Democrats in New York only need to win two more seats to gain control of the state senate for the first time in almost 70 years. This week, Newsday takes a look at the election:

Voter turnout is expected to be high and to favor Democrats because of their party's historic presidential candidate Barack Obama, together with angst about the economy and anger at President George W. Bush over the war in Iraq.

However, Republican senators still enjoy a fundraising advantage and GOP presidential candidate John McCain is predicted to do well in rural areas such as the north country, where his party hopes to win back a seat lost in February to Darrel Aubertine of Watertown.

Things are so bad that the new GOP leader, Sen. Dean Skelos, has taken to arguing voters will side with his party to keep balance in government:

"If the Senate were to flip, you would have every branch of government controlled by the Democrats, which I think is dangerous in terms of checks and balances. I believe people want balance and we, the Republican majority in the Senate, provide that."

In my experience, that's a losing argument. Polling seems to back me up:

Fifty-two percent of the voters surveyed by Quinnipiac University from July 31 to Aug. 4 backed a Democratic takeover of the Senate. Only 32 percent supported the status quo.

Perhaps it's worth noting at this point that Skelos got the job because his predecessor -- Sen. Joseph Bruno -- resigned mid-session. I'm not alone in believing that Bruno retired because he had no interest serving in the minority.

This November, Democrats in Ohio need to pickup just four seats to take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in almost 15 years.

But even in a state where the local GOP has taken plenty of lumps, it can still be really hard to defeat an incumbent.

Unless of course, the incumbent decides to take another job courtesy of Gov. Ted Strickland:

The Strickland administration announced yesterday that it is creating a $115,000 position in the Ohio Department of Development for three-term Rep. Jim Raussen, R-Springdale.

Raussen won re-election in 2006 by only 4 points, and Democrats expected to pay at least some attention to the seat again this year. Now, the 28th District in Hamilton County likely moves up on their target list.

Also yesterday, Sen. Robert F. Spada, R-North Royalton, informed House GOP campaign leaders that he would not seek election to the competitive 18th District in Cuyahoga County. Republicans say they are being told that Strickland also plans to name Spada to a government position, possibly on the State Employment Relations Board.

The Republicans who are still trying to protect their majority are crying foul, but their protests ring pretty hollow. Here's to hoping a few more GOP legislators are looking for new positions in about three months.

Sunday brought news of yet another state (Florida) where Democrats are banking new voters at a serious clip:

Democratic voters have out-registered Republicans by a nearly 7-to-1 margin since January.

State totals show Democrats gained a net of 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the GOP.

As I've said before, new voters flocking to our party is definitely a good thing. Even more so when it's a state like Florida, which is hard to top in terms of political significance in recent history.

But I want to temper expectations a bit. For one, as the Orlando Sentinel reports:

In a state with 10.45 million voters, the new figures didn't significantly change the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans; the state is still roughly 41 percent Democrat and 37 percent registered Republican, with most of the rest No Party Affiliation.

For another, new voters won't necessarily have a huge impact -- at least when it comes to our legislative races. There might not be a state in the country with a worse map in terms of districts. Democrats picked up 7 seats in the lower chamber last cycle, and we're still down 43/76. Even another unqualified victory like this in November will leave us seriously behind.

That doesn't mean this news isn't welcome or encouraging. It just means we still have a long way to go before a real Democratic agenda gets any traction in the state.

Going into November, Democrats in Wisconsin need to pick up three seats in the state assembly to control the chamber. That might have changed yesterday afternoon.

The deadline for submitting nomination papers was set for six o'clock, and Rep. Jeff Wood -- a Republican -- filed to run as an Independent. If he wins his election (and right now, he doesn't face an opponent from either major party), he will caucus with the Democrats. From the local coverage:

At the state level, Wood has a history of splitting from his party on some votes, the most prominent example coming last year when he was the lone Republican to vote against the Assembly Republicans' state budget proposal. He argued that it was more of a partisan gimmick than a serious budget.

Wood, a former member of the Libertarian Party of the Chippewa Valley, also believes the Republican Party has closed ranks and moved away from its more inclusive "big tent" philosophy of the 1990s.

He considers himself a case in point, maintaining he has been blacklisted to a degree by GOP leaders for not always voting the party line.

An example of the payback, he said, came when he asked to be taken off the Assembly Workforce Development Committee but instead was named its chairman. Then party leaders sent almost no bills to the panel.

"If there's not room for disagreement in this party, then there's not room for me," Wood said.

Under Wisconsin state law, Republicans still have one opportunity to mount a challenge against Woods by attracting enough write-in votes for a new candidate in the September primary. But doing that requires committing resources and organizing that the GOP wasn't anticipating.

No matter what, Democrats are still in a better situation today than they were yesterday.

Sam Stein -- writing for the Huffington Post -- has put together a very good look ahead to the 2010 election cycle. He reports that:

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010. Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

This isn't the first story we've seen along these lines. Both parties recognize the potential of the election two years from now, and campaign organizations are gearing up in preparation.

That includes this campaign committee:

[I]n almost every state, the legislative chambers will have a say into how the congressional districts are re-drawn. And in this regard the governor's power is limited. Oftentimes, in fact, redistricting plans get sent to state courts to adjudicate disagreements.

In 2010, there will be more than 1,150 state senate races and more than 4,950 state house races held nationwide. Here, too, Democrats and Republicans are cognizant of any edge.

"A flip of 50 state seats in key chambers could mean a gain -- or a loss -- of 15 Democratic Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting," said Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. "We need to continue winning statehouses so that we can be at the table when these district lines are drawn."

The quote from my boss is a good reminder of the importance of the work we do. Control of the nation's legislatures have long-term consequences outside the boundaries of any individual state. If Republicans are going to throw all their resources into the 2010 election, we need to be prepared to defend our chambers and pick up those where the GOP is vulnerable.

The legislative races in Oregon haven’t gotten a lot of attention because Democrats already control both chambers. That said, a switch of just one seat would leave the Oregon House of Representatives tied and two seats would give the Republicans control. The chamber is an important one to defend.

But there’s a real chance we might be able to do more than that on Election Day.

Leaders in the state are looking to pick up as many as 5 seats. That in turn would give Democrats a super-majority, allowing us to pass legislation without the support of even a single Republican.

Even as we fight for chamber control around the country, it’s important to remember states like this one.

A super-majority would guarantee that a Democratic agenda for governing gets serious traction next session, and that’s a goal worth fighting for.

Democrats won't pick up a chamber in Kansas this fall; I can almost guarantee that.

The Republicans hold a 20 seat advantage in the Senate, and a 31 seat advantage in the House. I'm not giving away any trade secrets when I say that the state isn't one of our top targets this year.

That's not stopping Kansas Democrats, however, from putting in maximum effort.

They're fielding candidates in 36 of 40 Senate districts and in 96 of 125 House districts, all with the aim of making the GOP compete for its majorities.

That's valuable for a number of reasons.

First, even in a state where voter registration favors Republicans by a 2-1 margin, the political climate has damaged the GOP brand. In Kansas, you've also got two-term Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and two Democrats in Congress who are popular and vocal leaders. Here, Democrats might have the potential to pick up some seats this year, even in districts that we don't normally have any business winning.

Second, by running so many candidates, Kansas Democrats force the GOP to spend resources protecting their incumbents that they could otherwise devote to more competitive races. Sure, the U.S. Senate race doesn't exactly seem like it's going to be a highlight (though Jim Slattery does show some life in the latest poll), and Kansas is also one of those states where Obama doesn't stand much of a chance. But competitive GOP incumbents in the statehouse can't count on monetary support from their colleagues who also have opponents. And that's a good thing.

Finally, every additional seat at the legislative table helps to change the conversation in the state. Even if we don't control a majority, we need more Democratic lawmakers talking about health care and education in Kansas. We need more Democratic incumbents developing relationships with constituents and providing leadership for the party. And importantly, even if the Democratic women and men elected this cycle never serve a day in the majority, some of them will some day become future candidates for higher elective office.

One of the things that I like best about the DLCC is our work to win majorities gradually by building infrastructure, providing resources, and training staff. Kansas is one of the states, for instance, taking advantage of our DLCCWeb program -- which provides our candidates with cheap and powerful Internet tools for campaigning.

It's also a place where we can afford to take the long view -- patiently laying groundwork for bigger wins in the future.

To me, the retirement of Sen. Joseph Bruno means one thing -- he believes that the Republicans will lose their majority in the New York Senate, and he has no desire to serve in the minority.

Already this cycle, we’ve seen some really good indications that might be correct.

On February 26, Democrat Darrel Aubertine won a special election in New York's 48th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP since 1880, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 78,454 to 46,824.

Three weeks earlier, Democrat Craig M. Johnson won a special election in New York’s 7th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP for more than a century.

Things were so bad in February that Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- the GOP’s single biggest Senate benefactor -- had to write a $500,000 check to keep them competitive. Prior to that little gift, he contributed at least $675,000 between October 2006 and December 2007.

So now, there are 32 Republicans in the New York Senate and 30 Democrats. In a traditional election, there are Republican seats (like those in New York City, which Reid Wilson points out) which would be vulnerable. But remember -- this is a presidential election year, and Democrats have a significant enthusiasm advantage. When I look at the map, New York is one of our top targets.

And this is all important not simply because Bruno and the Senate Republicans have managed to bottle up significant pieces of legislation and prevent a major Democratic agenda from getting a hearing in a very progressive state but also because New York is slated to lose two Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting.

Its delegation to Washington will be the smallest the state has sent since 1823. Democrats control the House and the governor’s mansion -- gaining a majority in the upper chamber will give us the strength we need to draw congressional districts in a way that reflects the progressive nature of the state’s electorate.

On Friday, Crisitunity -- one of the front-pagers on the Swing State Project -- put together a pretty good rundown of the state leg races that Democrats should pay attention to in the fall.

In his post, he looks in depth at five chambers where we have pick-up opportunities: the New York Senate, Texas House, Pennsylvania Senate, Nevada Senate, and Tennessee Senate. He also briefly mentions the Oklahoma Senate (split right down the middle -- 24/24), which deserves to be higher.

I really like his list of ‘moneyball’ chambers -- which might be flipped with just a reasonable investment: the Montana House, Delaware House, North Dakota Senate, South Dakota Senate, and Alaska House.

In terms of pickup opportunities, I think there are only two big omissions. Right now, there is a 46/53 split favoring the Republicans in the Ohio House. We only need four seats to pick up a majority, and the environment is awful for the GOP. The other opportunity might be the Wisconsin Assembly -- where we are only 3 seats down.

Crisitunity also points out five chambers where we will be playing defense: the Pennsylvania House, Michigan House, Indiana House, Oregon House, and Illinois House. To that, I’d add the Colorado Senate, the Maine Senate, the Montana Senate, the Tennessee House, the Wisconsin Senate, and both chambers in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nationally, the environment looks awfully good for Democrats, but locally, things can be very different. And in many districts, the performance numbers are what they are, even in a Democratic year.

We’re cautiously optimistic about the fall, no doubt. But a big victory on Election Day is predicated on lots of months of work between now and then, which in that final set of states means paying careful attention to incumbent protection.

Hello!

My name is Greta Davis and I am the Deputy Political Director here at the DLCC. One of my many tasks is making sure that we are a hub for providing the most up to date information regarding state legislative chamber margins. Please use this memo as a resource for your state legislative needs.

2008 Chamber Margins

Please check back often as I do update these monthly.