Congressional redistricting fallout: 10 incumbent against incumbent contests to watch

Every ten years, a census is taken. It generally produces one of two results with a third neutral option. Most talked about and monitored are the states that witness a growth in population and hence more membership in the U.S. House of Representatives and the states that witness a shrinking in population and hence less membership in the U.S. House. As is the case in most states, populations might shift; but overall totals do not warrant gaining or losing any seats. Additionally, as part of those scenarios; when a state loses membership it forces two incumbents to likely oppose one another in either a primary or general election.

With all that said, the Washington Post's "Fix" has provided ten races to watch in 2012 that involve two incumbents against one another.

To the top ten:

10) Steve Austria (R-Ohio) vs. Mike Turner (R-Ohio): This may be the biggest jump ball of all, but it’s also a matchup of back-benchers and lawmakers who most in Washington don’t really know. Republicans reshuffled the Ohio map to shore up Columbus-area Republicans who had increasingly difficult districts. The solution was to create a new Democratic-leaning district, but in the process, Austria and Turner had to be paired. The two men both currently represent a good chunk of the new district, and they have about the same amount of cash- -on-hand, with just more than $400,000 each.

9) Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) vs. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.): Washington Democrats wouldn’t be terribly sad to see either of these incumbents lose, as Hahn under-performed in a recent special election and Richardson’s personal troubles have mounted. The good news for the establishment is that they could both lose. State Assemblyman Isadore Hall (D) outraised both in the third quarter and already has more cash-on-hand. But if Hall and Richardson split the black vote, that could open things up for Hahn, who is white. The district is 28 percent black and 49 percent Hispanic.

8) Gary Miller (R-Calif.) vs. Ed Royce (R-Calif.): These two were the odd men out as four Republican-leaning Orange County districts were reduced to three. Miller has framed the race as between two ideologically similar candidates, but suggests he is the doer in Washington. Royce, meanwhile, is closer to House Republican leaders and has a huge early advantage in fundraising, with $3 million in his war chest compared to Miller’s $1 million. Miller doesn’t look like a guy gearing up for a tough campaign, either, as he raised just $58,000 in the third quarter.

7) Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) vs. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.): The freshman Kinzinger just decided that he would challenge ten-term lawmaker Manzullo, but the Democratic-drawn map didn’t give him much choice. While Manzullo has represented this territory for years and has a staunch conservative record, Kinzinger has quickly developed a national profile and has more money than Manzullo. The freshman raised $788,025 this cycle and has $567,012 cash-on-hand to Manzullo’s $433,588 raised and $483,994 on hand. Manzullo also hasn’t faced a tough race in over a decade, while Kinzinger unseated an incumbent Democrat last fall.

6) Jeff Landry (R-La.) vs. Charles Boustany (R-La.): The freshman Landry is trying to frame his looming primary fight as the tea party (him) versus the establishment (Boustany). The centerpiece of that argument is that Landry voted against increasing the debt ceiling in August while Boustany, who is close to House Republican leaders, supported the legislation. Boustany also supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout, which has been a liability in GOP primaries. But Boustany currently represents much more of the new 3rd district and has a longer history with the constituents. Landry slightly outraised Boustany in the third quarter, but Boustany ended September with $1.1 million on hand, as compared to $402,000 for Landry.

5) Gary Peters (D-Mich.) vs. Hansen Clarke (D-Mich.): Peters comes into the fight for Michigan’s most oddly-shaped new district with one distinct advantage: cash. He has twice as much money as Clarke ($839,000 to $423,000) and is a very strong fundraiser. Neither lawmaker is an old hand, as the map pits two rising stars against each other. But Peters can argue that he helped save the auto industry by taking on House Republicans. Peters’s biggest obstacle is the district’s slight black majority — Clarke is the son of an African-American mother and Bangladeshi father, and Peters is white — and that racial gap will be exaggerated in a Democratic primary. But both lawmakers have multiracial constituencies already, and another black politican — Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence (D) — is planning to run and split the black vote.

4) Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) vs Tom Latham (R-Iowa): Boswell has survived a series of heated races in recent years, but this matchup against Latham in the new 3rd district will be his toughest to date. Latham raised more than twice what Boswell brought in over the past three months and ended September with $1.7 million in the bank, as compared to $376,000 for Boswell. Latham moved from the new 4th district into this seat, and the district is about two-thirds Boswell territory. But the numbers suggest a jump ball.

3) Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) vs. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.): This matchup of freshmen could be one of the most entertaining. Walsh announced a month ago that he would run against Hultgren rather than in the Democratic-leaning 8th district. Walsh, who has been arguably the most outspoken tea-party freshman and a surprise winner last year, has already signaled that he will run against all of Washington — including his party leaders — and play up his vote against the debt- ceiling deal. But he’s got problems; namely, that his ex-wife says he owes $100,000 in back child support. Hultgren, meanwhile, has compared Walsh’s leadership style to none other than convicted former governor Rod Blagojevich (D).

2) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) vs. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio): The map here favors Kucinich; two-thirds of the new 9th district is in the Cleveland media market. But Toledo-based Kaptur is very popular with constituents, and she can argue that she never considered leaving the state, as Kucinich did when he flirted with running in Washington state. She’s also dominating Kucinich in cash right now -- $604,916 to $90,253 -- although Kucinich’s national support base should be able to easily close that gap. Even so, the former presidential candidate doesn’t have this one in the bag.

1) Howard Berman (D-Calif.) vs. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.): This could well be the single most expensive House race in the country before it’s all said and done. While state and national party leaders have tried to talk each of the men out of the clash, both are girding for battle. In the last three months alone, Berman, a veteran Democratic lawmaker, raised an eye-popping $819,000 — the third-highest total in the House — and ended the period with $2.25 million in the bank. Sherman collected just $174,000 in the third quarter but had $3.7 million on hand. This race, which will be fought in the in­cred­ibly expensive Los Angeles media market, is going to be expensive, nasty and long.

A need for a solution with the two party gridlock: a third party?

There is a growing atmosphere for less compromise and more partisanship. That is a formula that might be embraced and celebrated by party bases but counteracts the ability for members of both parties to come together to solve issues. It has been utilized by members of all over the political spectrum in years past. It has created an element for a need for the two parties to rise above petty arguments and for a voice to emerge to force that.

One voice is Mark McKinnon who provided the following insight and opinion in Politico:

Support for the two major political parties in America is hemorrhaging. It’s not hard to see why.

The politerati point to the 1992 presidential campaign as the last time public dissatisfaction with the political environment was so pervasive that a disruption to the status quo was even possible. Third-party independent candidate Ross Perot briefly led incumbent President George H.W. Bush and challenger Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. If he had maintained credibility, Perot might well have won.

But discontent today is far deeper. In 1992, just 39 percent of the public was dissatisfied with government. Today, a record high 81 percent is dissatisfied. Satisfaction has plummeted from 59 percent to just 19 percent. We are in uncharted waters.

If we were ripe for disruption in 1992, today most Americans must be damn close to grabbing their pitchforks and storming the barricades of the nation’s capital. King George was more beloved.

This thirst for dramatic change isn’t just Republican voters unhappy with the Obama administration’s policies. Democratic guru James Carville told CNN’s Erin Burnett last week: “There is a real yearning for something different in this country. It is going to produce something, I have no idea what, but something is coming here, I promise you.”

What accounts for this dramatic shift? Obviously, there is deep concern about a terrible economy and long, costly foreign conflicts. But there is something more dangerous: a fundamental breakdown in trust in government.

We send our representatives to Washington to fix problems. Yet every day offers examples of opportunities lost. We’ve gone from statesmanship to brinksmanship. Compromise means victory for the opposing party. Consensus means the loss of political leverage. And scoring political points seems more important than progress on policy.

Americans now have largely negative views of both parties. The public sees little difference between the effectiveness of either party when it comes to tackling the economy. And only 9 percent of likely voters rate Congress’ performance as good or excellent.

Republicans in Congress refuse tax increases, labeling them job-killing. (It’s hard to negotiate when you’ve signed a pledge, as most Republicans and a few Democrats have, binding you to no new taxes and linking subsidy elimination to rate decreases.) Democrats refuse spending cuts, also labeling them job-killing.

Yet, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support doing both, increasing taxes and cutting spending.

Unable to negotiate the policy changes necessary to avert the next financial crisis, Congress has deferred responsibility to a supercommittee. If an agreement is not reached there, automatic and dramatic across-the-board cuts kick in. The public is not hopeful: 74 percent think the committee will not reach agreement.

Voters feel increasingly disenfranchised. No party represents them. Fringe groups with microphones dominate the conversation. Super PACs with unlimited funding exert unlimited influence. Powerful political advocacy groups skirt disclosure rules.

I helped co-found No Labels to fight back against the hyper-partisanship and special interests now holding the system hostage. What we hear from voters is they want members of Congress to put their labels aside — and work together.

Often it’s not policy outcomes that are problematic — the very nature of the debate is contributing to the loss of confidence.

The debt-ceiling debate caused the consumer confidence index to collapse to its fourth lowest level since first measured in 1952, according to the pollster Bill McInturf,. The index today sits at 55. That’s more than 20 points below the average when a sitting president loses reelection.

The debt-ceiling debate was just one in the seemingly never-ending examples of the parties’ inability to forge consensus on anything — from contentious stimulus spending and health care reforms, to simple continuing budget resolutions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), by triggering the “nuclear option” in the Senate this week to block GOP amendments, only escalated the party standoff.

If the Republicans and Democrats in Washington cannot set aside their party loyalty, then the people are most likely to declare their independence again. Almost a third of voters today do not affiliate with either party, and 55 percent of Americans say a third party is needed.

Skeptics cite all the usual reasons why a third-party or alternative nominating process won’t work. But it’s mostly just pattern recognition. It’s the same reason they said we’d never elect an African-American president. Because we hadn’t, they said we wouldn’t.

These are different times. I don’t know how it’s going to happen. It could be the Americans Elect platform, or it could be in a self-funded independent candidacy, or a tea party candidate.

But, I’m with Carville on this one: Something is coming.

A call for a third option and party in Congress?

There has been a lot of dissatisfaction with both Democrats and Republicans. Between 2006, 2008, and 2010; voters expressed their fickle opinions with those in Congress and it would not be surprising if there were at least minor shake ups next year. With that in mind, it might becoming closer and closer to the day when a serious third party can emerge and give disenfranchised voters a third option. With that in mind, the Washington Post's Matt Miller presents an argument for a third option.

For Miller:

The more I talk about the need for a problem-solving third party in the “extreme” center, the more people come out of the woodwork to tell me they've reached the same conclusion. But some in high places have to keep their views secret, at least for now. That’s the case with one public policy leader who sent me a memo on how today’s polarized gridlock in Washington could be shaken up by a third party that targets Congress, not the presidency. As the Great American Disruption unfolds, from Occupy Wall Street to Americans Elect, this person’s ideas need to be in the mix. 

For starters, this person notes, it’s very hard in our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all electoral college system for a third-party contender to win. The last one was Abraham Lincoln — but only a decade after Republicans (or their predecessors) started winning seats in Congress. There’s the risk of being a spoiler. And even if he or she won, how would a president elected this way be able to govern?

The better route to power is to target Congress, this person says. With Congress so divided — and voters mad, hurting and short-tempered — we’re in an era in which every election or two could see a swing of control back and forth between the parties. Yet the margins remain narrow enough that a third party could gain a decisive toehold by denying either party a majority. Imagine, this person posits, how the recent debt-ceiling debate would have played out if a third party controlled 25 seats in the House and four or five in the Senate.

How many states and districts could be in play? Research suggests that, thanks to partisan geographic “sorting” in recent decades, the bulk of states and districts are represented by senators and representatives with predictable ideologies. But 20 states and 100 districts look competitive. With the right effort, it’s conceivable that a third party could win enough of these seats to hold the balance of power.

Indeed, analysis suggests that today’s Congress represents the views of only about 40 percent of American voters. An economically conservative, socially liberal party focused on problem-solving could appeal to many who feel left out.

Sounds like someone needs to call a meeting. This person thinks a new organization (or 10, or 50) should raise money to do the research and polling to refine a list of promising states and districts; develop the associated agenda and messaging; and recruit and help finance candidates, with a view to running a slate as soon as 2014.

My own view is that fed-up patriots don’t have to pick between Congress and the White House. Why not both? Though the challenges are daunting, the megaphone (and organizing platform) of a presidential race is unparalleled. The right campaign could be the vehicle for championing and organizing around the broader structural changes the country needs in order to get serious about our problems, even as it exposes the hoaxes both parties are peddling.

Americans Elect is explicitly not a third party — but it’s developing the technology, procedural and ballot-access infrastructure that could enable new third-party congressional contenders in years to come. That infrastructure will get meatier Thursday with the release of AE’s “Briefing Book for Candidates and Draft Committees” on the group’s 2012 presidential nominating process.

The 39-page document is fascinating. These folks are rethinking from scratch how presidential nominations ought to work in the Internet age.

In a nutshell, AE candidates will qualify by meeting certain thresholds of “clicks” of support from delegates, many of whom they or draft committees are expected to recruit.

Several rounds of national convention voting will take place between April and June. By June 26, 2012, AE hopes that millions of delegates (including you, if you sign up) will nominate an independent ticket that has 50-state ballot access.

Being liberated from candidates selected through the usual pandering to a handful of party activists in Iowa or New Hampshire would be an incredible prize.

Whether the goal is Congress or the White House, something big is brewing. And, as with flustered financial executives confused about the protests on Wall Street, or party regulars who pat Americans Elect on the head for being a sweet little Internet idea, the powers that be are always the last to know.