(Sorry, guys, I wrote this one, as well as any “Open Thread” comment.  I forget to log out sometimes…

– promoted by David Dayen)

State Democrats are buzzing about this weekend’s Carla Marinucci article entitled “California Dems target 8 GOP districts”, which claims that Republican voter registration is dropping fast, providing a major opportunity to pick up Congressional seats in 2010.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted 35 districts across the country represented by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives – including eight in California – that were won by Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, said Jennifer Crider, the committee spokeswoman.

The Democrats plan increased appeals to voters in those areas and will make aggressive efforts to recruit Democratic candidates to run against the Republican incumbents, she said […]

The vulnerable California districts with Republican representatives that were won by Obama are those of Reps. Dan Lungren of Gold River (Sacramento County), Mary Bono-Mack of Palm Springs, David Dreier of San Dimas (Los Angeles County), Elton Gallegly of Thousand Oaks (Ventura County), Brian Bilbray of Solana Beach (San Diego County), John Campbell of Newport Beach (Orange County), Ken Calvert of Riverside and Howard “Buck” McKeon of Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), the committee says.

It would be nice if I thought any of this would work.  First of all, the registration changes didn’t just spring up in December 2008.  These trends have been occurring for some time, and were all present during the last election.  Despite this, we had a candidate in CA-25 (McKeon) who spent less than $10,000 or her entire campaign.  The candidate in CA-24 (Gallegly) won her primary because of her ballot designation and without spending any significant money.  (By the way, CA-25 is now the seat held by the GOP with the closest registration gap between Republicans and Democrats in the whole state.  Did you know that?)   In the races where we managed to compete, our candidates significantly underperformed the top of the ticket, and in most cases underperformed Barbara Boxer’s performance in 2004, when a less dominant John Kerry was at the top of the ticket.

I don’t think there are that many other people who have followed California congressional races closer than I have, and I have to say that we simply suck at elections in these kinds of races out here in California.  The state party is dysfunctional at best and downright criminal at worst.  Put it this way: we had the same chance to win all these seats in 2008.  Nate Silver, making a separate point, provides a list of the 30 districts where Obama won between 50 and 52 percent of the vote.  As you’ll see, we did extremely well in those seats, except for in California.

Barack Obama won 51 percent of the vote in NY-20 on November 4th. How did congressional candidates perform in other districts where he received between, say, 50 and 52 percent of the vote? Again, we see essentially an even split; Republicans won 16 of 30 such districts and Democrats won 14:

Won by Republicans (16): CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-44, CA-45, CA-50, FL-10, FL-18, MI-4, MN-3, NE-2, NJ-7, NY-23, VA-4, WI-1, WI-6

Won by Democrats (14): FL-22, KS-3, MI-1, MI-7, MN-1, NC-2, NJ-3, NY-1, NY-19, NY-20*, NY-24, TX-23, VA-2, WA-3

Winning percentage in these seats in states other than CA: 58.3%

Winning percentage in CA: 0.0%

By the way, the other two districts not mentioned above that are now being “targeted”?  CA-03 (Lungren) was 49-49 Obama, and CA-48 (Campbell) was also 49-49 Obama.  Heck, even CA-46 was only 50-48 McCain.  Obama got 46% in CA-19 (Radanovich), where there was no Democratic candidate, and 47% in CA-40 (Royce).

Some would argue that, properly resourced, these seats would suddenly become very winnable.  I give you CA-50, where Nick Leibham consistently beat Brian Bilbray in fundraising and maxed out at the 45% ceiling on Democrats in that district.

CA-44 is somewhat winnable because Bill Hedrick came close in ’08 and is running again.  We lost our best candidate in CA-03, Bill Durston, and everywhere else, I’m just extremely dubious, because the state party has systematically psyched itself out of winning these seats (thanks to the Faustian bargain of incumbency-protected gerrymandering designed by… imminent state party chair John Burton), and the commitment at the national level has been known to wane.  We’ve left dozens of winnable elections on the table the past two cycles, dramatically underperforming the nation.  A little DCCC money won’t change that.

As we sit back and await the results of the Los Angeles Municipal election today, I thought I’d share with you something that came my way from the DCCC.  Like so many other Republicans (here’s looking at you, Bobby Jindal) that decried the stimulus as “socialism” or some other such but were more than happy to take the money for their states and districts, Mary Bono Mack (R-CA45) has similarly derided the stimulus package while praising the benefits it will bring to her district no more than a week later:

In a striking example of hypocrisy, Representative Mary Bono Mack voted against the landmark American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act and now is touting a nearly $5 million grant included in the legislation to benefit her district.

“Representative Mary Bono Mack’s vote against the economic recovery act in Washington and taking credit for its benefit in her district is just too much to take,” said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  “As a member of the ‘Party of No,’ Bono Mack voted against legislation that would save or create 8,700 jobs in her district and now she’s crowing about the benefits it’ll bring to her constituents.”

In announcing her opposition to the economic recovery package in a press release on February 13, Bono Mack said the bill was “not the answer” to our nation’s economic woes that funds were being spent on “special projects…that have little or nothing to do with stimulus” and even that provisions in the bill could have “a detrimental effect on our local economy.”

In a complete about face that smacks of hypocrisy, Bono Mack sent out a follow up release last week announcing a grant for her district that will provide “much-needed assistance” and noting her pleasure that “our community will benefit from this funding.”

Sorry, Representative Bono Mack, but after voting twice against the job-creating and tax-cutting economic recovery package, it’s just not possible to have your cake and eat it too.

In my opinion, it’s great to see the DCCC trying to get on Mary Bono Mack early.  The Inland Empire (my old stomping grounds, as I grew up in Ken Calvert’s CA-44) is ripe for the picking, as you can see from this chart.  Obama won Bono Mack’s district 51.5%-47%, a huge reversal from 2004, where Kerry lost by 13 points.

If the DCCC wants to make gains in Congressional races this midterm cycle, there are few better places to focus on than the districts of the Inland Empire, which are getting bluer by the day and could seriously use some help in terms of building up a Democratic Party infrastructure (of course, the CDP could help with that too).

UPDATE by Dave: Sorry to intrude, but this is the best part of this whole thing:

Met with Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack […] Talked to her about Obama’s $780 billion stimulus legislation. She’s outraged that the plan has “$1 billion wasted on a magnetic-levitation train from L.A. to Sin City ” – all at Nevada Sen. Harry Reid’s doing.

After expressing my doubt that the Las Vegas line was actually in the bill’s language, Bono Mack directs her staff to “get him the bill, it’s right there, show him.” A few minutes later, a staffer emerges with a copy and quietly says “it’s not in the bill.”

This is what happens when you believe the zombie lies of the conservative Limbaugh crowd instead of, you know, your eyes.

The 4th District had a debate as well last night, the fifth and final of the campaign, and it was spirited.

Every scathing remark and harsh charge that’s gone back and forth in the congressional race between Republican Tom McClintock and Democrat Charlie Brown got one more airing Tuesday night.

Speaking at a forum sponsored by the South Nevada County Chamber of Commerce south of Grass Valley, McClintock was painted as a do-nothing career politician and Brown as a tax-loving big-government advocate.

And there was also some talk about issues, mixed in with the shots, though sometimes each answer was equal parts both.

It was the usual nonsense: McClintock wants to drill here and drill now.  McClintock wants no taxes and no government.  McClintock wants to privatize Social Security (yes, even now).  McClintock thinks Keebler elves can build the roads and bridges and a thimble-full of oil can power a Lexus.  He’s a magical thinker.  But I have to say that this was my favorite part, and not just because McClintock doesn’t know the meaning of the word “liquidity.”

McClintock also roundly criticized the recently passed Wall Street bailout package, saying the better route was to put liquidity into the market.

Brown countered that he supported the plan because something needed to be done, then made reference to recent Federal Election Commission reports that showed McClintock’s campaign in debt.

“You can’t even run your own campaign on a balanced budget, so I don’t trust you to run our nation’s budget,” Brown said.

Brown also hit McClintock over spending the past two years in Sacramento without getting one piece of legislation passed.

Brown took aim at McClintock’s record as a state legislator, making reference to a recent Sacramento Bee story that reported McClintock had a perfect record of getting no legislation passed in the last two years.

“This is about actual results, and not talking about what you want to do unless you propose something else you can get passed,” Brown said.

The debate is not going to have a major viewing audience.  But the airwaves will, and the DCCC has just dropped a long-awaited ad in the district.  It’s good.

That’s quite a lot for 30 seconds, but they pretty much cover California’s Alan Keyes and make him out to be the punchline that he is.

The question is whether or not McClintock has 10 cents to respond to this.

I have been watching the race in CA-03 for well over a year now.  I’ve told my contacts in DC about Bill Durston and tried to get local progressives interested.  The math was undeniable – if there was any seat primed to break through, it was this one.  The demographic shifts mirrored CA-11, and Dan Lungren was arguably a less powerful incumbent than Richard Pombo, with less resources to draw from.  Durston’s first race against Lungren, in 2006, yielded the exact same result as McNerney’s effort in 2004 (around 60-40), and since then the registration gap has tightened significantly (it’s under 3 points and by election day it’ll be closer to even).

After a long year of banging this drum, finally, Bill Durston is earning some respect.  Today he appears on the DCCC’s Red To Blue Emerging Races page.  This isn’t quite enough to put Durston over the top, but it is a recognition that the seat is competitive.

You ought to support Dr. Durston at the Emerging Races page or the Calitics ActBlue page.  He’s a better Democrat who will fight to responsibly end the occupation of Iraq and provide quality affordable health care for all.  He has a great team of grassroots supporters up there and I hope this makes them realize that their efforts are being recognized and rewarded.

…this comes at a time when the Lungren campaign is actually touting polls with small sample sizes showing the incumbent under 50%.  This one is going to be close if Durston can get his message out in the final three weeks.

We are now in the final month of the 2008 election campaign. On the House side of the equation, our field of battle is changing with pickup opportunities expanding, not contracting. More and more Republican seats are becoming vulnerable, be the DCCC does not have the funds needed to take full advantage. Making matters worse is the $14 million in dues unpaid by members of Congress to the DCCC, according to the subscription-only Roll Call.

House Democratic leaders made an impassioned final plea Thursday night to get their rank and file to cough up more money for their effort to expand the party’s majority, just as Members are set to head home to hit the campaign trail a month before Election Day.

In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) implored their colleagues to come up with the $14 million in Members’ dues needed to meet their overall $50 million goal, according to people who were present.

At the outset of the cycle, Van Hollen told lawmakers that the committee’s goal was to raise $150 million, with $50 million each coming from political action committees, individual donors and Members.

Sources said the leaders impressed upon Members that making up the financial disparity would make the difference in the size of their majority next Congress. Democratic lawmakers who are not politically in danger or in competitive races are collectively sitting on roughly $153 million in their re-election accounts, according to party tally sheets.

“We need to make sure we wake up the morning after Election Day and that we have no regrets,” Pelosi told the Caucus. “We will have the money from major donors and from the grass-roots donors. Where we are short is the Members. The moment of truth is now.”

Several Members announced on the spot that they were writing checks, according to sources in the room.

Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas), who is included in the DCCC’s “Frontline” program for vulnerable incumbents even though his re-election in November seems certain, said he wouldn’t be in Congress if it weren’t for the generosity of the Caucus and announced he was giving $100,000 — news that elicited audible gasps from his peers.

Chet Edwards is in strong shape this year, but he is not “safe”. And despite that fact, despite the fact that he represents Bush’s district and that he does not back down from progressive stances, he was willing to turn over $100k for the effort. There are many safe Democrats this year, some of whom did not pay dues. I am asking all of you who live in safe districts to call or write your member and ask if they paid their dues in full. If not, ask them why, and if the asnwer is lame (most are) push them. Two years ago we thought the 2006 elections were a once in a lifetime election and we were wrong. This is a once in a generation election and we need to make sure everyone is doing their part.

A mini-report:

• CA-04: I love this video from the Charlie Brown campaign.  They traveled 412 miles down to Thousand Oaks to talk to constituents of California’s Alan Keyes, State Senator and professional office-chaser Tom McClintock.  It’s really funny and drives the point home that McClintock is a do-nothing at best and a dangerous radical at worst:

And get this, McClintock is now running on the state budget, the Republican version of which has a 19% approval rating.  That’s like putting Nixon, Bush and Cheney in your campaign ad.

• CA-26, CA-45: Not one but two!  Both Russ Warner AND Julie Bornstein have been added to the DCCC “Races To Watch” list.  This is a prelude to being listed as Red To Blue candidates.  If the D-Trip comes through with some money, maybe threatened incumbents like Dreier will have to stop mouthing off about other GOP races and start paying attention to their own. UPDATE: Mike Lumpkin (CA-52) is on that list now too, which is a pleasant surprise.

• CA-46: When John Fund tries to target a Dem challenger, you know something’s going wrong.  Fund is sounding the alarm on Debbie Cook, as Dana Rohrabacher tries to greenwash himself with a scheme to build solar-power plants on federal land without environmental impact studies.  Fund says that Cook called this “an extreme position,” but he chopped the quote:

Democratic challenger and Mayor of Huntington Beach Debbie Cook agrees that the process of approving solar power plants is sluggish and needs to be sped up, but not at the expense of the environment.

“This is just another extreme position by Dana Rohrabacher. What we need to do is come up with a balanced approach that streamlines these projects, because they’re critically important to our energy future, but at the same time recognizes the impacts to the environment,” Cook said.

Rohrabacher’s doing the equivalent of saying he’ll grow jobs by hiring 10,000 federally funded serial killers, and then wondering why everyone’s worried about the mass death (“You wanted jobs, didn’t you?”).  There’s a sensible way to free up the bottlenecks and a rash one.  Rohrabacher chose door #2.

• CA-42: The internal poll results released by Ed Chau are intriguing (showing him up 44-38 after a mix of positive and negative information released on the candidates), but I don’t think candidates who have minimal bank accounts should do polls stating the numbers after a mix of information if they don’t have the money to get that information out.  But if Gary Miller truly has a 28% re-elect number as the poll states, he could be in trouble.