Dems in Trump CD's; Reps in Clinton CD's

[Nyvin]

I'm really surprised all the CA GOPers survived.

AZ-1 was a pretty strong win for an open seat,  has this district trended Dem at all or something?  Or was the GOP candidate just awful?

[Nyvin]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

[Nyvin]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too).  

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

Well, most of those states except Wisconsin and Iowa will be losing districts anyway come 2020.   And most of the surrounding districts are just barely Republican.  Probably the national Dem's strategy is just to let the incumbents ride it out until 2020 and then get better maps in place once the seats are removed.

If none of them lost in 2016 then the chances of any of them getting voted out while Trump is in office are pretty much non-existent (as far as we can tell).

I will say that Minnesota is a bit scary.

[Nyvin]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too).  

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

Well, most of those states except Wisconsin and Iowa will be losing districts anyway come 2020.   And most of the surrounding districts are just barely Republican.  Probably the national Dem's strategy is just to let the incumbents ride it out until 2020 and then get better maps in place once the seats are removed.

If none of them lost in 2016 then the chances of any of them getting voted out while Trump is in office are pretty much non-existent (as far as we can tell).

I will say that Minnesota is a bit scary.

I realize that this thread is about the House, but the Senate is still important, and unaffected by population changes. Sure, Georgia has a higher population than Wisconsin and Iowa combined, but it still only has two Senators.

Yeah, but the good thing about Senators is they aren't affect by the geography of the states.

In the long run the Demographics of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania very much still favor Democrats.   The Urban areas will just grow to be too much to handle at some point or another.   It's really just Ohio and Iowa that are going the way of Alabama.  

The thing with the House is that the urban concentration of votes put the outer seats at risk, even though the statewide vote might still favor democrats, or at least be competitive,  while the urban-core districts just get more friendly to Dems.

[Nyvin]

I think the Republicans will retain a minimum of 6 seats in California no matter how much the state trends.

Districts 1, 4, and 8 are the rural hinterlands districts that Dems have no appeal in, and between the Bakersfield and Orange county areas it's hard seeing the GOP not getting at least another three seats.   

Out of the three areas probably Orange county (area) has the biggest chance to completely wipe out the Republicans, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Nyvin]

If the Democrats can gain every Clinton/Republican CD in 2018 while defending all incumbents, that's only one seat away from a majority. Of course, that's easier said than done, since a lot of those incumbents are really strong, and a lot of those Clinton voters in those districts didn't really have a problem with the Republican Party as a whole (although that might change depending on what Congress does in the next two years). But I assume there are a bunch of narrow Trump/Republican CDs that can be flipped as well if 2018 is a more Democratic year than 2016. So, while the Republicans are favored to keep the House, they don't have it locked down.

I can think of a few off the bat:
FL-18, GA-6, GA-7, IA-1, IA-3, ME-2, MI-11, MN-2, NJ-2, NJ-3, NY-19, NY-2 (King retires), PA-8,VA-2, WA-3. Some of these lack a bench for Dems, but that didn't seem to matter in a lot of seats at this point in the 2006/2010 cycles.

No I don't see Republicans losing IA-01 or MI-11 for now even in a big wave especially IA-01.

Why not?   They were both within 3-4 points.  MI-11 even trended dem pretty significantly too.