House seats where Democrats could have gotten a stronger recruit in 2016

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Most of these Districts likely would not have flipped with the way the actual results turned out, even with substantially stronger Democratic candidates. However, which Districts could have had substantially narrower results, where the Democratic House candidate lost by huge margins in real life, if Democrats had a stronger recruit in 2016?

[Jeppe]

If we had ran Katie Hill against Steven Knight in 2016, we might've won. Caforio was just too easy to depict as a hot-shot Los Angeles lawyer carpetbagging into the district.

[Xing]

I doubt that ME-02 was winnable in 2016, given how much Trump won it by, but a better recruit than Emily Cain would've definitely made it closer.

[Torie]

NY-19. May be the same this time. I now have this race tilt R in my mind.

[Politician]

IA-01 and VA-10.

[PAK Man]

VA-02 (Perennial candidate in a winnable race that Dems seemingly gave up on immediately)

FL-26 (Or at least Democrats should have done a better job of making sure Joe Garcia didn't re-enter the race)

IA-01 (Seems like Vernon was the one Democrat who actually could have lost this seat, and she did)

TX-23 (Dems relied too much on also-rans in 2016, and this was a great example of that)

[Ohioguy29]

OH-1. We had some kinda dippy woman who nobody had heard of that year. She heavily underperformed Clinton and got totally creamed. If, idk, PG Sittenfeld had run for that seat, we could've gotten it close.

OH-2 we ran the same perennial candidate we always do. Jill Schiller is a big improvement, though she'll lose. Jerry Springer might've been the best option of all.

Really, I'm guessing there's countless seats where we "could" have gotten a stronger recruit. However, part of the reason we're seeing stronger recruits this year is it's a better environment. Many quality candidates weren't interested in running in 2016.