Final map in the series for now (yes, there are two more districts, but they are not interesting. Just imagine every town in varying shades of blue):
Notice the change from an interestingly split district in 2002 (when fellow incumbent Jim Maloney was running against Nancy Johnson in their combined district) to a mostly Republican one. The incumbent rule ("all things being equal, voters trend towards the incumbent") was somewhat neutralized in 2002, although Johnson was able to use the power of more incumbency (her main argument was that she had been in Congress longer and had introduced more legislation than Maloney) to gain votes. In 2004 this mostly-Republican district went for Bush and sent the lion's share of the GOP delegation to the General Assembly. They also happened to re-elect Johnson in a landslide. Her challenger, Theresa Gerratana, did well in only two towns (liberal Cornwall and, ironically for Johnson, New Britain) while Johnson won big everywhere else.
Is this a district Democrats should forget about? Maybe. Jim Maloney did as well as he did because of his incumbent status, and he lost by 10%. Johnson is also personally popular, and is seen as moderate despite being the most conservative member of our congressional delegation.
It seems obvious that district 5 was created with Johnson in mind. After all, the district stretches far to the east, including New Britain (Johnson's hometown) by a hair. New Britain went to district 5 while Bristol went to district 1, which makes no geographic sense. Redistricting in 2010 might fix some of these problems. Johnson, who turned 70 this year, might decide to retire before then. Even if she does, though, there is little reason to believe that Democrats can take this seat from the Republicans.