It’s early in the 2014 election cycle, but these developments in the Mount Rushmore State definitely affect the two parties’ prospects. The GOP now has an advantage in the contest.

Former GOP Gov. Mike Rounds is already in the race. But the lack of a big name Democratic standard-bearer could encourage the state’s at-large congresswoman, Kristi Noem, to enter the Republican primary.

Noem would be a formidable fundraiser, and conservative support might well coalesce around her.

Some Republican insiders are even speculating that Herseth Sandlin passed on the Senate race in the hope of getting Noem to run for the Senate, allowing the Democrat to jump into the race for her old House seat.

Democrats won’t be without a credible Senate candidate, however. Rick Weiland, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has announced his candidacy and has already won the support of his former boss.

But Weiland’s record of success in running for federal office isn’t good. He lost by about 20 points in 1996, when he faced Republican John Thune in an open House seat contest after Tim Johnson had decided to run for the Senate. Weiland then lost a Democratic primary to Herseth in 2002, when Thune left his House seat to run for the Senate. (Thune lost that race by 524 votes to Johnson but came back two years later to defeat Daschle.)

I remember Weiland, and he wasn’t a bad candidate. But that’s not the same thing as saying that he has Herseth Sandlin’s demonstrated skills or Brendan Johnson’s obvious asset (his family name) in a general election, especially during a midterm election with Barack Obama in the White House.

Bob Burns, a South Dakota State University political science professor, is quoted in an article in the Argus-Leader questioning whether someone like Weiland could win, or whether Democrats needed a moderate like Herseth Sandlin.

Without Herseth Sandlin, Democrats’ prospects of retaining this seat sink. A formal announcement from Brendan Johnson that he isn’t interested would be another blow to Democratic hopes. But even now, Tim Johnson’s South Dakota Senate seat looks increasingly likely to switch parties next year.

It’s hard to overstate the potential significance of the past week. What we are witnessing is nothing less than a dramatic reversal of the nation’s political narrative — from how bad the Republican brand is and how President Barack Obama is going to mobilize public opinion against the GOP in the midterm elections to whether the Obama administration has become so arrogant that it believes it can stonewall Congress and the public.

The series of revelations presents an unflattering picture of an administration that just 10 days ago looked poised and confident. Now it looks out of touch and unresponsive.

The danger for Obama, of course, is that many Americans will start to doubt his administration’s veracity and values. If that happens — and for now it is only a danger, not an inevitability — then the president could well turn into a serious liability for Democrats in next year’s elections.

The recent revelations seem to confirm some of the complaints and accusations coming from some of the GOP’s most conservative elements, and that could both damage the Democratic brand and improve the Republicans’.

In the near term, the controversies could help the candidacies of Gabriel Gomez, the Republican nominee in the June 25 Massachusetts Senate special election, and even Ken Cuccinelli, the presumptive GOP nominee for governor of Virginia. Given the administration’s problems, voters are more likely now than they were two weeks ago to use this year’s contests to send a message of dissatisfaction to the White House.

Longer term, it isn’t clear whether the current controversies will hurt the president and his party in 2014. But if the administration’s problems linger or even grow, Democratic enthusiasm could wane, depressing turnout in next year’s elections. Weaker turnout would have serious ramifications for Democratic candidates, particularly in swing and red districts and states. It could also hurt party recruiting and lead to a flurry of retirements.

It’s unlikely that the three controversies will pass quickly. The IRS scandal, in particular, is likely to linger, as drips of news and allegations come out over the next few weeks.

The White House is likely to have to spend many hours and much energy responding to questions and generally dealing with these issues, making it more difficult for the president to push his legislative agenda. If history is any guide, that could add to the impression of an embattled president who is merely trying to keep his administration afloat.

And that definitely is not the message that Democratic strategists have been hoping would carry the party to a successful 2014 midterm elections.

Even though the midterm elections are still almost a year and a half away, the candidate fields are already starting to solidify and, besides Gomez, there don’t appear to be any credible Latino candidates in the most competitive races.

The lack of Hispanic candidates is striking, not just because of the growing Latino population, but because eight Senators have announced their retirement, leaving an open seat for aspiring candidates who don’t want to take on an incumbent. But in each case, both parties are looking to non-Hispanic candidates to run to take each senator’s place.

So why aren’t the parties recruiting Latinos to run?

In the case of a vacancy, party strategists often look to current or former officeholders to run because they can start with name identification, a base of electoral support, and fundraising experience.

But in seven out of the eight states with an open Senate seat in 2014, there is not a single Latino member of Congress or statewide officeholder. In the eighth state, New Jersey, Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D), who is African-American, is the frontrunner to replace Frank Lautenberg, while Rep. Albio Sires (D) has never been a part of the Senate discussion.

In order to run for higher office, there must be more Latinos in lower offices.

Congress or statewide office is not a prerequisite for the Senate. While New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez served in the House of Representatives before getting elected to the Senate, Marco Rubio (R) was speaker of the Florida Legislature previously and Ted Cruz (R – Texas) had never held elected office before winning election to the Senate. They are the only three Latinos in the U.S. Senate.

Another reason for the dearth of Latino Senate candidates could be the lack of opportunity.

Some of the states with the highest Hispanic populations and officeholders, including California, Florida, and Arizona, won’t have a Senate race until 2016. And in Texas, Republican Sen. John Cornyn is up for re-election but is regarded as safe from primary and general election challengers.

So even as immigration reform remains of the most debated topics in Washington, there is very little chance any new Latino voices will be added to the Senate discussion anytime soon.

There is one way to gain Latino senators before 2016: appointments. When senators resign, governors often appoint a replacement. That’s how two African Americans, South Carolina Republican Tim Scott and Massachusetts Democrat Mo Cowan, were added to the Senate this year. Gomez is trying to succeed Cowan.

Of course, I said, eventually there would be another Republican in the White House. It might even come soon. A Democratic president will screw up (think Benghazi, the IRS and higher taxes from the health care overhaul), and a Republican will be elected simply because voters want change. But I understood the question’s premise, as well as the larger point he was making.

More than a few Republicans seem worried that their party didn’t draw the right message from 2012.

Recent talk about the possibility of a 2016 White House bid by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was described by former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint as “one of the strongest Republicans in the country right now,” probably has many GOP strategists looking for a bomb shelter in which to jump.

“I’ve been in 25 cities in the last few months, all I have to do is mention Ted Cruz’s name and they stand up and cheer. They’re hungry for someone who is not afraid, willing to stand up and trying to change the status quo,” DeMint, who now runs The Heritage Foundation, said before a major political dinner in the Palmetto State recently.

I hear silliness like that all the time from politicians on both sides of the aisle.

DeMint can’t possibly believe that the kind of people who are attending a state party fundraising dinner or showing up at Heritage Foundation events around the country are a random sample of public opinion, a coincidental cross section of the American electorate, can he?

Obviously, most people who go to see DeMint agree with him and want more Jim DeMints elected to high office. No wonder they cheer and praise Cruz.

And what could DeMint have possibly meant by saying the Texan was among the “strongest Republicans in the country”? Cruz may be strong like garlic, but not strong like Ronald Reagan, a politician with broad electoral appeal.

While there are plenty of Cruz admirers around the country, that constituency is a distinct minority nationally.

Cruz is smart (he attended Princeton and Harvard Law School, and clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist), and he has strong appeal to Republicans who see every battle in ideological terms, as a fight of good versus evil.

But that isn’t most Americans. And it certainly isn’t most swing voters.

As I wrote in July after talking with Cruz twice during his Senate campaign, “He seemed certain that he was right about everything and apparently believed it’s unnecessary for a politician to connect with voters in any way other than on a checklist of issue positions.”

DeMint and others of his ideological stripe continue to believe that the GOP needs to present a more ideological, less compromising candidate, and that essentially means doubling down on the party’s message over the past few years — the same message that has cost Republicans presidential races and Senate seats. (Redistricting after the 2010 census has protected Republican control of the House.)

A large chunk of the GOP likes that message and believes it’s only a matter of time before opponents “see the light.” But at some point, even Republicans who embrace the message ought to wonder if it’s really a winning one. (Of course, some Republicans, DeMint among them, would rather be right than be in the majority.)

The question now is whether the Republican Party can take its generally conservative message and make it more broadly appealing, including to younger people, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, or whether the party needs to experience a true political blood bath before even the most conservative elements agree that a new message and new style are called for.

Canada’s Progressive Conservative Party was the governing party going into the 1993 elections, holding 156 seats in Parliament. The party suffered a humiliating defeat in that election, winning just two seats. It took a revamped Conservative Party 13 years to form another government, but the 1993 blood-letting left no doubt that the party had to change.

As the Republican National Committee’s March 2013 report on the state of the party demonstrated, most veteran national GOP strategists seem to understand where the party is headed and how it needs to change.

But it’s far from clear that the primary voters and grass-roots activists understand that, and successful 2014 midterm elections — which are certainly possible given the differences in presidential and off-year turnout and given the Obama administration’s current problems — could help too many Republicans forget the important lessons of 2012.

The 2016 GOP nominating process will tell us a lot about whether Republicans really understand what is happening or the party needs to experience an electoral bloodbath to get the message.

Though writing about the poll and the polling memo automatically gives them more attention than they deserve, those of us in the media can’t merely ignore these kinds of questionable polls conducted for groups that seem more interested in fundraising than in affecting elections.

The May 6-7 IVR survey of 379 respondents tested former Gov. Sarah Palin, 2010 GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller and Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell in a three-way Republican primary ballot test, as well as Palin-Miller and Treadwell-Miller in head-to-head ballot tests.

The Harper Polling memo claims that Palin “leads” in the three-way ballot (Palin 32 percent, Treadwell 30 percent, Miller 14 percent), even though her 2-point advantage over Treadwell is well within the poll’s margin of error.

Both Palin and Treadwell lead Miller in head-to-heads, but the lack of a Palin-vs.-Treadwell ballot test deserves to raise eyebrows about the group’s motivation in underwriting the survey. Even including Palin in the poll seems odd. Treadwell has already formed an exploratory committee, while there is no reason to believe that Palin is in the least bit interested in a Senate race.

The polling memo says that “Palin boasts the strongest image” among GOP voters, but that is far from an entirely accurate assessment.

Palin’s name ID ratings are 62 percent favorable/30 percent unfavorable, while Treadwell’s are 54 percent favorable and 15 percent unfavorable. His favorable rating is lower than Palin’s, but his favorable-to-unfavorable ratio is much better. Her ratio is about 2-to-1, while his is close to 3.5-to-1. Treadwell’s unfavorable rating is half of Palin’s.

As for the Tea Party Leadership Fund, according to its 2012 end-of-the-year Federal Election Commission report, the group raised $1.17 million. Almost 90 percent of that came from small-dollar, unitemized individual contributions.

But the fund spent only a little more than $205,000 (less than 18 percent of total receipts) on contributions to candidates or on independent expenditures. More than half of the fund’s federal disbursements during the same period — $545,248 of $951,096 — went to Strategic Fundraising, a well-known Minnesota-based GOP fundraising firm.

Lapp and Burgos are two of a growing band of mothers balancing the demands of the constant campaign with the desire to raise a family. And these mothers guard those precious hours before their kids go to bed more fiercely than a majority in Congress.

Whether these women are Democrats or Republicans, a few consistent themes emerge in each of their lives that allow them to play dual roles: a strong support structure, an encouraging and flexible work environment and close proximity to the office.

But first comes the decision to start a family.

The Decision
“You always put it off for one more cycle. There will always be an excuse,” said Burgos, 31, who had her daughter, Alicia, in January 2012, just as she was transitioning from deputy communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee to the independent expenditure unit.

But even though it was no secret that she “was dying to have kids,” it didn’t diminish her anxiety of how a pregnancy could affect her ability to do her job. “I’m a very career-oriented person. I felt like I owed the candidates, the members my attention,” Burgos said.

“It’s tough because someone makes an investment in you and then you get pregnant,” Lapp said about two-year election cycles. “Women struggle with it.”

But having a post-pregnancy plan can reassure the most encouraging colleagues.

Lapp, now 38, had her son Thomas days after the 2008 election, when she was working for a small boutique lobbying firm. It was an admittedly slower pace than her previous job at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But she started House Majority PAC, the go-to outside group for House Democrats, in the spring of 2011, when she was pregnant and she gave birth to her son Jackson that July.

Of course, childbirth doesn’t always fit neatly into the election calendar.

Democratic media consultant Martha McKenna was due to have a baby six months before Election Day 2012. But she had a miscarriage in the fall and McKenna and her husband had to decide when to try to start over.

“Marty and I had made a decision to start a family. It wasn’t about the election year,” McKenna said. “It was about our marriage and when we were ready to become parents.”

McKenna got pregnant again and gave birth to Nora in August, less than three months before Election Day. At the time, McKenna was working on congressional races through her burgeoning firm, McKenna Pihlaja, and directing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure effort, which spent more than $50 million on television ads.

Thanks to a generous parental leave policy, McKenna’s husband was able to take off work through Election Day, allowing her to return to work soon after the birth. After the elections were over, McKenna was able to slow down and spend more time with her daughter.

The Help
For many campaign moms, an engaged father, extended family and a nanny are critical to the professional equation.

Last year, Burgos moved over to run the NRCC’s IE effort and, when elections started to heat up, her husband stepped up.

“During the last two months, he was a single dad two to three nights a week,” Burgos said about her husband, Alex, the communications director for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Without a re-election race and with four kids of his own, Rubio was an understanding boss. Meanwhile, Burgos managed more than $64 million in spending as Republicans held the House majority.

The Burgos family also has a “nanny share,” two families sharing one caregiver who often watches the children simultaneously, which can be a cost-effective solution. “She’s one of the most important people in my life,” Burgos said of her nanny.

Both parents in politics is more often the rule than the exception. Lapp is married to media consultant John Lapp, and Democratic pollster Margie Omero is married to media consultant Julian Mulvey.

“It makes them a little more understanding,” said Republican pollster Nicole McCleskey. “On the other hand, you are competing for space.” McCleskey and her husband, media consultant Jay, live in Albuquerque, N.M. She had her son, Dillon, when she was 34 years old.

The McCleskeys have a weekly scheduling meeting to coordinate travel and figure out when they need to call in reinforcements. “My family always comes first,” McCleskey said. “I plug in baseball games and school meetings first.”

And when the 2012 elections were taking her all over the country to conduct focus groups, she tried to never be gone more than one night at a time.

Extended families can also be part of the support structure. McKenna and her husband have a graduate student niece living with them, along with lots of family in the area, and Omero’s mother regularly comes down from New Jersey to help with Lucy.

Along with a supportive husband, Lapp has a mother-in-law in Arlington, Va., who can be called on at a moment’s notice. Last fall, her parents flew in from Oregon to stay with the kids while she was at the Democratic National Convention and John was working overtime in the editing bay cutting ads for his candidates. “I don’t know how anybody does it with demanding careers without a family network of help,” Lapp said.

Of course not everyone has someone to lean on, which virtually requires that a mother has advanced her career to the point where she can afford child care. And it’s important to remember that “there’s no one size that fits all,” according to one mother. But proximity is often key to sanity when time is the most valued commodity.

The Commute
Burgos’ home and office are separated by about 3 miles. DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward, 32, can get to the office in four minutes after she leaves her daughter, Emma, at home with the nanny. Much of Ward’s life is contained within a few blocks.

For another campaign mom, who preferred to talk on background to keep her family life private, her office and the kids’ schools are within a 10-block radius. “If I lived out in Reston, I’d probably slit my wrist,” she said about a potential commute to the outer suburbs.

Some families factor commuting into daily routines and aim to maximize efficiency.

The Lapps bought a Toyota Highlander. It fits their family of five and cut 20 minutes off Alixandria’s commute each way between their Falls Church home and her Georgetown office, because hybrids are allowed on Interstate 66 during rush hour. Lapp is dedicated to leaving the office by 5 p.m. to ensure that her commute is just half an hour.

Virtually all of these moms work from home in the evening after the kids are in bed, but many find it difficult during the day if the kids aren’t in school or there isn’t a nanny to watch them. “Working from the house is hard,” Lapp said, “particularly with two kids banging on the french doors.” And working from home can be challenging if you are managing people regularly or working for members of Congress.

At the office, it helps when co-workers and bosses foster a positive environment for families.“It’s important to work with people who respect families,” Burgos said. When she has to bring her daughter to the office, she won’t likely be alone. “She can play on the floor and no one minds,” Burgos said. “And sometimes she has playmates,” because it’s not unusual for her colleagues’ kids to be around, too.

The Myth
Schedules can be unforgiving and working for the campaign committees can be more demanding than the consulting world. But the key is to “make yourself as invaluable to a company as possible,” Lapp advised. “Then you’ll be in a better position to ask for flexibility” for a new family.

Either way, the only “my time” many of these mothers often get is early in the morning before the family is awake, and then it’s a sprint to get everyone ready and out the door. “By the time you sit down to work, it’s vacation,” McCleskey laughed. But these mothers wouldn’t have it any other way.

“As young women, we were told, ‘You can have it all.’ It’s a myth,” Lapp said. “There are limited hours in each day, it’s not just a matter of balance. There are just choices you have to make. We chose a path with flexibility and time to be the parents we want to be.”

“I probably won’t be the most prolific pollster in America, with the most clients, but that’s OK,” said McCleskey, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, one of Republicans’ largest polling firms. People told her that moving to New Mexico a decade ago was a poor professional decision, but she didn’t care. “You have to be comfortable with your choices,” she said.

“Is it hard? Yes,” said Omero, who also echoed the other mothers’ call to “be present, ” whether it’s at work or at home. “But no one gets from Point A to Point B without challenges.”

She said: “It’s the shared struggle and reward of having children and a career you love.”

In the last few days, U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, son of the senator, and former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, indicated they would not run for the Senate. Even though Election Day is still almost a year and a half away, there is no Democrat on the immediate horizon who could overcome President Barack Obama’s low rating in the state.

Democrats do have two-time congressional candidate Rick Weiland in the race. He has the support of former Sen. Tom Daschle, but would start a general election race behind former Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who is in the race, or Rep. Kristi Noem (R), who is a potential candidate.

Democrats could go back to Brendan Johnson, who didn’t make a public statement, but that could be a messier process with many of Brendan’s initial supporters now backing Weiland.

It’s still early, but this race no longer looks like a Pure Toss-Up. We’re moving the South Dakota contest to Toss-Up/Tilt Republican, making it the second Democratic seat in the Republican column. The GOP needs a net gain of six seats to win the majority.  

The May 5-7 poll of 800 likely special election voters by OnMessage, Inc., a Republican political consulting firm, found Markey leading Gomez 46 percent to 43 percent, with 11 percent undecided. According to an OnMessage polling memo, respondents “were stratified by county based on previous election results to reflect historic voter trends.”

The survey found Markey’s name ID at 45 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable to Gomez’s 43 percent favorable/15 percent unfavorable.

Markey held a 73 percent-12 percent lead over Gomez among Democrats, while Gomez held a 94 percent to 3 percent lead among Republicans. The contest remains very competitive because the Republican held a 50 percent to 36 percent advantage among Independents.

The poll also found President Barack Obama, D, with strong poll numbers in the state. His job approval stood at 60 percent, compared to only 39 percent who disapproved, and his name ID ratings were an equally strong 58 percent favorable/38 percent unfavorable. By comparison, former GOP Senator Scott Brown’s name ID was 53 percent favorable and 31 percent unfavorable in the survey.

The OnMessage, Inc. survey results are consistent with polls conducted in early May by Emerson College, MassINC, and Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina-based Democratic firm, all of which showed Markey holding a narrow, single-digit lead over Gomez in a tight race. A fourth survey, conducted by Suffolk University, found Markey leading by 17 points and drawing 55 percent in the ballot test.

Because of the state’s strong Democratic bent, Markey started the race to replace Senator Mo Cowan, D, who was appointed to fill the seat of now-Secretary of State John Kerry, D, as an obvious favorite. But if the OnMessage, Inc. poll is correct, the contest currently is quite competitive. And if it is competitive, Democrats undoubtedly will ratchet up their attacks on Gomez in an effort to discredit him 

State House Speaker Pro Tem Jason Smith (R) is heavily favored to win the June 4 special election in the 8th District in a race that has been ignored by the national media because of district leans Republican.

But that shouldn’t prevent the NRA and gun-rights advocates from spending money on Smith’s behalf and then amplifying, exaggerating and misinterpreting his victory.

After all, that’s the blueprint provided by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

As Stu wrote at the end of February, the strategy is to “pick a fight in a place where you have a substantial advantage and where almost nobody else is playing, dump a ton of money attacking one candidate and supporting another, and then declare victory when — surprise! surprise! — your candidate wins.”

Bloomberg’s super PAC dumped $2.5 million in the special Democratic primary in Illinois 2nd District. The group dramatically outspent all other players in the race. He controlled the narrative of a tiny congressional primary in a Democratic district (President Barack Obama received 81 percent in 2012) and yet claimed a national victory.

Bloomberg called the result “the latest sign that voters across the country are demanding change from their representatives in Washington — not business as usual. As Congress considers the President’s gun package, voters in Illinois have sent a clear message: we need common sense gun legislation now. Now it’s up to Washington to act.”

According to Vice President Joe Biden "voters sent a clear and unequivocal signal" that the conversation has shifted after the Illinois primary results.

“"The voters sent a message last night, not just to the NRA but to politicians all around the country by electing Robin Kelly," he said after the primary, "The message is there will be a moral price and a political price for inaction."

Missouri is easy pickings for the NRA to do the same thing, but in reverse. It could run some ads against universal background checks, support the Republican candidate in a district where President Barack Obama received 32 percent and 38 percent in the last two presidential elections, and then claim the conversation has shifted.  

House strategists on both sides of the aisle are implementing two very different strategies this cycle when it comes to candidate recruitment, as evidenced by two new programs unveiled on Thursday.

The DCCC officially unveiled its new Jumpstart program, promoting an initial slate of eight candidates to potential donors and supporters.

“The newly-created Jumpstart program provides early financial, communications, operational and strategic support to help top-tier candidates get a head start in these highly-targeted races,” according to a memo from DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward.

“Jumpstart is an initial launching pad based on the quality of the candidate and the viability of
the district in races where off-year progress is critical to success, while Red to Blue remains a
program candidates earn by hitting specific metrics for their campaigns,” added Ward about the committee’s other candidate program.

But Jumpstart is just as much about building a narrative as it is about building campaigns. In their effort to gain 17 seats and the House majority, Democrats are pushing to broaden the playing field of competitive House seats to over 50 “vulnerable” GOP districts. Getting candidates into races is one way to try and build that narrative.

Republicans don’t have an interest in a broader playing field and their strategy reflects it.

While the DCCC unveiled Jumpstart, the National Republican Congressional Committee simultaneously launched its Red Zone program. But instead of highlighting their challengers, Republicans focused on the Democratic incumbents and the “dedicated staff” they would use.

This cycle, Republican strategists are encouraging more recruits to wait until later in the cycle to announce their candidacies, in part, to decrease the amount of time Democrats can spend attacking them and tearing them down.

In the mind of GOP operatives, there is very little reason to announce early if the candidate can ramp up their campaign structure and fundraising later in the cycle.  

1. California’s 31st: Republican Rep. Gary G. Miller vs. Democrat Pete Aguilar
Aguilar didn’t make it to the November ballot last year because he placed third, against Miller and Republican Bob Dutton in the open primary. The mayor of Redlands is running again, and he has company, as former Rep. Joe Baca and attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes have also said that they are Democratic candidates. Given the seat’s Democratic bent, Miller will have a tough time one on one against a Democrat in the runoff in a district that went for President Barack Obama with 57 percent. So Aguilar’s challenge is to get into the November election against Miller.

2. Arizona’s 2nd: Democratic Rep. Ron Barber vs. Republican Martha McSally
Barber eked out a narrow victory (by 2,454 votes) last year, but the combination of an earlier start by McSally and a midterm electorate could well give Barber an even bigger headache in 2014. McSally looks to be no worse than even money to win the rematch next year.

3. North Carolina’s 7th: Democratic Rep. Mike McIntyre vs. Republican David Rouzer
McIntyre held on in a very Republican district in 2012, but Rouzer is likely to run a better race this time, taking advantage of the midterm dynamic. And that’s a major problem for McIntyre, who proved his mettle in last year’s difficult environment for a moderate Democrat in the South.

4. Utah’s 4th: Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson vs. Republican Mia Love
While Love got plenty of publicity last cycle, GOP strategists were quite critical of her campaign and TV ads. For this run, she has hired veteran operative Dave Hansen, who guided Sen. Orrin G. Hatch’s re-election race last time, to manage her campaign, which is likely to be much improved.

5. Minnesota’s 6th: Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann vs. Democrat Jim Graves
Bachmann won a squeaker in November (50.5 percent to 49.3 percent), and Democrat Graves has announced that he wants a rematch. There are rumors that the controversial congresswoman may retire rather than seek another term, but that probably would make Graves’ job harder in this reliably Republican district.

6. Massachusetts’ 6: Democratic Rep. John F. Tierney vs. Republican Richard Tisei
House veteran Tierney was regarded as a dead duck by many (including me) last time, but he squeezed out a narrow victory over Tisei, who is expected to make another run in 2014. The midterm dynamic could help the moderate, pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Republican, though you can bet the Democrats will once again try to lump him in with the tea party, as they did in 2012.

7. Illinois’ 10th: Democratic Rep. Brad Schneider vs. Republican Bob Dold
Dold has not yet announced that he will run again, but GOP insiders agree that he is looking closely at a possible rematch. Schneider drew 50.6 percent to Dold’s 49.4 percent (a margin of 3,326 votes), so it isn’t hard to see why the Republican would think his prospects would improve in a nonpresidential year.

8. New York’s 18th: Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney vs. Republican Nan Hayworth
Maloney used a late surge to defeat Hayworth after a single term, and the Republican recently filed for a rematch. Hayworth lost by just under 11,000 votes out of almost 277,000 cast for the two major party candidates, and she hopes the midterm electorate — and the absence of President Barack Obama on the ballot pulling Democratic voters to the polls — will help her win back her old seat.

9. Minnesota’s 2nd: Republican Rep. John Kline vs. Democrat Mike Obermueller
Democrats have a clear primary for Obermueller, a former state representative, and they are touting this as a race to watch. But Kline won by more than 29,000 votes (and 8 points), and while Obama won the district narrowly, there isn’t a lot of reason to assume that Obermueller will do dramatically better in 2014 than he did last year.

10. Illinois’ 17th: Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos vs. Republican Bobby Schilling
Schilling lost by about 19,000 votes (6.5 points) in this redrawn, reliably Democratic district. But the former congressman is apparently giving serious consideration to a rematch. Bustos ought not to underestimate the likable Schilling if he runs again, but the fundamentals of the district definitely favor the Democrat. The climb looks terribly steep for any Republican here, even Schilling.

It looks like national GOP strategists played the special election just right for once, and it wasn’t because they held the seat. With the National Republican Congressional Committee remaining on the sidelines and not spending money on the race, Republicans can deflect some of the likely Democratic message that the polarizing Sanford is the new face of the national GOP. House Republicans can say, “We didn’t want him and we didn’t help him.”

Even though they lost, Democrats couldn’t really sit this race out. With high profile figures such as Sanford and Stephen Colbert’s sister in the race, Democratic donors may have wondered why their party wasn’t taking the opportunity to challenge for the seat against someone with such public failures.

Sanford should expect a primary challenge next year, but if Democrats couldn’t win the seat under these conditions, it’s difficult to see them having much of a chance next year.

Former Palmetto State Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, began with a narrow advantage over Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, but even Republicans pulling for Sanford believe that he has failed to run the strong race he needed to in order to hold onto the reliably GOP seat.

When Sanford’s ex-wife’s complained that he trespassed at her home, many observers believed that it was the beginning of the end for the former governor, even given the Republican nature of the district.

But Sanford did not throw in the towel, and Democrats are nervous about whether his efforts during the campaign’s final weeks to make the race into a referendum on Colbert Busch, and on her ties to organized labor, has turned the contest toward the Republican.

Recent polling has shown everything from an even race to a narrow Colbert Busch advantage. A May 4-5 poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, for example, showed Sanford at 47 percent and Colbert Busch at 46 percent. But, as one Republican observed, “I have to believe that the anti-Sanford voters are more motivated than the pro-Sanford voters,” and many Republicans seem to be assuming that their nominee will go down to defeat.

When the results are in Tuesday night, the spinning will begin. But while the contest has received plenty of national attention, it now appears that the outcome will be largely devoid of significance.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has kept arm’s length from the race, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the House Majority PAC have invested heavily in the contest. Given the uniqueness of this special election, it’s hard to see why either a Sanford victory or a Colbert Busch win would mean much – or anything – for 2014.

Obviously, Democrats would hate to lose the election after investing so heavily in it. But their failure to defeat Sanford wouldn’t say anything about their ability to win Democratic-leaning or swing districts next year.

The Rothenberg Political Report still has the race as a Toss-up/Tilting to the Democrat, but any outcome is possible. Don’t be shocked at the result, no matter who wins.

There is no evidence right now that Republicans are headed for large gains in 2014, and midterm House waves for the president’s party are not merely rare. There has never been one in the modern era (describe that however you’d like).

No, that doesn’t mean that there won’t ever be a midterm wave for the president’s party, but given the number of cases — there have been 17 midterm elections since the end of World War II and 28 midterm elections since the beginning of the 20th century — it’s very reasonable to start off with the premise that the president’s party won’t benefit from a midterm wave in 2014.

If events and polls show something different happening, then assessments can change.

Trende notes that David Nir of Daily Kos has “jokingly” referred to the “tendency of commentators to succumb to the ‘anything that hasn’t happened before can’t happen now’ rule.”

But it’s equally silly to ignore the fact that something hasn’t happened for a century or to assume that something that has never happened is likely to happen now — unless, of course, specific factors have changed to suddenly make an unlikely outcome quite possible (such as changing racial attitudes and the possibility of electing an African-American to the White House).

Trende goes on to observe that in 2010, “prognosticators seemed bent on making sure they were as close to the actual number as they could be without going over it. Almost everyone’s prediction was on the low end of what really happened. I’m convinced this was, in part, because we didn’t have any recent examples of a party losing more than 55 seats in a midterm (it’s not accidental that predictions steadily climbed upwards in 2010 until they struck this level, then stayed there until the very end).”

I think he’s generally right about this. It’s difficult to expect that something that has never happened will happen for the first time.

But as Trende notes, not everyone’s final estimate for 2010 was below “historic” levels.

The October 28, 2010, edition of the Rothenberg Political Report included the following: “House Democrats appear to be headed for a historic bloodbath, with losses probably exceeding 1994’s 52 seats. We estimate likely GOP House gains at 55 to 65 seats, with gains at or above 70 seats possible.” Republicans won a historic 63 seats that year.

But Republicans had an upbeat outlook in 2012, and they ended up losing two Senate seats, so recruiting, candidate quality, campaigns and the national political environment could combine either to improve the Democrats’ outlook or to get the GOP in the position to net six…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

ALASKA -- Mark Begich (D), elected 2008 (48%).
Begich is an obvious target for the GOP because the state is so Republican in federal races. The Democrat barely squeaked by then-ethically challenged Sen. Ted Stevens (R) in 2008, winning by fewer than 4,000 votes…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

But McConnell’s mediocre polling numbers have Democrats dreaming of knocking off the Senate minority leader. Actress Ashley Judd flirted seriously with the race but eventually decided against it. That leaves…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.