The Democrats path of least resistance to a House majority

[King Lear]

This post will show what I believe is the Democrats path of least resistance to a house majority, I will list the seats they need in order of most likely to flip to least likely to flip:
CA-49
FL-27
VA-10
CO-06
TX-23
FL-26
CA-25
CA-10
AZ-02
WA-08
CA-39
IL-06
PA-08
PA-06
PA-07
MN-02
MN-03
CA-45
NJ-07
CA-21
NY-24
NJ-11
NJ-02
CA-48
The first thing you’ll probably notice is that 20 of the 24 Republican districts I place in the Democrats path of least resistance to a house Majority voted for Hillary Clinton, this is because due to America’s current polarization, Democrats are going to have to rely heavily on sweeping the vast majority of the 23 Clinton-Republican disricts to flip the house because I don’t believe their going to have many opportunities in Trump-Republican districts with the exception of ones that barely voted for him.

[Pericles]

Where's FL-26? PA-15 is very flippable. And Trump districts are also flippable in a good environment with the right candidate. Several more Texas districts(07 and 32 for instance) could flip. NY-22?(it was closer in 2016)

[YE]

IA-01
IA-03
ME-02
WA-08
NJ-02
FL-27
TX-23
CO-06
VA-10
CA-49
CA-25
CA-10
CA-39
CA-45
PA-06
PA-08
MN-03
IL-06
IL-12
AZ-02
NY-22
NY-21

[King Lear]

IA-02
IA-03
ME-02
WA-08
NJ-02
FL-27
TX-23
CO-06
VA-10
CA-49
CA-25
CA-10
CA-39
CA-45
PA-06
PA-08
MN-03
IL-06
IL-12
AZ-02
NY-22
NY-21

You include way to many Trump-Republican districts in your lists, as I said the Democratic path to a house majority runs through flipping at least 20 of the 23 Clinton-Republican districts plus flipping a few marginal Trump-Republican districts.

[Pericles]

IA-02
IA-03
ME-02
WA-08
NJ-02
FL-27
TX-23
CO-06
VA-10
CA-49
CA-25
CA-10
CA-39
CA-45
PA-06
PA-08
MN-03
IL-06
IL-12
AZ-02
NY-22
NY-21

You include way to many Trump-Republican districts in your lists, as I said the Democratic path to a house majority runs through flipping at least 20 of the 23 Clinton-Republican districts plus flipping a few marginal Trump-Republican districts.

You said it but you're wrong(as usual).

[King Lear]

IA-02
IA-03
ME-02
WA-08
NJ-02
FL-27
TX-23
CO-06
VA-10
CA-49
CA-25
CA-10
CA-39
CA-45
PA-06
PA-08
MN-03
IL-06
IL-12
AZ-02
NY-22
NY-21

You include way to many Trump-Republican districts in your lists, as I said the Democratic path to a house majority runs through flipping at least 20 of the 23 Clinton-Republican districts plus flipping a few marginal Trump-Republican districts.

You said it but you're wrong(as usual).

You think it’s wrong to believe the Democrats pathway to a house majority runs through the 23 Clinton-Republican districts and marginal Trump-Republican districts? If you think Democrats are going to win a House majority by flipping White Working Class Districts in Appalachia and the Rust belt that they held 10 years ago but voted for Trump by Double-Digits in 2016, then you know nothing about the trends and Polarization in Modern American politics.

[Pericles]

None of YE's districts except NY-21 seen anything but reasonable choices. I think IA-02 means IA-01 and FL-26 could swap with IA-03. CA-48 could be there too.

[Virginiá]

You think it’s wrong to believe the Democrats pathway to a house majority runs through the 23 Clinton-Republican districts and marginal Trump-Republican districts? If you think Democrats are going to win a House majority by flipping White Working Class Districts in Appalachia and the Rust belt that they held 10 years ago but voted for Trump by Double-Digits in 2016, then you know nothing about the trends and Polarization in Modern American politics.

There are a lot of Obama-Trump districts that have decent potential to swing back. Just because an Obama district voted Trump and a Romney district Clinton doesn't mean they are going to stay that way - particularly midwest white working class-heavy districts which have been prone to swings in the past.

[Pericles]

This is my path of least resistance, numbered. Note I have 25 seats because MN-01 will probably go Republican, and if it doesn't then it's a situation where Democrats are already winning the majority.
1. FL-27
2. CA-49
3. NE-02
4. TX-23
5. WA-08
6. CA-10
7. VA-10
8. AZ-02
9. CO-06
10. FL-26
11. CA-25
12. MN-03
13. CA-39
14. CA-21
15. NJ-02
16. CA-45
17. MN-02
18. ME-02
19. PA-08
20. IA-01
21. PA-07
22. TX-07
23. TX-32
24. KS-03
25. IL-06

Note that I believe Democrats will probably get more seats than this, but this is their path of least resistance to a majority. They would also be stupid to just compete in these seats because some will likely go Republican, the bigger the map is the easier it is to the to 24 or 25, and as learned in 2006 Democrats should compete everywhere.

[YE]

None of YE's districts except NY-21 seen anything but reasonable choices. I think IA-02 means IA-01 and FL-26 could swap with IA-03. CA-48 could be there too.

I left CA-48 since it only narrowly voted for Clinton and IIRC unlike some of the other CA GOP seats didn't go for Obama in 2008 using current lines. Also, NY-21 flipping isn't unreasonable. I probably shouldn't have included it given that Stefanik seems like a decent incumbent, but it did vote for Obama by 6 points in 2012. I'd probably include NE-02 or FL-26 instead.

[Mr.Phips]

IA-02
IA-03
ME-02
WA-08
NJ-02
FL-27
TX-23
CO-06
VA-10
CA-49
CA-25
CA-10
CA-39
CA-45
PA-06
PA-08
MN-03
IL-06
IL-12
AZ-02
NY-22
NY-21

You include way to many Trump-Republican districts in your lists, as I said the Democratic path to a house majority runs through flipping at least 20 of the 23 Clinton-Republican districts plus flipping a few marginal Trump-Republican districts.

The Trump districts included here are very elastic.  For example, I believe IL-12 even went for Tammy Duckworth in the 2016 senate race.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

If the Democrats aim to attain a 218-217 majority in 2018, what are the 24 easiest seats for them to grab?

My personal opinion

• AZ-02
• CA-10
• CA-25
• CA-39
• CA-49
• CO-06
• FL-26
• FL-27
• IA-01
• IL-06
• ME-02
• MN-02
• MN-03
• NC-13
• NE-02
• NJ-02
• NJ-07
• NY-19
• NY-22
• PA-08
• PA-16
• TX-23
• VA-10
• WA-08

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If the Democrats aim to attain a 218-217 majority in 2018, what are the 25 24 easiest seats for them to grab?

218-194=24

[YE]

IA-01
IA-03
ME-02
WA-08
NJ-02
FL-27
TX-23
CO-06
VA-10
CA-49
CA-25
CA-10
CA-39
CA-45
PA-06
PA-08
MN-03
MN-02
IL-06
IL-12
AZ-02
NY-22
NY-24

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

If the Democrats aim to attain a 218-217 majority in 2018, what are the 25 24 easiest seats for them to grab?

218-194=24

Oops, that's what I meant (I have 24 listed).

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

AZ-02
CA-10
CA-25
CA-39
CA-48
CA-49
CO-06
FL-26
FL-27
IL-06
IA-01
MI-11
MN-02
MN-03
NE-02
NJ-02
NJ-11
NY-19
NY-22
PA-15
TX-07
TX-23
VA-10
WA-08

[Pericles]

I have edited the path of least resistance in light of Royce's retirement.
1. FL-27
2. CA-49
3. NE-02
4. TX-23
5. WA-08
6. CA-39
7. CA-10
8. VA-10
9. AZ-02
10. CO-06
11. FL-26
12. CA-25
13. MN-03
14. CA-21
15. NJ-02
16. CA-45
17. MN-02
18. ME-02
19. PA-08
20. IA-01
21. PA-07
22. TX-07
23. TX-32
24. KS-03
25. IL-06

[Pericles]

My ranked path.
1. FL-27
2. CA-49
3. NE-02
4. TX-23
5. WA-08
6. CA-39
7. CA-10
8. VA-10
9. AZ-02
10. CO-06
11. FL-26
12. CA-25
13. MN-03
14. CA-21
15. NJ-02
16. CA-45
17. MN-02
18. ME-02
19. PA-08
20. IA-01
21. PA-07
22. TX-07
23. TX-32
24. KS-03
25. IL-06

Note I have 25 seats because MN-01 will probably go Republican, and if it doesn't then it's a situation where Democrats are already winning the majority. I believe Democrats will probably get more seats than this, but this is their path of least resistance to a majority. They would also be stupid to just compete in these seats because some will likely go Republican, the bigger the map is the easier it is to the to 24 or 25, and as learned in 2006 Democrats should compete everywhere.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

I really think IL-12 goes before IL-06. Roskam is not a trump Republican, and I really think that with how red DuPage County is, he can avoid being caught in the wave.

[Virginiá]

I really think IL-12 goes before IL-06. Roskam is not a trump Republican, and I really think that with how red DuPage County is, he can avoid being caught in the wave.

I can't help but think that DuPage is ripe for the kind of suburban backlash rippling through the country right now. On paper, anyway. It might have been for some years even, but was inhibited by an unpopular Democratic president. History is littered with similar examples, where it's easy for a party to prosper downballot in areas that have trended away from them simply because the other party holds the WH. 1994, 2010 and 2017 Virginia are great examples of this at play.

[LimoLiberal]

I really think IL-12 goes before IL-06. Roskam is not a trump Republican, and I really think that with how red DuPage County is, he can avoid being caught in the wave.

I can't help but think that DuPage is ripe for the kind of suburban backlash rippling through the country right now. On paper, anyway. It might have been for some years even, but was inhibited by an unpopular Democratic president. History is littered with similar examples, where it's easy for a party to prosper downballot in areas that have trended away from them simply because the other party holds the WH. 1994, 2010 and 2017 Virginia are great examples of this at play.

Exactly. People were intensely skeptical of double-digit gains in the VA house because Republicans in 2011, 2013, and 2015 had fairly easily retained control of districts in Loudoun, Prince William, and Fairfax even as up-ballot democrats won them. As soon as Donald Trump assumed the presidency, they were obliterated. Obama's middling unpopularity and low turnout kept those seats Republican. Trump is the president now. Republicans in suburban areas that despise him can't escape his influence or use Obama's unpopularity as a boogeyman. These suburban districts seem totally safe, until they aren't.