5 best seats for Democrats to win this year for a more durable majority in 2022?

[lfromnj]

IMO
CA-25
IL-13
OH-01
PA-01
NC-08

These are probably the 5 most likely seats I can see Democrats holding even in an R wave in 2022 in their possible new shape.

[ctrepublican512]

IL-13
GA-07
TX-23
OH-01
NY-02

[Storr]

CA-22
CA-25
TX-22
TX-23
TX-24

Close but why I didn't include them:

PA-01: very white and not trending D all that much.
OH-01: Ohio Republicans' well known openness to extreme gerrymandering.
GA-07: Georgia Republicans could gerrymander this district if they so desired with +20 R seats bordering it.
NY-2: too white and swingy (went from Obama to Trump).

[Attorney General & Senator Dwarven Dragon]

CA-25
TX-23
TX-24
GA-07
NY-24

[lfromnj]

CA-22
CA-25
TX-22
TX-23
TX-24

Close but why I didn't include them:

PA-01: very white and not trending D all that much.
OH-01: Ohio Republicans' well known openness to extreme gerrymandering.
GA-07: Georgia Republicans could gerrymander this district if they so desired with +20 R seats bordering it.
NY-2: too white and swingy (went from Obama to Trump).

Ny02 is the worst seat possible to win for Democrats. Like arguably it's better to lose than win there.
Not sure why you included tx 23 and 22 . 4 sinks is enough in Houston and 23 might be chopped. 24 is iffy . Ca 22 could get interesting i do agree.
But yeah I asked the most durable majority so good choice avoiding ga7.
However I think Ohio Rs wont be that aggressive if theres a D incumbent in Cincinatti. They wouldn't want to risk a new ballot measure.

[S019]

TX-21 (Austin is getting a sink in 2022, and this seems like the likeliest candidate to get it, it in all likelihood is either this or the 10th, which will become that sink, and this is the one that I seem Dems as likelier to win, and thus this is likelier to have a Dem incumbent, and it's a far easier sell to sink a Dem incumbent than to drawn an R incumbent into an unwinnable seat)
CA-50 (it's quite easy to draw this as a competitive seat without aggressively violating COI's, especially if the successor of the 49th is pushed further north into Orange County, freeing up places like Encinitas for a significantly bluer 50th, if the GOP gets their way in OC, it could come at the cost of their SD seat)
MN-08 (this isn't really a target, but MN Dems will likely baconstrip the Iron Range to the Minneapolis suburbs and create a D leaning seat, as part of a likely 5-2 map)
IL-13 (Madigan likely wants to make this a St. Louis to Champaign snake, and that's likely happening whether Rodney Davis loses or not)
OH-01 (the new redistricting rules make a Cincinatti Dem seat quite likely and Chabot losing might convince the GOP that they can't split Hamilton effectively, and they might just choose to cede the seat, especially since they can easily get a much more favorable map in northern OH)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

AZ
CO
IA
ME
NC

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

CA-22
CA-25
TX-22
TX-23
TX-24

Close but why I didn't include them:

PA-01: very white and not trending D all that much.
OH-01: Ohio Republicans' well known openness to extreme gerrymandering.
GA-07: Georgia Republicans could gerrymander this district if they so desired with +20 R seats bordering it.
NY-2: too white and swingy (went from Obama to Trump).

Ny02 is the worst seat possible to win for Democrats. Like arguably it's better to lose than win there.
Not sure why you included tx 23 and 22 . 4 sinks is enough in Houston and 23 might be chopped. 24 is iffy . Ca 22 could get interesting i do agree.
But yeah I asked the most durable majority so good choice avoiding ga7.
However I think Ohio Rs wont be that aggressive if theres a D incumbent in Cincinatti. They wouldn't want to risk a new ballot measure.

Why would be better for Dems to lose NY-02? I get NY-01 b/c then you can slice up Zeldin's district if he wins but what's wrong with NY-02?

[lfromnj]

CA-22
CA-25
TX-22
TX-23
TX-24

Close but why I didn't include them:

PA-01: very white and not trending D all that much.
OH-01: Ohio Republicans' well known openness to extreme gerrymandering.
GA-07: Georgia Republicans could gerrymander this district if they so desired with +20 R seats bordering it.
NY-2: too white and swingy (went from Obama to Trump).

Ny02 is the worst seat possible to win for Democrats. Like arguably it's better to lose than win there.
Not sure why you included tx 23 and 22 . 4 sinks is enough in Houston and 23 might be chopped. 24 is iffy . Ca 22 could get interesting i do agree.
But yeah I asked the most durable majority so good choice avoiding ga7.
However I think Ohio Rs wont be that aggressive if theres a D incumbent in Cincinatti. They wouldn't want to risk a new ballot measure.

Why would be better for Dems to lose NY-02? I get NY-01 b/c then you can slice up Zeldin's district if he wins but what's wrong with NY-02?

All the new recent gains in the state senate are from Long Island . So any supermajority is barebones already. Now lets say NY goes to 25 seats. That means one upstate(Ny 22/24 mashup)
and one downstate. Manhattan Ds won't accept cutting their seats to 2.  Minority seats won't accept being cut. So the most logical seat is probably just bacon mander a long island seat to NY. However that is much harder to deal with if there are 3 Democrats on long island.

[Greedo punched first]

OH-01: Cincinnati can't be cracked.
CA-22: Visalia could get a Democratic seat.
TX-31: John Carter could lose in an upset. If he wins, he likely retires in 2022.
CA-42: Calvert could be drawn out in 2022.
CA-50: Might get completely redrawn.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

I’m already writing off the House as a likely loss for Democrats in 2022 since that’s how things usually go. They could do well in gubernatorial races by running on the incompetence of Ducey, Kemp and DeSantis while staving off losses in the Senate to only NH plus another seat or so.

[WD]

I’m already writing off the House as a likely loss for Democrats in 2022 since that’s how things usually go. They could do well in gubernatorial races by running on the incompetence of Ducey, Kemp and DeSantis while staving off losses in the Senate to only NH plus another seat or so.

Democrats could hold the house depending on Biden’s popularity, imo it starts off at Tilt D.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

I’m already writing off the House as a likely loss for Democrats in 2022 since that’s how things usually go. They could do well in gubernatorial races by running on the incompetence of Ducey, Kemp and DeSantis while staving off losses in the Senate to only NH plus another seat or so.

Democrats could hold the house depending on Biden’s popularity, imo it starts off at Tilt D.

That’s what every party in power says heading into their midterm. Don’t let anyone fool you that this will be magically different.

[Orser67]

I’m already writing off the House as a likely loss for Democrats in 2022 since that’s how things usually go. They could do well in gubernatorial races by running on the incompetence of Ducey, Kemp and DeSantis while staving off losses in the Senate to only NH plus another seat or so.

Democrats could hold the house depending on Biden’s popularity, imo it starts off at Tilt D.

That’s what every party in power says heading into their midterm. Don’t let anyone fool you that this will be magically different.

Yeah, since (and including) 1994, when long-term Democratic dominance of the House ended, the president's party has lost control of the House in 4 out of the 5 mid-terms in which they controlled it (the only unusual pattern being during Bush's presidency, when Republicans held the House in 2002
on the strength of Bush's post-9/11 approval rating). 4 in 5 odds of losing the House seems about right to me.

[Mr.Phips]

I’m already writing off the House as a likely loss for Democrats in 2022 since that’s how things usually go. They could do well in gubernatorial races by running on the incompetence of Ducey, Kemp and DeSantis while staving off losses in the Senate to only NH plus another seat or so.

Democrats could hold the house depending on Biden’s popularity, imo it starts off at Tilt D.

That’s what every party in power says heading into their midterm. Don’t let anyone fool you that this will be magically different.

Yeah, since (and including) 1994, when long-term Democratic dominance of the House ended, the president's party has lost control of the House in 4 out of the 5 mid-terms in which they controlled it (the only unusual pattern being during Bush's presidency, when Republicans held the House in 2002
on the strength of Bush's post-9/11 approval rating). 4 in 5 odds of losing the House seems about right to me.

This why Dems need to go for broke in passing progressive legislation that will help the party long term.  National redistricting reform is a must.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I almost wonder why Dems should care at all about the House & Senate, knowing they're 99.9% gurranteed to lose majority status in 2-4 years if they have any semblance of a good election.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more time & money on state-level chambers?

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

I almost wonder why Dems should care at all about the House & Senate, knowing they're 99.9% gurranteed to lose majority status in 2-4 years if they have any semblance of a good election.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more time & money on state-level chambers?

The Senate is actually important due to it's influence on the courts and oversight, and as we saw in 2010 and 2018, it can actually be held by the party in power in tough conditions. Democrats can definitely hold the Senate in 2022 if they have say 51 seats or more going into 2022. I like their odds if it's 53 or more though since NH will be a likely loss if Sununu runs, and NV, AZ, and GA will be tough fights. Colorado is the next tier, and I have a very hard time seeing that one flip as long as Bennet gives an effort.

[lfromnj]

I almost wonder why Dems should care at all about the House & Senate, knowing they're 99.9% gurranteed to lose majority status in 2-4 years if they have any semblance of a good election.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more time & money on state-level chambers?

The Senate is actually important due to it's influence on the courts and oversight, and as we saw in 2010 and 2018, it can actually be held by the party in power in tough conditions. Democrats can definitely hold the Senate in 2022 if they have say 51 seats or more going into 2022. I like their odds if it's 53 or more though since NH will be a likely loss if Sununu runs, and NV, AZ, and GA will be tough fights. Colorado is the next tier, and I have a very hard time seeing that one flip as long as Bennet gives an effort.

On the other hand Bennet only ran a percent ahead of Hillary in 2016, the moderate D trend from 2012 >2016 means that I guess he might survive a 2014 like year but not sure.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

I almost wonder why Dems should care at all about the House & Senate, knowing they're 99.9% gurranteed to lose majority status in 2-4 years if they have any semblance of a good election.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more time & money on state-level chambers?

The Senate is actually important due to it's influence on the courts and oversight, and as we saw in 2010 and 2018, it can actually be held by the party in power in tough conditions. Democrats can definitely hold the Senate in 2022 if they have say 51 seats or more going into 2022. I like their odds if it's 53 or more though since NH will be a likely loss if Sununu runs, and NV, AZ, and GA will be tough fights. Colorado is the next tier, and I have a very hard time seeing that one flip as long as Bennet gives an effort.

On the other hand Bennet only ran a percent ahead of Hillary in 2016, the moderate D trend from 2012 >2016 means that I guess he might survive a 2014 like year but not sure.

I would start it out as Likely D out of caution. There is no Cory Gardner circa 2014 candidate waiting in the wings for the Colorado Republicans, plus Colorado appears to have gotten more inflexibly blue at the federal level.

As for Monstro's point about the House, I agree as I don't give a $hit about it either aside from the fact that it's an obvious grooming ground for future Senate and gubernatorial races.

[Suburbia]

I almost wonder why Dems should care at all about the House & Senate, knowing they're 99.9% gurranteed to lose majority status in 2-4 years if they have any semblance of a good election.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more time & money on state-level chambers?

The Senate is actually important due to it's influence on the courts and oversight, and as we saw in 2010 and 2018, it can actually be held by the party in power in tough conditions. Democrats can definitely hold the Senate in 2022 if they have say 51 seats or more going into 2022. I like their odds if it's 53 or more though since NH will be a likely loss if Sununu runs, and NV, AZ, and GA will be tough fights. Colorado is the next tier, and I have a very hard time seeing that one flip as long as Bennet gives an effort.

On the other hand Bennet only ran a percent ahead of Hillary in 2016, the moderate D trend from 2012 >2016 means that I guess he might survive a 2014 like year but not sure.

I would start it out as Likely D out of caution. There is no Cory Gardner circa 2014 candidate waiting in the wings for the Colorado Republicans, plus Colorado appears to have gotten more inflexibly blue at the federal level.

As for Monstro's point about the House, I agree as I don't give a $hit about it either aside from the fact that it's an obvious grooming ground for future Senate and gubernatorial races.

John Elway can revive the COGOP.

[MT Treasurer]

I feel like people are once again underestimating the chances of an "upset" à la MA-SEN 2010 or AL-SEN 2017 in a Democratic state under a Democratic trifecta (either as a result of a special election or due to Hogan or Scott pulling off the "impossible"). Am I predicting that it will happen? No, I just wouldn’t categorically rule out the possibility, and there’s a good chance that that "upset" seat might be a better bet for the GOP than CO (or even AZ/NV). PVI doesn’t exclusively determine competitiveness of Senate races, case in point: FL-SEN vs. MT-SEN/WV-SEN in 2018, MO-SEN vs. WI-SEN in 2016, etc.

[Mr.Phips]

I feel like people are once again underestimating the chances of an "upset" à la MA-SEN 2010 or AL-SEN 2017 in a Democratic state under a Democratic trifecta (either as a result of a special election or due to Hogan or Scott pulling off the "impossible"). Am I predicting that it will happen? No, I just wouldn’t categorically rule out the possibility, and there’s a good chance that that "upset" seat might be a better bet for the GOP than CO (or even AZ/NV). PVI doesn’t exclusively determine competitiveness of Senate races, case in point: FL-SEN vs. MT-SEN/WV-SEN in 2018, MO-SEN vs. WI-SEN in 2016, etc.

You’d basically have to have the Democratic version of Roy Moore somewhere for that to happen.  Even if Scott or Hogan ran in Vermont or New York.  Look at what happened to Bredesen in Tennessee to see  how Scott or Hogan would fare against a non scandal tarred Dem opponent.

[Roll Roons]

I feel like people are once again underestimating the chances of an "upset" à la MA-SEN 2010 or AL-SEN 2017 in a Democratic state under a Democratic trifecta (either as a result of a special election or due to Hogan or Scott pulling off the "impossible"). Am I predicting that it will happen? No, I just wouldn’t categorically rule out the possibility, and there’s a good chance that that "upset" seat might be a better bet for the GOP than CO (or even AZ/NV). PVI doesn’t exclusively determine competitiveness of Senate races, case in point: FL-SEN vs. MT-SEN/WV-SEN in 2018, MO-SEN vs. WI-SEN in 2016, etc.

You’d basically have to have the Democratic version of Roy Moore somewhere for that to happen.

I feel like the threshold for a moderate Republican to win a Senate race in a blue state (with the exceptions of California, Hawaii and New York) is lower than it is for a Democrat to win in Alabama. Yes, Martha Coakley and Alexi Giannoulias were poor candidates, but they were both sitting statewide officials and not as egregiously terrible as Moore (who was polling weakly even before the pedophilia allegations came out).

[Mr.Phips]

I feel like people are once again underestimating the chances of an "upset" à la MA-SEN 2010 or AL-SEN 2017 in a Democratic state under a Democratic trifecta (either as a result of a special election or due to Hogan or Scott pulling off the "impossible"). Am I predicting that it will happen? No, I just wouldn’t categorically rule out the possibility, and there’s a good chance that that "upset" seat might be a better bet for the GOP than CO (or even AZ/NV). PVI doesn’t exclusively determine competitiveness of Senate races, case in point: FL-SEN vs. MT-SEN/WV-SEN in 2018, MO-SEN vs. WI-SEN in 2016, etc.

You’d basically have to have the Democratic version of Roy Moore somewhere for that to happen.

I feel like the threshold for a moderate Republican to win a Senate race in a blue state (with the exceptions of California, Hawaii and New York) is lower than it is for a Democrat to win in Alabama. Yes, Martha Coakley and Alexi Giannoulias were poor candidates, but they were both sitting statewide officials and not as egregiously terrible as Moore (who was polling weakly even before the pedophilia allegations came out).

Politics have gotten even more polarized since 2010.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I feel like people are once again underestimating the chances of an "upset" à la MA-SEN 2010 or AL-SEN 2017 in a Democratic state under a Democratic trifecta (either as a result of a special election or due to Hogan or Scott pulling off the "impossible"). Am I predicting that it will happen? No, I just wouldn’t categorically rule out the possibility, and there’s a good chance that that "upset" seat might be a better bet for the GOP than CO (or even AZ/NV). PVI doesn’t exclusively determine competitiveness of Senate races, case in point: FL-SEN vs. MT-SEN/WV-SEN in 2018, MO-SEN vs. WI-SEN in 2016, etc.

You’d basically have to have the Democratic version of Roy Moore somewhere for that to happen.

I feel like the threshold for a moderate Republican to win a Senate race in a blue state (with the exceptions of California, Hawaii and New York) is lower than it is for a Democrat to win in Alabama. Yes, Martha Coakley and Alexi Giannoulias were poor candidates, but they were both sitting statewide officials and not as egregiously terrible as Moore (who was polling weakly even before the pedophilia allegations came out).

Politics have gotten even more polarized since 2010.

Relevant to those races, but blue states usually have lower PVIs than red states. There are fewer and they tend to be more populous. My final judgement will depend on CO’s margin this year, but I think that outside of Roy-Moore tier scandals, it’s still a better target than “upset” states: it’s just that there are comparatively few of these which Democratic (CA, CT, HI, IL, MD NY and WA).

MA would remain an uphill climb in this scenario, but isn’t an upset state if Republicans run Hogan or maybe even Polito.