Cook releases first 2012 Senate/House ratings

[-]

http://cookpolitical.com/races/senate/ratings.php

http://cookpolitical.com/house

What do you think?

[DrScholl]

His Senate rankings are fairly sound. The House rankings aren't as useful, since redistricting will change the map.

[-]

His Senate rankings are fairly sound. The House rankings aren't as useful, since redistricting will change the map.

I was suprised that MO was Lean D. But then again, a Steelman-Talent primary could be bloody and scared well before they ever meet Claire McCaskill in the General.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Too freaking early.

[Keystone Phil]

Nebraska is only a toss up (should be likely Republican)? Missouri isn't a toss up? West Virginia is a toss up (should be at least lean Dem)? Ohio and Florida should probably be toss ups as well.

Too freaking early.

Correct but looking at things right now, they seem a bit off with some key races.

[-]

Nebraska is only a toss up (should be likely Republican)? Missouri isn't a toss up? West Virginia is a toss up (should be at least lean Dem)? Ohio and Florida should probably be toss ups as well.

Too freaking early.

Correct but looking at things right now, they seem a bit off with some key races.

They always give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt. They didn't move AR to Lean R earlier this year until around September or something.

[Sam Spade]

Real waste of time.  Wake me in a few months, at least.

[Keystone Phil]

Nebraska is only a toss up (should be likely Republican)? Missouri isn't a toss up? West Virginia is a toss up (should be at least lean Dem)? Ohio and Florida should probably be toss ups as well.

Too freaking early.

Correct but looking at things right now, they seem a bit off with some key races.

They always give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt. They didn't move AR to Lean R earlier this year until around September or something.

Well, certainly not always if West Virginia, Massachusetts and Nevada are toss ups.

[Brittain33]

With the caveat that House ratings are useless now, the only ones which seem particularly strange above and beyond that are NJ-7 and GA-12. Maybe he's considering redistricting but Barrow isn't losing in an Obama election year in a district relatively similar to what he has now.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I live in NJ-07 and putting it as only lean Republican is weird. Lance is a perfect fit for this district and won 59% of the vote in 2010(even though it was against a nobody), plus the Dems have an awful bench in this district. They had some really bad candidates against Ferguson before Stender decided to run, and it's not like she was great either especially with her hugely underwhelming performance in 2008 after coming so close in 2006.

[albaleman]

This is way too early to create a half-decent map.

[-]

Nebraska is only a toss up (should be likely Republican)? Missouri isn't a toss up? West Virginia is a toss up (should be at least lean Dem)? Ohio and Florida should probably be toss ups as well.

Too freaking early.

Correct but looking at things right now, they seem a bit off with some key races.

They always give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt. They didn't move AR to Lean R earlier this year until around September or something.

Well, certainly not always if West Virginia, Massachusetts and Nevada are toss ups.

You make a good point, but that's what we're seeing with MT, MO, VA, OH (especially) etc.

[Keystone Phil]

Nebraska is only a toss up (should be likely Republican)? Missouri isn't a toss up? West Virginia is a toss up (should be at least lean Dem)? Ohio and Florida should probably be toss ups as well.

Too freaking early.

Correct but looking at things right now, they seem a bit off with some key races.

They always give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt. They didn't move AR to Lean R earlier this year until around September or something.

Well, certainly not always if West Virginia, Massachusetts and Nevada are toss ups.

You make a good point, but that's what we're seeing with MT, MO, VA, OH (especially) etc.

So your point makes zero sense: "They are giving the incumbent the benefit of the doubt...sometimes."

[ajc0918]

I don't understand why he listed FL-3 as lean D. Corrine Brown isn't going anywhere in that D+18 gerrymandered mess of a district.

[Torie]

Cook claims he is considering redistricting in his projections for the House, but he is not as up on the intricacies of that as he might be. For example, Peters (D; MI-09) is rated a tossup, and his district is going to essentially disappear. MI-12 will become a tossup district.  Cook has it as likely Dem; MI-12 just isn't going to be drawn that way. Ditto for the Critz district in PA, that seat is labeled a tossup, and ala Peters, in Michigan, that seat is just going to disappear. There may be others, but those three leaped out a me.

[Lunar]

I don't know how you could feasibly incorporate redistricting anyway at this stage without incredibly granular analysis.  We have a good sense for which Congressmen are likely most on the chopping block in terms of being completely eliminated from their districts, but there's a lot more to redistricting than that...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't understand why he listed FL-3 as lean D. Corrine Brown isn't going anywhere in that D+18 gerrymandered mess of a district.

From what I have read, the new rules are going to screw her royally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Redistricting is a wild card in the House. Cook doesn't like to rate incumbent races are leaning to the other side, but I would argue that NY-25 is Lean Democratic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Redistricting is a wild card in the House. Cook doesn't like to rate incumbent races are leaning to the other side, but I would argue that NY-25 is Lean Democratic.

MN-08 and FL-22 (if you really take redistricting into account) should be as well. ILL-08 should be toss-up.

[Torie]

I don't know how you could feasibly incorporate redistricting anyway at this stage without incredibly granular analysis.  We have a good sense for which Congressmen are likely most on the chopping block in terms of being completely eliminated from their districts, but there's a lot more to redistricting than that...

In states one party controls as to redistricting, you can get a good sense of where it is going. I am quite confident about Michigan, but then I worked the traps on redistricting hard on that state. I know Michigan now like the back of hand really. There is really only one map that is likely to be drawn, bearing in mind all the rules, and the needs of incumbent Pubbies. I would be quite surprised if that map does not become law. And Critz in PA is toast; he just has to be.

Now when it comes to places like California, with a hideously complex redistricting law, done by an independent commission, that nobody has any idea what they will do (or what the predilections of its members are for that matter (if I had been chosen for the commission - I tried but failed), I might have a better sense ), with considerably flexibility in how many majority- minority districts that they choose to draw, any predictions on a host of seats in CA is just GIGO.

And I am quite confident where Minnesota is going where the power is divided. No change at all really if MN does not lose a seat, and one Northern CD where the Dem would be favored, costing the GOP a seat, if it does lose a seat. But there the Court drew the last plan, which gives a good road map, of what the default option will be, if the two parties cannot cut a deal, which will in and of itself, help shape any deal that is cut.

[Lunar]

I don't know how you could feasibly incorporate redistricting anyway at this stage without incredibly granular analysis.  We have a good sense for which Congressmen are likely most on the chopping block in terms of being completely eliminated from their districts, but there's a lot more to redistricting than that...

In states one party controls as to redistricting, you can get a good sense of where it is going.

So...who's eliminated in MA? No one knows.

And my point was that it's not just about who's being eliminated, but also where the new districts are, who's being weakened, and who's being strengthened.

[muon2]

I don't know how you could feasibly incorporate redistricting anyway at this stage without incredibly granular analysis.  We have a good sense for which Congressmen are likely most on the chopping block in terms of being completely eliminated from their districts, but there's a lot more to redistricting than that...

In states one party controls as to redistricting, you can get a good sense of where it is going. I am quite confident about Michigan, but then I worked the traps on redistricting hard on that state. I know Michigan now like the back of hand really. There is really only one map that is likely to be drawn, bearing in mind all the rules, and the needs of incumbent Pubbies. I would be quite surprised if that map does not become law. And Critz in PA is toast; he just has to be.

Now when it comes to places like California, with a hideously complex redistricting law, done by an independent commission, that nobody has any idea what they will do (or what the predilections of its members are for that matter (if I had been chosen for the commission - I tried but failed), I might have a better sense ), with considerably flexibility in how many majority- minority districts that they choose to draw, any predictions on a host of seats in CA is just GIGO.

And I am quite confident where Minnesota is going where the power is divided. No change at all really if MN does not lose a seat, and one Northern CD where the Dem would be favored, costing the GOP a seat, if it does lose a seat. But there the Court drew the last plan, which gives a good road map, of what the default option will be, if the two parties cannot cut a deal, which will in and of itself, help shape any deal that is cut.

I completely agree. Paired candidates are also a factor in states with the one-party control like IL. It can be tougher to sort out in that case, since there are variations depending on which R's are paired together (eg. Kinzinger and Johnson or Roskam and Hultgren). Thus, there may be some unexpected retirements due to the remap.

[Torie]

I don't know how you could feasibly incorporate redistricting anyway at this stage without incredibly granular analysis.  We have a good sense for which Congressmen are likely most on the chopping block in terms of being completely eliminated from their districts, but there's a lot more to redistricting than that...

In states one party controls as to redistricting, you can get a good sense of where it is going.

So...who's eliminated in MA? No one knows.

And my point was that it's not just about who's being eliminated, but also where the new districts are, who's being weakened, and who's being strengthened.

Indeed. In MA, we know one Dem will be eliminated, so that state is well, not that suspenseful.

In MI, I have my map. It is available for you to savor. It is the map the Pubbies don't even know I suspect that they will draw yet. I was first out of the gate. Yes, it "helps" that there are strictures and restrictions in what you can do, so you just can't go nutter, with erose districts, affording more options. If that were the law, then I would know the Dems would have exactly 4 heavily Dem seats, and otherwise be rather totally shut out, even if I did not know were the "erosities" would appear exactly.

[Lunar]

But it's precisely those individual "erosities" that we're trying to rate!  It's like the difference between predicting that the Republicans would gain 63 seats and predicting that they'd gain NY-13 but not CA-11. 

And, personally, I have to say, you underestimate the sexiness of a gerrymander that could result in a hot primary between two incumbents.

[Torie]

But it's precisely those individual "erosities" that we're trying to rate!  It's like the difference between predicting that the Republicans would gain 63 seats and predicting that they'd gain NY-13 but not CA-11. 

And, personally, I have to say, you underestimate the sexiness of a gerrymander that could result in a hot primary between two incumbents.

Each state is its circus. And they vary a lot. They will be no sexy incumbent against incumbent contest in Michigan (unless Candice Miller in MI CD-10 gets adventurous, and is willing to take on Levin in a marginal seat (rather than run in a much safer seat that will be available)). Sure in Illinois, some GOP incumbents might duke it out in a primary, as they fight to survive with the number of seats the Dems have allocated to them.