* 18 Herb Kohl, D-Wis. Incumbent 3 61.5% Kerry (50%) 19 Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. Incumbent 4 61.7% Bush (50%)* 20 Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. Incumbent 3 63.2% Kerry (54%) Paul Sarbanes, D-Md. Incumbent 5 63.2% Kerry (56%) 22 Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas Incumbent 2 65.0% Bush (61%) 23 Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Incumbent 2 65.1% Bush (57%) 24 Orrin Hatch, R-Utah Incumbent 5 65.6% Bush (72%) James Jeffords, Ind.-Vt. Incumbent 3 65.6% Kerry (59%)* 26 Trent Lott, R-Miss. Incumbent 3 65.9% Bush (59%) 27 Richard Lugar, R-Ind. Incumbent 5 66.6% Bush (60%) 28 Olympia Snowe, R-Me. Incumbent 2 68.9% Kerry (54%)* 29 Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii Incumbent 2 72.7% Kerry (54%) Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Incumbent 7 72.7% Kerry (62%) 31 Craig Thomas, R-Wyo. Incumbent 2 73.8% Bush (69%) 32 Robert Byrd, D-W.V. Incumbent 8 77.8% Bush (56%)* 33 Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Incumbent 2 79.3% Bush (55%) Source: The Almanac of American Politics 2006 (National Journal) for terms in office.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 8 The Ohio 2nd Special Election: A Harbinger for ‘06?

Vote Percentage Counties Carried Jean Schmidt (R) 59,671 51.6% 3

Paul Hackett (D) 55,886 48.4% 4 Counties that Voted for Hackett

Others 19 - - Counties that Voted for Schmidt Total Vote 115,576 Note: Counties carried include those partially in the Ohio 2nd.

Most special House elections do not draw much national attention. But the contest August 2nd in the Ohio 2nd did, as Democrat Paul Hackett, a Marine reservist who had recently served in Iraq, came within 4,000 votes of defeating Republican Jean Schmidt in the predominantly GOP district along the Ohio River. It wasn’t just Hack- ett’s unique resume that drew attention, but also the themes of his campaign - which ranged from sharp criticism of President Bush and the war in Iraq to Ohio GOP Gov. and ethics deficiencies in his state administra- tion. In the end, Schmidt won, but with a share of the vote a dozen points behind Bush’s 2004 showing in the dis- trict. The falloff was greater than that in the suburban and rural counties outside Hamilton ().

Total Votes Cast % of Total Vote Change, County ‘04 President ‘05 House Bush ‘04 Schmidt ‘05 04-’05 Hamilton (part) 133,461 49,482 60% 51% - 9% Clermont 89,079 29,987 71% 58% -13% Warren (part) 44,479 13,101 73% 58% -15%

Brown 19,892 7,089 64% 44% -20% Scioto (part) 19,622 7,618 49% 35% -14% Pike 12,576 4,236 52% 37% -15% Adams 12,000 4,063 64% 47% -17% District Total 331,109 115,576 64% 52% -12% Source: Clark Bensen of Polidata for the breakdown of the 2004 presidential vote by county. Write-in votes for president are not included for counties that are partially in the Ohio 2nd.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 9 (Continued from Page 7) presidency could rapidly evolve into a visceral concern among voters about the GOP’s ability to gov- ern. It was a shift of opinion on that basic question of governing ability that undermined the Demo- crats in the latter half of the 1960s. In times like this, special congressional elections can draw an unusual degree of attention as pundits and politicians look for clues as to what will happen next. And the Democrats’ closer than expected finish in the heavily Republican Ohio 2nd this summer was widely viewed as a favorable sign for the Democrats. In a Cincinnati-area district that GOP Rep. won in 2004 with 72% of the vote and that President Bush carried with 64%, Republican Jean Schmidt was held to 52% in the August special election to succeed Portman (who had vacated the seat this spring to become U.S. trade representative in the Bush administration.) Her Democratic opponent, Paul Hackett, carried all four counties outside the orbit of Cincinnati, giv- ing the Democrats’ hope that at least some of their candidates in 2006 may be able to crack “Main Street America” in a way its national ticket was unable to do in 2004. Republicans blamed Schmidt’s mediocre showing on widespread displeasure with the scandal-tinged administration of Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, in short arguing that the falloff in the Republican vote was due to parochial concerns. But Democrats argued their inroads were tied to the strength of their candidate and the power of his message. Hackett, a Marine Corps reservist recently back from Iraq, boasted a resume that gave him the standing to sharply attack the war and Bush’s ability to lead the fight. It is a message that many Democrats hope will gain broader resonance in 2006. Any Democratic comeback next year would probably not include big inroads in the South. There, the party is at low ebb, coming out of the 2004 election with none of the region’s electoral votes, just 15% of its Senate seats (four out of 26), and 36% of its House seats (51 of 142). Not only did Democrats lose all six open Senate races across the South last fall, but they did not even field House candidates in The GOP’s Evolving Congressional Base 27 Southern districts – including six in Florida, four each in Georgia and Texas, Nationally, the Republican numbers in Congress are about the same now as they were when they won control of both chambers in 1994. But over and three in Virginia. the last decade, the party’s congressional base has grown decidedly more “Dixie centric.” Since 1994, Republicans have gained 18 House seats and Yet while the Democrats are approach- six Senate seats in the South, but have lost a combined 17 House seats and ing default mode in much of Dixie, they four Senate seats in the and Northeast. Totals are based on post-elec- are on an upswing in the Northeast and tion results, and include Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby’s switch from the the West. Since Republicans gained Democrats to the GOP on the day following the 1994 election. control of Congress in 1994, the GOP has gained 18 House seats and six Sen- GOP House Seats GOP Senate Seats Change, Change, ate seats in the South. But at the same 1994 2004 1994 2004 1994-2004 1994-2004 time, Republicans have lost 17 House seats and four Senate seats on the two South 73 91 + 18 16 22 + 6 coasts. In short, while a door has closed Midwest 59 60 + 1 11 11 0 for the Democrats in the South, one has West 53 45 - 8 16 15 - 1 opened wider and wider for them in the Northeast 45 36 - 9 10 7 - 3 Northeast and the West. NATIONAL 230 232 + 2 53 55 + 2 What happens next ultimately depends Source: America Votes 26 (CQ Press). on whether the “politics of trauma” can trump the current structure of congres- sional elections that favors incumbents in general and the Republicans in particular. In short, will a point be reached in 2006 where Democrats can effectively campaign on a simple four-word slogan: “Had Enough? Vote Democratic”? Stranger things have happened.

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 10 Wrapping Up 2004: Party Registration Democrats, Republicans, Others: Where They Stood by State in November 2004

In the 27 states that had party registration throughout President Bush’s first term, Democrats had a plurality of registered voters in 13 of them at the time of the 2004 presidential election, with Republicans and “Others” hav- ing the advantage in seven states apiece. These states are indicated below in BOLD. In most of the party registration states, the Democratic and Republican proportions of the electorate declined a bit from their levels in the fall of 2000. But “Others” (a combination of independent and third party registrations) grew almost everywhere, con- tinuing a trend that has been evident since the beginning of the Clinton presidency. A dash (-) indicates there was no change in the percentage of registered voters from 2000 to 2004.

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS OTHERS Dem. % of Change, Rep. % of Change, Others % of Change, Registered 2000-04 Registered 2000-04 Registered 2000-04 1 W.Va. 58.2% - 3.6% 1 Wyo. 63.0% + 2.1% 1 Alaska 60.0% + 0.7% 2 Ky. 57.8% - 2.4% 2 Neb. 49.6% + 0.1% 2 N.J. 59.1% + 2.7% 3 La. 55.4% - 4.6% 3 S.D. 47.5% - 0.7% 3 Mass. 49.8% - 4 Md. 55.3% - 1.7% 4 Kan. 45.9% + 0.6% 4 Conn. 44.4% + 2.8% 5 Okla. 51.4% - 3.9% 5 Pa. 40.7% - 1.1% 5 N.H. 42.1% + 3.6% 6 N.M. 49.8% - 2.4% 6 Nev. 40.5% - 1.2% 6 Maine 40.8% + 1.6% 7 Pa. 47.6% - 0.4% 7 Ariz. 39.9% - 3.5% 7 Iowa 38.0% + 0.6% 8 N.Y. 46.8% + 0.2% 8 Okla. 38.1% + 2.4% 8 Colo. 33.4% - 1.2% N.C. 46.8% - 3.0% 9 Fla. 37.8% - 1.4% 9 Kan. 27.2% + 0.2% 10 Del. 43.8% + 1.2% 10 Colo. 36.1% + 0.6% 10 N.Y. 26.1% + 0.8% 11 Calif. 43.0% - 2.4% 11 Ky. 35.7% + 2.6% 11 Ore. 25.7% + 1.2% 12 Fla. 41.4% - 2.1% 12 Ore. 35.6% - 0.3% 12 Ariz. 25.5% + 7.1% 13 Nev. 40.1% - 1.5% 13 Calif. 34.7% - 0.2% 13 Del. 23.4% - 14 Ore. 38.7% - 1.0% 14 N.C. 34.5% + 0.5% 14 Calif. 22.3% + 2.6% 15 S.D. 38.1% - 0.3% 15 Del. 32.8% - 1.2% 15 Fla. 20.8% + 3.5% 16 Mass. 37.2% + 0.7% 16 N.M. 32.5% - 0.2% 16 La. 20.7% + 2.7% 17 Ariz. 34.6% - 3.6% 17 Iowa 31.2% - 0.8% 17 Nev. 19.3% + 2.6% 18 Neb. 34.2% - 2.0% N.H. 31.2% - 4.1% 18 N.C. 18.7% + 2.5% 19 Conn. 33.8% - 0.7% 19 W.Va. 29.9% + 0.9% 19 N.M. 17.7% + 2.6% 20 Maine 31.2% - 0.2% 20 Md. 29.3% - 0.4% 20 Neb. 16.2% + 1.9% 21 Iowa 30.9% + 0.2% 21 Maine 28.1% - 1.3% 21 Md. 15.4% + 2.1% 22 Colo. 30.4% + 0.5% 22 N.Y. 27.1% - 1.1% 22 S.D. 14.4% + 1.0% 23 Kan. 26.9% - 0.8% 23 Alaska 24.9% + 0.4% 23 W.Va. 11.9% + 2.7% 24 Wyo. 26.8% - 2.3% 24 La. 24.0% + 2.0% 24 Pa. 11.7% + 1.5% 25 N.H. 26.7% + 0.5% 25 Conn. 21.8% - 2.1% 25 Okla. 10.5% + 1.5% 26 N.J. 23.2% - 1.8% 26 N.J. 17.7% - 0.9% 26 Wyo. 10.2% + 0.1% 27 Alaska 15.1% - 1.1% 27 Mass. 13.0% - 0.7% 27 Ky. 6.5% - 0.2%

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 11 The Prescience of Party Registration Totals in 2004

In all but three party registration states outside the South, the party with more registered voters than the other carried the state in last fall’s presidential election. The exceptions are highlighted below in BOLD, and include New Hampshire, New Mexico and , as well as the five party registration states in the South. In the first two, the presidential vote was extremely close. In West Virginia, like its neighbors to the south, the Democratic registration advantage is a lagging indicator of current Republican voting habits at the presidential level. In the “Registration Plurality” column, the party with the registration advantage over the other at the time of last November’s election is indicated, even in states where more voters were registered outside both major parties. In Sync More registered Reps. than Dems. - voted for Bush More registered Dems. than Reps. - voted for Kerry Against the Grain More registered Dems. than Reps. - voted for Bush More registered Reps. than Dems. - voted for Kerry

NORTHEAST Registration Plurality Fall ‘04 Election Plurality Nov. ‘04 Connecticut Dems. by 251,148 Kerry by 163,662 Delaware Dems. by 60,723 Kerry by 28,492 Maine Dems. by 31,746 Kerry by 66,641 Maryland Dems. by 798,100 Kerry by 309,790 Massachusetts Dems. by 994,392 Kerry by 732,691 New Hampshire Reps. by 38,746 Kerry by 9,274 New Jersey Dems. by 278,423 Kerry by 241,427 New York Dems. by 2,325,492 Kerry by 1,351,713 Pennsylvania Dems. by 580,208 Kerry by 144,248 West Virginia Dems. by 331,271 Bush by 97,237 WEST Alaska Reps. by 46,502 Bush by 79,864 Arizona Reps. by 140,988 Bush by 210,770 California Dems. by 1,374,907 Kerry by 1,235,659 Reps. by 177,508 Bush by 99,523 Nevada Reps. by 4,431 Bush by 21,500 New Mexico Dems. by 190,956 Bush by 5,988 Oregon Dems. by 67,478 Kerry by 76,332 Wyoming Reps. by 83,943 Bush by 96,853 SOUTH Florida Dems. by 368,757 Bush by 380,978 Kentucky Dems. by 618,686 Bush by 356,706 Louisiana Dems. by 917,740 Bush by 281,870 North Carolina Dems. by 679,343 Bush by 435,317 Oklahoma Dems. by 284,139 Bush by 455,826 MIDWEST Iowa Reps. by 5,981 Bush by 10,059 Kansas Reps. by 301,321 Bush by 301,463 Nebraska Reps. by 179,014 Bush by 258,486 South Dakota Reps. by 47,057 Bush by 83,340

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 12 Party Registration by State from Election to Election, 2000-2004

During President Bush’s first term, the Republicans added nearly 1.9 million additional voters in the states with party registration, com- pared to the Democratic gain of barely 1.5 million. Yet, as through the 1990s, the largest growth was outside the two major parties, among independents and to a lesser degree third parties. This “Oth- ers” category added almost 3.3 million voters to their ranks between the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. Basically, more Repub- licans than Democrats were added to the rolls in “Red America.” In “Blue America,” the reverse was the case. “Others” gained in both sectors.

The following chart compares election-eve party registration totals in 2000 with the numbers at the time of the November 2004 election in the 27 states where party registration figures were compiled in both years. The numerical change over the four-year period is indicated in italics. A “D” or “R” notes which of the parties had the registration advantage, even in those states where there were more voters regis- tered outside the two major parties. In the column labelled “D-R Plu- rality,” the gain (+) or loss (-) in registered voters is based on the total for the leading party in that state in 2004. The percentage for the As of November 2004 party with the highest number of registered voters in each state is indicated in BOLD, as is the percentage for “Others” in states where States with Democratic Registration Advantage a plurality of voters registered outside the two major parties. States with Republican Registration Advantage The Dec. 5, 2000, issue of Ballot Access News is the source for nearly States with Registration Advantage for ‘Others’ all the 2000 registration figures, which reflect totals from that fall. The 2004 figures were compiled by this publication from state elec- tion board websites.

D - R Total Dems. Reps. Others Dem. % Rep. % Others % Plurality NATIONAL (27 states) Fall ‘00 87,600,846 38,274,302 28,799,365 20,527,179 9,474,937 D 43.7% 32.9% 23.4% Nov. ‘04 94,303,244 39,809,322 30,681,304 23,812,618 9,128,018 D 42.2% 32.5% 25.3% Change, ‘00-’04 + 6,702,398 + 1,535,020 + 1,881,939 + 3,285,439 - 346,919 D - 1.5% - 0.4% + 1.9% ALASKA Fall ‘00 473,648 76,561 116,059 281,028 39,498 R 16.2% 24.5% 59.3% Nov. ‘04 473,927 71,506 118,008 284,413 46,502 R 15.1% 24.9% 60.0% Change, ‘00-’04 + 279 - 5,055 + 1,949 + 3,385 + 7,004 R - 1.1% + 0.4% + 0.7% ARIZONA Fall ‘00 2,173,122 830,904 942,078 400,140 111,174 R 38.2% 43.4% 18.4% Nov. ‘04 2,643,331 914,264 1,055,252 673,815 140,988 R 34.6% 39.9% 25.5% Change, ‘00-’04 + 470,209 + 83,360 + 113,174 + 273,675 + 29,814 R - 3.6% - 3.5% + 7.1% CALIFORNIA Fall ‘00 15,707,259 7,134,588 5,485,467 3,087,204 1,649,121 D 45.4% 34.9% 19.7% Oct. ‘04 16,557,273 7,120,425 5,745,518 3,691,330 1,374,907 D 43.0% 34.7% 22.3% Change, ‘00-’04 + 850,014 - 14,163 + 260,051 + 604,126 - 274,214 D - 2.4% - 0.2% + 2.6% COLORADO Fall ‘00 2,858,823 854,409 1,014,960 989,454 160,551 R 29.9% 35.5% 34.6% Oct. ‘04 3,114,566 947,866 1,125,374 1,041,326 177,508 R 30.4% 36.1% 33.4% Change, ‘00-’04 + 255,743 + 93,457 + 110,414 + 51,872 + 16,957 R + 0.5% + 0.6% - 1.2% CONNECTICUT Fall ‘00 2,031,626 701,017 485,593 845,016 215,424 D 34.5% 23.9% 41.6% Oct. ‘04 2,102,941 709,778 458,630 934,533 251,148 D 33.8% 21.8% 44.4% Change, ‘00-’04 + 71,315 + 8,761 - 26,963 + 89,517 + 35,724 D - 0.7% - 2.1% + 2.8%

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 13 D - R Total Dems. Reps. Others Dem. % Rep. % Others % Plurality DELAWARE Nov. ‘00 503,672 214,515 171,447 117,710 43,068 D 42.6% 34.0% 23.4% Nov. ‘04 553,885 242,598 181,875 129,412 60,723 D 43.8% 32.8% 23.4% Change, ‘00-’04 + 50,213 + 28,083 + 10,428 + 11,702 + 17,655 D + 1.2% - 1.2% - FLORIDA Fall ‘00 8,746,717 3,803,081 3,430,238 1,513,398 372,843 D 43.5% 39.2% 17.3% Oct. ‘04 10,301,290 4,261,249 3,892,492 2,147,549 368,757 D 41.4% 37.8% 20.8% Change, ‘00-’04 + 1,554,573 + 458,168 + 462,254 + 634,151 - 4,086 D - 2.1% - 1.4% + 3.5% IOWA Fall ‘00 1,849,944 567,180 591,717 691,047 24,537 R 30.7% 32.0% 37.4% Oct. ‘04 1,938,657 598,296 604,277 736,084 5,981 R 30.9% 31.2% 38.0% Change, ‘00-’04 + 88,713 + 31,116 + 12,560 + 45,037 - 18,556 R + 0.2% - 0.8% + 0.6% KANSAS Fall ‘00 1,622,982 449,297 734,771 438,914 285,474 R 27.7% 45.3% 27.0% July ‘04 1,591,428 428,728 730,049 432,651 301,321 R 26.9% 45.9% 27.2% Change, ‘00-’04 - 31,554 - 20,569 - 4,722 - 6,263 + 15,847 R - 0.8% + 0.6% + 0.2% KENTUCKY Fall ‘00 2,556,813 1,539,562 846,621 170,630 692,941 D 60.2% 33.1% 6.7% Nov. ‘04 2,794,285 1,615,349 996,663 182,273 618,686 D 57.8% 35.7% 6.5% Change, ‘00-’04 + 237,472 + 75,787 + 150,042 + 11,643 - 74,255 D - 2.4% + 2.6% - 0.2% LOUISIANA Fall ‘00 2,782,929 1,668,872 613,107 500,950 1,055,765 D 60.0% 22.0% 18.0% Nov. ‘04 2,923,395 1,618,431 700,691 604,273 917,740 D 55.4% 24.0% 20.7% Change, 92-00 + 140,466 - 50,441 + 87,584 + 103,323 - 138,025 D - 4.6% + 2.0% + 2.7% MAINE Fall ‘00 947,189 297,405 278,228 371,556 19,177 D 31.4% 29.4% 39.2% Nov. ‘04 1,023,956 319,198 287,452 417,306 31,746 D 31.2% 28.1% 40.8% Change, ‘00-’04 + 76,767 + 21,793 + 9,224 + 45,750 + 12,569 D - 0.2% - 1.3% + 1.6% MARYLAND Fall ‘00 2,715,360 1,547,111 805,893 362,356 741,218 D 57.0% 29.7% 13.3% Oct. ‘04 3,074,889 1,699,051 900,951 474,887 798,100 D 55.3% 29.3% 15.4% Change, ‘00’-04 + 359,529 + 151,940 + 95,058 + 112,531 + 56,882 D - 1.7% - 0.4% + 2.1% MASSACHUSETTS Fall ‘00 4,001,058 1,460,881 546,333 1,993,844 914,548 D 36.5% 13.7% 49.8% Oct. ’04 4,098,634 1,526,711 532,319 2,039,604 994,392 D 37.2% 13.0% 49.8% Change, ‘00-’04 + 97,576 + 65,830 - 14,014 + 45,760 + 79,844 D + 0.7% - 0.7% - NEBRASKA Fall ‘00 1,085,272 392,344 537,605 155,323 145,261 R 36.2% 49.5% 14.3% Nov. ‘04 1,160,199 396,767 575,781 187,651 179,014 R 34.2% 49.6% 16.2% Change, ‘00-’04 + 74,927 + 4,423 + 38,176 + 32,328 + 33,753 R - 2.0% + 0.1% + 1.9% NEVADA Fall ‘00 878,970 365,593 366,431 146,946 838 R 41.6% 41.7% 16.7% Nov. ‘04 1,071,101 429,808 434,239 207,054 4,431 R 40.1% 40.5% 19.3% Change, ‘00-’04 + 192,131 + 64,215 + 67,808 + 60,108 + 3,593 R - 1.5% - 1.2% + 2.6%

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 14 D - R Total Dems. Reps. Others Dem. % Rep. % Others % Plurality NEW HAMPSHIRE Fall ‘00 856,519 224,564 302,138 329,817 77,574 R 26.2% 35.3% 38.5% Nov. ‘04 855,861 228,395 267,141 360,325 38,746 R 26.7% 31.2% 42.1% Change, ‘00-’04 - 658 + 3,831 - 34,997 + 30,508 - 38,828 R + 0.5% - 4.1% + 3.6% NEW JERSEY Fall ‘00 4,710,768 1,179,577 876,386 2,654,805 303,191 D 25.0% 18.6% 56.4% Nov. ‘04 5,005,959 1,163,224 884,801 2,957,934 278,423 D 23.2% 17.7% 59.1% Change, ‘00-’04 + 295,191 - 16,353 + 8,415 + 303,129 - 24,768 D - 1.8% - 0.9% + 2.7% NEW MEXICO Fall ‘00 973,533 508,414 318,282 146,837 190,132 D 52.2% 32.7% 15.1% Nov. ‘04 1,105,372 550,519 359,563 195,290 190,956 D 49.8% 32.5% 17.7% Change, ‘00-’04 + 131,839 + 42,105 + 41,281 + 48,453 + 824 D - 2.4% - 0.2% + 2.6% NEW YORK Fall ‘00 11,262,816 5,243,617 3,171,044 2,848,155 2,072,573 D 46.6% 28.2% 25.3% Nov. ‘04 11,837,068 5,534,574 3,209,082 3,093,412 2,325,492 D 46.8% 27.1% 26.1% Change, ‘00-’04 + 574,252 + 290,957 + 38,038 + 245,257 + 252,919 D + 0.2% - 1.1% + 0.8% NORTH CAROLINA Fall ‘00 5,192,633 2,588,137 1,765,476 839,020 822,661 D 49.8% 34.0% 16.2% Nov. ‘04 5,519,992 2,582,462 1,903,119 1,034,411 679,343 D 46.8% 34.5% 18.7% Change, ‘00-’04 + 327,359 - 5,675 + 137,643 + 195,391 - 143,318 D - 3.0% + 0.5% + 2.5% OKLAHOMA Fall ‘00 2,233,190 1,233,999 797,949 201,242 436,050 D 55.3% 35.7% 9.0% Nov. ‘04 2,143,978 1,101,072 816,933 225,973 284,139 D 51.4% 38.1% 10.5% Change, ‘00-’04 - 89,212 - 132,927 + 18,984 + 24,731 - 151,911 D - 3.9% + 2.4% + 1.5% OREGON Fall ‘00 1,894,975 751,414 679,975 463,586 71,439 D 39.7% 35.9% 24.5% Nov. ‘04 2,141,243 829,193 761,715 550,335 67,478 D 38.7% 35.6% 25.7% Change, ‘00-’04 + 246,268 + 77,779 + 81,740 + 86,749 - 3,961 D - 1.0% - 0.3% + 1.2% PENNSYLVANIA Fall ‘00 7,781,997 3,736,304 3,250,764 794,929 485,540 D 48.0% 41.8% 10.2% Nov. ‘04 8,366,663 3,985,486 3,405,278 975,899 580,208 D 47.6% 40.7% 11.7% Change, ‘00-’04 + 584,666 + 249,182 + 154,514 + 180,970 + 94,668 D - 0.4% - 1.1% + 1.5% SOUTH DAKOTA Fall ‘00 471,152 181,129 226,906 63,117 45,777 R 38.4% 48.2% 13.4% Oct. ‘04 502,261 191,523 238,580 72,158 47,057 R 38.1% 47.5% 14.4% Change, ‘00-’04 + 31,109 + 10,394 + 11,674 + 9,041 + 1,280 R - 0.3% - 0.7% + 1.0% WEST VIRGINIA Fall ‘00 1,067,817 659,833 309,970 98,014 349,863 D 61.8% 29.0% 9.2% Nov. ‘04 1,168,694 680,464 349,193 139,037 331,271 D 58.2% 29.9% 11.9% Change, ‘00-’04 + 100,877 + 20,631 + 39,223 + 41,023 - 18,592 D - 3.6% + 0.9% + 2.7% WYOMING Fall ‘00 220,062 63,994 133,927 22,141 69,933 R 29.1% 60.9% 10.1% Oct. ‘04 232,396 62,385 146,328 23,683 83,943 R 26.8% 63.0% 10.2% Change, ‘00-’04 + 12,334 - 1,609 + 12,401 + 1,542 + 14,010 R - 2.3% + 2.1% + 0.1%

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 15 The Changing Composition of the 109th Congress

George W. Bush tapped the ranks of his Republican gubernatorial colleagues in filling his first-term cabinet, but is turning to the House of Rep- resentatives to fill some key executive branch vacancies in his second term. Republican Rep. Rob Portman of the Ohio 2nd was picked in March to become U.S. trade representative, while his GOP House colleague, Christopher Cox of the California 48th, was chosen in June to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This follows the selection last year of Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla. 14) to head the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

All three districts are heavily Republican, and the GOP easily held Goss’ Florida seat last November. But Republicans barely retained the Port- man seat in an Aug. 2 special election, as former state Rep. Jean Schmidt defeated Democrat Paul Hackett by just 3 percentage points. Schmidt finished a dozen percentage points behind Bush’s 2004 vote share in the district, and 20 points behind Portman’s showing last fall. Meanwhile, the special election to fill Cox’s seat will be held Oct. 4, with a runoff scheduled Dec. 6 if no candidate wins a majority of the vote in the first round. Bush carried the Southern California district with 58% of the vote in 2004; Cox won it with 65%.

House of Representatives Senate Date and Event Reps. Dems. Ind. Vac. Reps. Dems. Ind. 2004 ELECTION 232 202 1 55 44 1 Jan. 1, 2005 - Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif. 5) dies of 232 201 1 1 pneumonia complicated by a rare blood disorder. March 8, 2005 - Doris Matsui wins special election in 232 202 1 the California 5th to succeed her late husband. April 29, 2005 - Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio 2) resigns 231 202 1 1 to become U.S. trade representative. Aug. 2, 2005 - Special election in Ohio 2nd won by Jean Schmidt (R). 232 202 1 Aug. 2, 2005 - Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif. 48) resigns to become chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission 231 202 1 1 (SEC). ... AND THE GOVERNORSHIPS Reps. Dems. 2004 ELECTION 28 22 Jan. 20, 2005 - Gov. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) resigns to become secretary of agriculture. Lt. Gov. Dave Heineman is sworn in 28 22 Jan. 21 to succeed him. What’s Up in 2006

A total of 36 governorships and 33 Senate seats will be up in 2006, plus all 435 House seats. Two other governorships will be decided this fall, in New Jersey and Virginia. The incumbents in those states are indicated with a pound sign (#). States are listed below from the most Republican to the most Democratic in last fall’s presidential voting. Republican gubernatorial and Senate incumbents are indicated in BOLD; Democratic incumbents in regular type. Next to the names of the senators whose seats are up in 2006 are their votes earlier this year on the two most controversial Bush Cabinet nominations - Condolezza Rice as secretary of state and Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. While there was no Republican opposition to either nomination, a total of 12 Democratic senators voted against Rice and 35 against Gonzales. Inde- pendent James Jeffords of Vermont also opposed both nominations. A dash (-) indicates that a senator did not vote. On Sept. 29, the Senate voted 78-to-22 to confirm John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court. A breakdown of the vote will be included in the next issue in November.

Senate 04 Presiden- House Seats Seats Up Confirmation Votes State tial Vote Rice Gonzalez Rep. Dem. Ind. Governors Senators (State) (Atty. Gen.) Utah Bush by 46% 2 1 Orrin Hatch (R) Yes Yes Wyoming Bush by 40% 1 Dave Freudenthal (D) Craig Thomas (R) Yes Yes Bush by 38% 2 Dirk Kempthorne (R) Nebraska Bush by 33% 3 Dave Heineman (R) Ben Nelson (D) Yes Yes Oklahoma Bush by 31% 4 1 Brad Henry (D) North Dakota Bush by 27% 1 Kent Conrad (D) Yes - Alabama Bush by 26% 5 2 Bob Riley (R) Alaska Bush by 26% 1 Frank Murkowski (R) The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 16 Senate 04 Presiden- House Seats Seats Up Confirmation Votes State tial Vote RRiceice GGonzalezonzalez RRep.ep. DDem.em. IInd.nd. GGovernorsovernors SSenatorsenators ((State)State) ((Atty.Atty. GGen.)en.) Kansas Bush by 25% 3 1 (D) Texas Bush by 23% 21 11 (R) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Yes Yes South Dakota Bush by 21% 1 Mike Rounds (R) Indiana Bush by 21% 7 2 Richard Lugar (R) Yes Yes Montana Bush by 21% 1 Conrad Burns (R) -- Kentucky Bush by 20% 5 1 Mississippi Bush by 20% 2 2 Trent Lott (R) Yes Yes South Carolina Bush by 17% 4 2 Mark Sanford (R) Georgia Bush by 17% 7 6 (R) Louisiana Bush by 15% 5 2 Tennessee Bush by 14% 4 5 Phil Bredesen (D) Bill Frist (R) Yes Yes West Virginia Bush by 13% 1 2 Robert Byrd (D) NO NO North Carolina Bush by 12% 7 6 Arizona Bush by 10% 6 2 Jane Napolitano (D) Jon Kyl (R) Yes Yes Bush by 10% 1 3 Mike Huckabee (R) Virginia Bush by 8% 8 3 Mark Warner (D)# George Allen (R) Yes Yes Missouri Bush by 7% 5 4 Jim Talent (R) Yes Yes Florida Bush by 5% 18 7 Jeb Bush (R) Bill Nelson (D) Yes Yes Colorado Bush by 5% 4 3 Bill Owens (R) Nevada Bush by 3% 2 1 Kenny Guinn (R) John Ensign (R) Yes Yes Ohio Bush by 2% 12 6 Bob Taft (R) Mike DeWine (R) Yes Yes New Mexico Bush by 0.8% 2 1 (D) Jeff Bingaman (D) Yes NO Iowa Bush by 0.7% 4 1 (D) Wisconsin Kerry by 0.4% 4 4 James Doyle (D) Herb Kohl (D) Yes NO New Hampshire Kerry by 1% 2 John Lynch (D) Pennsylvania Kerry by 3% 12 7 Ed Rendell (D) Rick Santorum (R) Yes Yes Kerry by 3% 9 6 (D) Debbie Stabenow (D) Yes NO Kerry by 3% 4 4 Tim Pawlenty (R) Mark Dayton (D) NO NO Oregon Kerry by 4% 1 4 Ted Kulongoski (D) New Jersey Kerry by 7% 6 7 Richard Codey (D)# Jon Corzine (D) Yes NO Washington Kerry by 7% 3 6 Maria Cantwell (D) Yes NO Delaware Kerry by 8% 1 Thomas Carper (D) Yes NO Hawaii Kerry by 9% 2 Linda Lingle (R) Daniel Akaka (D) NO NO Maine Kerry by 9% 2 John Baldacci (D) Olympia Snowe (R) Yes Yes Arnold California Kerry by 10% 20 33 Dianne Feinstein (D) Yes NO Schwarzenegger (R) Illinois Kerry by 10% 9 10 Rod Blagojevich (D) Connecticut Kerry by 10% 3 2 M. Jodi Rell (R) Joe Lieberman (D) Yes Yes Maryland Kerry by 13% 2 6 Robert Ehrlich (R) Paul Sarbanes (D) Yes NO New York Kerry by 18% 9 20 George Pataki (R) Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) Yes NO Vermont Kerry by 20% 1 Jim Douglas (R) James Jeffords (Ind.) NO NO Rhode Island Kerry by 21% 2 Donald Carcieri (R) Lincoln Chafee (R) Yes Yes Massachusetts Kerry by 25% 10 (R) Edward Kennedy (D) NO NO At Stake in 2006 232 202 1 36 Up (22 R, 14 D) 33 Up (15 R, 17 D, 1 Ind.)

The Rhodes Cook Letter • September 2005 17