Potentially Competitive House Races

[Republican Michigander]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true.

NH1 (Bradley) - 51-48 Bush, 49-46 Bush
NH2 (Charlie Bass) - 52-47 Kerry, 48-47 Gore

I think most are surprised thhat it's the Vermont Side that's more liberal, not the area near Boston.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Oregon
OR-05 (D) [1]  It's on my watch list, but the GOP candidate isn't great.  You can keep it on if you want.  If this was a GOP macro year, I would be singing a different tune, obviously.

I would take this campaign off of the list, and I say that knowing all the players in the campaign as well as the history and demographics of the district.  Oregon's districts (besides 2 & 3) could go to any party in an open election, but they are VERY incumbent friendly. 

This may be a result of many of Oregon's politicians not wanting to take a risk on a race more than a result of the electorate, and because of this we get no-name candidates with little money being trounced by an incumbent. 

Congressman Wu (OR-1) should be wide open, but his only opponent is not exactly fantastic, and we are in a tough year for Republicans (though Oregon MAY beat the trend).

Darlene Hooley (OR-5) should be wide open, just like Wu, but no Republican with any credibility has mustered up the courage to face her (the same goes with Districts 1 and 4).  Oregon is not an incumbent's paradise because the electorate loves incumbents and career politicians, but rather, nobody with any credibility (with the electorate) is willing to take a chance against the House member in Districts 1, 4, and 5.

Simply put, barring divine intervention, Oregon's entire House Delegation will be re-elected comfortably.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true.

NH1 (Bradley) - 51-48 Bush, 49-46 Bush
NH2 (Charlie Bass) - 52-47 Kerry, 48-47 Gore

I think most are surprised thhat it's the Vermont Side that's more liberal, not the area near Boston.

Surprised? Why? College country plus rural libertarian liberals in NH2. Posh exurbs (and some old industrial cores) in NH1.

[Fritz]

So, what are the chances of Democrats taking control of the House this year?  I believe we need to pick up 16 to do it- is it remotely possible, or just a Democrats pipe dream?  (Objective, non-partisan responses only please.)

I think even Republicans will agree that Dems will pick up seats this year.  The big question is how many.

[Sam Spade]

So, what are the chances of Democrats taking control of the House this year?  I believe we need to pick up 16 to do it- is it remotely possible, or just a Democrats pipe dream?  (Objective, non-partisan responses only please.)

I think even Republicans will agree that Dems will pick up seats this year.  The big question is how many.

Right now, the odds to me are about 30%-35% of the Dems picking up the House.  This may go up or down with time, in fact if the election were held today, I would probably place the odds at more like 40%-45%, and gamely predict they would pick up somewhere in the range of 14-16 seats at present.

A "reverse 1994" would involved the Democrats picking up roughly 18-24 House seats.  I think the max the Dems can hope to pick up in any scenario is probably about 30 seats, frankly, but this estimation may change over time.

The probabilities of picking the Senate are much lower, I would place them at >5% presently.  Senate elections are simply becoming more like national elections and electoral factors that way heavily in those elections are appearing more and more in the Senate world. 

A "reverse 1994" here would probably entail the Democrats picking up 3 seats.  I would presently predict they would pick up 2 seats.

[minionofmidas]

Now write up the races where the two of you agree. Pleeeze?

[ATFFL]

Fritz!  Welcome back!

[Gustaf]

I obviously don't have Sam's insight, but I agree with his analysis. Democrats look likely to gain in both chambers, but the senate looks basically out of reach, unless something big happens. The House is more of a possiblity but all the gerrymandering makes it look unlikely too.

I still think 1994 was largely the effect of a long over-due realignment, that is people voting Republican for president starting to do so for congress too. This was, in a sense, inevitable, and would have happened at some point regardless.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, Lewis, here's where Alcon and I agree, where I've added races he's not included and subtracted races that he's included.

If I put Watch next to a CD, consider it low, low priority, but one that I think something could possibly happen in given the correct circumstances.  Likely means second-tier, but higher than Watch.  Lean R and Toss-up are obviously top-tier for the moment.

Alcon/Sam Spade Agreement

Arizona
AZ-05 (R) (Lean R)
AZ-08 (R) (Toss-up/Lean D)

California
CA-26 (R) (Watch)
CA-50 (R) (Lean R)

Colorado
CO-03 (D) (Likely D)
CO-04 (R) (Likely R)
CO-07 (R) (Toss-up/Lean Dem)

Connecticut
CT-02 (R) (Toss-up)
CT-04 (R) (Toss-up)

Florida
FL-09 (R) (Likely R)
FL-13 (R) (Likely R)

Georgia
GA-12 (D) (Likely D)

Hawaii
HI-02 (D) (Watch)

Illinois
IL-06 (R) (Lean R)
IL-08 (D) (Toss-up)

Indiana
IN-02 (R) (Lean R)
IN-08 (R) (Toss-up)
IN-09 (R) (Toss-up)

Iowa
IA-01 (R) (Toss-up/Lean D)
IA-03 (D) (Lean D)

Kansas
KS-03 (D) (Likely D)

Kentucky
KY-04 (R) (Lean R)

Louisiana
LA-03 (D) (Lean D)

Maryland
MD-03 (D) (Watch)

Minnesota
MN-06 (R) (Lean R)

Nebraska
NE-01 (R) (Watch)

Nevada
NV-02 (R) (Likely R)
NV-03 (R) (Likely R)

New Mexico
NM-01 (R) (Toss-up)

New York
NY-24 (R) (Toss-up)
NY-26 (R) (Likely R)
NY-29 (R) (Likely R)

North Carolina
NC-11 (R) (Lean R)

Ohio
OH-06 (D) (Lean D)
OH-13 (D) (Likely D)

Oregon
OR-05 (D) (Watch)

Pennsylvania
PA-06 (R) (Toss-up/Lean D)
PA-08 (R) (Lean R)

Tennessee
TN-04 (D) (Watch)

Texas
TX-17 (D) (Lean D)
TX-22 (R) (Lean R)

Utah
UT-02 (D) (Likely D)

Vermont
VT-AL (I) (Likely D)

Virginia
VA-02 (R) (Likely R)

Washington
WA-08 (R) (Lean R)

Wisconsin
WI-08 (Toss-up)

Wyoming
WY-AL (Lean R)
On Sam Spade's List, but Not on Alcon's

California

CA-11 (R) (Lean R)

Connecticut
CT-05 (R) (Likely R)

Florida
FL-08 (R) (Likely R)
FL-22 (R) (Lean R)

Georgia
GA-08 (D) (Toss-up)

Illinois
IL-17 (D) (Likely D)

Kentucky
KY-02 (R) (Likely R)
KY-03 (R) (Likely R)

New Hampshire
NH-01 (R) (Likely R)
NH-02 (R) (Likely R)

Minnesota
MN-01 (R) (Likely R)
MN-02 (R) (Likely R)

New York
NY-03 (R) (Likely R)
NY-19 (R) (Likely R)
NY-20 (R) (Lean R)
NY-25 (R) (Likely R)

Ohio
OH-01 (R) (Lean R)
OH-15 (R) (Lean R)
OH-18 (R) (Toss-up)

Pennsylvania
PA-07 (R) (Lean R)
PA-10 (R) (Likely R)

South Carolina
SC-05 [3] (Likely D)

Washington
WA-02 (D) (Likely D)

West Virginia
WV-01 (D) (Lean D)

On Alcon's List, but Not on Sam Spade's

California
CA-20 (D)
CA-22 (R)

Colorado
CO-05 (R)

Florida
FL-11 (D)

Georgia
GA-11 (R)

Idaho
ID-01 (R)

Indiana
IN-07 (D)

Kansas
KS-02 (R)

Louisiana
LA-07 (R)

Minnesota
MN-05 (D)

Missouri
MO-03 (D)
MO-05 (D)

Nebraska
NE-03 (R)

New Jersey
NJ-13 (D)

New York
NY-01 (D)
NY-11 (D)
NY-27 (D)

North Carolina
NC-08 (R)

Ohio
OH-04 (R)

Oklahoma
OK-05 (R)

Pennsylvania
PA-13 (D)

South Dakota
SD-AL (D)

Tennessee
TN-01 (R)
TN-09 (D)

Texas
TX-02 (R)
TX-32 (R)

[minionofmidas]

No, I meant, do a little write-up on why they're where they are, as you did above.

[Fritz]

These numbers are from Sams list:

Democrat Incumbent, likely/watch:         10
Democrat Incumbent, lean:                       7
Democrat Incumbent, tossup:                   2
Total Democrat Competitive Seats:         19

Independent Incumbent, Likey Democrat: 1


Republican Incumbent, likely/watch:        20
Republican Incumbent, lean:                    23
Republican Incumbent, tossup/lean D:      8
Total Repulican Competitive Seats:         51

Total Competitive Seats:                          71

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

These numbers are from Sams list:

Democrat Incumbent, likely/watch:         10
Democrat Incumbent, lean:                       7
Democrat Incumbent, tossup:                   2
Total Democrat Competitive Seats:         19

Independent Incumbent, Likey Democrat: 1


Republican Incumbent, likely/watch:        20
Republican Incumbent, lean:                    23
Republican Incumbent, tossup/lean D:      8
Total Repulican Competitive Seats:         51

Total Competitive Seats:                          71

Hey, nice to see you back!

Who are you voting for in the primary for Sabo's seat?

[jerusalemcar5]

I saw some NY-25s on there and I thought I'd add seeing as I live in that district

Walsh has been our rep sine 1989 and brings home a lot of pork.  He got #35 on the power rankings that came out recently.  This district has the city of Syracuse which is heavily Democratic as well as economic conservative suburbs and economic/social conservative rural areas.  The Democrat is a very good guy and this district is very anti-Bush (unlike Walsh).  The key here will be the suburbs who might either stay home or swing left because of Bush as well as Walsh's staunch social conservative views.  He's not the worst Republican, but he's pretty bad.

The district is a likely R since it is Republican by nature and Walsh is such an ingrained incumbant, but it isn't time to rule this seat out yet.

[Fritz]

Hey, nice to see you back!

Who are you voting for in the primary for Sabo's seat?

Who should I be voting for?  I don't even know the candidates.

[TeePee4Prez]

Alcon, PA-13 is in watch status at the point and NJ-13 shouldn't even be considered.

Fritz, welcome back.  You were missed!

[Sam Spade]

No, I meant, do a little write-up on why they're where they are, as you did above.

Oh, ok.  That'll take more time. 

[Sam Spade]

More important than most of my comments above is this:

I am and will be watching the CA CD-50 race next Tuesday.  There is a lot of whispering going on and on about the GOP being really worried about losing this race and the NRCC has pumped about $3.1 million into it so far.  I do believe it is very close and am probably on the cusp of putting it into toss-up.

I personally believe this race will be one of those bellweathers in trying to figure out what happens in November.

When the dust clears from this conflict, the picture I laid out above will probably start to look clearer and perhaps very different, depending on the result.

[Nym90]

Sam, though I don't necessarily disagree with you (there is still time for Bush's numbers to go up between now and November), I am curious as to why you don't foresee a repeat 1994.

Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Clinton's were in 1994. Obviously due to gerrymandering (by both sides) there are far fewer seats in play now than in 1994, hence the Democrats can't possibly match the GOP's 52 seat gain, and I agree that 30 would be the absolute max for the Dems.

But given that Bush's numbers are lower than Clinton's were, why don't you think this will hurt the GOP as much as it hurt the Dems in 1994? Is the GOP base more likely to turn out than the Dem base did in 1994? Do the Republicans have in inordinate advantage in terms of strong incumbents in otherwise vulnerable districts, or an advantage in open seats in terms of quality of candidates? What factors exactly make the GOP more likely to be able to "weather the storm"?

I greatly enjoy your analysis, and these are honest questions. I've based my own predictions of a Dem House takeover on the fact that Bush is less popular than Clinton was, and thus should suffer at least an equal if not greater relative backlash among the electorate.

[Sam Spade]

Dammit, I had my entire explanation written up and I deleted it accidentally. 

Let me give the short answer.  I don't know whether a reverse 1994 will happen yet because we're simply too far out.

My mentality is to be cautious, but at the same time, try not to miss anything that might come up.  My list of up for grab seats is longer than most pundits right now because I definitely see a "reverse 1994" as a possibility (they probably do too, but are even more cautious than I am).  But I don't see it as the most likely result, yet.  This is the reason why I said 30-35% chance of House flipping right now, 40-45% if held today.

As I said above, my answer probably will go to above 50% to the above question (meaning that it is more likely than not), if CA-50 goes to the Democrat on June 6.  If not, it probably stays below.

It is probably the best early and only chance we'll get to see exactly where the national feel could possibly be come November.

[Nym90]

I agree that 2006 will not be a "reverse 1994", mostly because of gerrymandering. But who knows, elections always yield surprises. And I'm keeping an eye on the primaries and the 50th special back home.

Right, I was talking about a reverse 1994 relatively speaking, which as Sam as said would be a democratic gain of 18-24 seats.

[Nym90]

Dammit, I had my entire explanation written up and I deleted it accidentally. 

Let me give the short answer.  I don't know whether a reverse 1994 will happen yet because we're simply too far out.

My mentality is to be cautious, but at the same time, try not to miss anything that might come up.  My list of up for grab seats is longer than most pundits right now because I definitely see a "reverse 1994" as a possibility (they probably do too, but are even more cautious than I am).  But I don't see it as the most likely result, yet.  This is the reason why I said 30-35% chance of House flipping right now, 40-45% if held today.

As I said above, my answer probably will go to above 50% to the above question (meaning that it is more likely than not), if CA-50 goes to the Democrat on June 6.  If not, it probably stays below.

It is probably the best early and only chance we'll get to see exactly where the national feel could possibly be come November.

Ok, good. Thanks. That makes sense to be cautious. Obviously it makes more sense to do things that way, and then slowly revise your predictions as time goes on.

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the experts predicted that the Democrats would keep Congress in 1994. Everyone agreed the Republicans would gain, but very few were bold enough to predict a GOP takeover.

[Sam Spade]

Dammit, I had my entire explanation written up and I deleted it accidentally. 

Let me give the short answer.  I don't know whether a reverse 1994 will happen yet because we're simply too far out.

My mentality is to be cautious, but at the same time, try not to miss anything that might come up.  My list of up for grab seats is longer than most pundits right now because I definitely see a "reverse 1994" as a possibility (they probably do too, but are even more cautious than I am).  But I don't see it as the most likely result, yet.  This is the reason why I said 30-35% chance of House flipping right now, 40-45% if held today.

As I said above, my answer probably will go to above 50% to the above question (meaning that it is more likely than not), if CA-50 goes to the Democrat on June 6.  If not, it probably stays below.

It is probably the best early and only chance we'll get to see exactly where the national feel could possibly be come November.

Ok, good. Thanks. That makes sense to be cautious. Obviously it makes more sense to do things that way, and then slowly revise your predictions as time goes on.

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the experts predicted that the Democrats would keep Congress in 1994. Everyone agreed the Republicans would gain, but very few were bold enough to predict a GOP takeover.

Actually, about 35-40% of the main pundits (and I'd have to look to recall) predicted at the end that the GOP would win back the Senate.  Nearly no one predicted the House, however.

Before Labor Day though, no one was predicting much of anything except for modest GOP gains in both chambers

[Gustaf]

Sam, though I don't necessarily disagree with you (there is still time for Bush's numbers to go up between now and November), I am curious as to why you don't foresee a repeat 1994.

Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Clinton's were in 1994. Obviously due to gerrymandering (by both sides) there are far fewer seats in play now than in 1994, hence the Democrats can't possibly match the GOP's 52 seat gain, and I agree that 30 would be the absolute max for the Dems.

But given that Bush's numbers are lower than Clinton's were, why don't you think this will hurt the GOP as much as it hurt the Dems in 1994? Is the GOP base more likely to turn out than the Dem base did in 1994? Do the Republicans have in inordinate advantage in terms of strong incumbents in otherwise vulnerable districts, or an advantage in open seats in terms of quality of candidates? What factors exactly make the GOP more likely to be able to "weather the storm"?

I greatly enjoy your analysis, and these are honest questions. I've based my own predictions of a Dem House takeover on the fact that Bush is less popular than Clinton was, and thus should suffer at least an equal if not greater relative backlash among the electorate.

Eric, there is at least one simple answer to your question: going into the 1994 elections there were still many Democratic congressmen representing what had become Republican areas. Most importantly, the Southern realignment had not yet reached the congressional level. After 1990, for instance, Democrats represented 43% of Southern districts were George H.W. Bush had gotten more than 60% of the vote in 1988. In that sense, 1994 was not just the effect of Clinton's approval ratings, but also of a realization of an on-going alignment. In a more basic sense, it also meant that there were a lot more vulnerable Democrats back then, because so many of them represented very Republican districts. That situation is not there in reverse for the Democrats this time. Democrats, for instance, already control about two thirds of the Northeastern congressional delegation.

[WMS]

New Mexico
NM-01 (R) (Toss-up)

Well, let me give you why I have consistently thought that Wilson will win yet again.

NM-01 is, indeed, highly competitive as a district, and it is my opinion that if the Democrats ran a strong moderate this year they would likely take the seat.

Patricia Madrid is neither strong nor a moderate. Not to mention that she is getting hit with echoes from two separate cases of Democratic corruption in office that occurred under her watch, and which she did nothing about. The Eric Serna/Con Alma case hurts because of how close she is to Serna, but the Robert Vigil/Michael Montoya megascandal involving the state Treasurer's Office will probably hurt more, especially when the attack ads mention this: Jan Goodwin, currently working for Governor Bill, said in the first Vigil trial that back in 1998 she sent a letter to the Attorney General - that's Patricia Madrid - asking for an investigation into unethical practices in the Treasurer's Office. Madrid's response to this was 'we never received that letter'. Umm, that's a rather weak response, and makes it look like Madrid's office looked the other way while this was going on. That, in turn, negates the whole 'tie-Wilson-to-Republican-corruption-in-Congress' line of attack. Now, Madrid is clearly the preferred candidate of the Democratic Party hierarchy here...

...the same hierarchy that gave us Congressman Eric Serna and Congressman Phil Maloof. Oh, wait, there are no such Congressman. It appears that the Northern-New-Mexico-dominated Dem party leadership has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again...

[Nym90]

Sam, though I don't necessarily disagree with you (there is still time for Bush's numbers to go up between now and November), I am curious as to why you don't foresee a repeat 1994.

Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Clinton's were in 1994. Obviously due to gerrymandering (by both sides) there are far fewer seats in play now than in 1994, hence the Democrats can't possibly match the GOP's 52 seat gain, and I agree that 30 would be the absolute max for the Dems.

But given that Bush's numbers are lower than Clinton's were, why don't you think this will hurt the GOP as much as it hurt the Dems in 1994? Is the GOP base more likely to turn out than the Dem base did in 1994? Do the Republicans have in inordinate advantage in terms of strong incumbents in otherwise vulnerable districts, or an advantage in open seats in terms of quality of candidates? What factors exactly make the GOP more likely to be able to "weather the storm"?

I greatly enjoy your analysis, and these are honest questions. I've based my own predictions of a Dem House takeover on the fact that Bush is less popular than Clinton was, and thus should suffer at least an equal if not greater relative backlash among the electorate.

Eric, there is at least one simple answer to your question: going into the 1994 elections there were still many Democratic congressmen representing what had become Republican areas. Most importantly, the Southern realignment had not yet reached the congressional level. After 1990, for instance, Democrats represented 43% of Southern districts were George H.W. Bush had gotten more than 60% of the vote in 1988. In that sense, 1994 was not just the effect of Clinton's approval ratings, but also of a realization of an on-going alignment. In a more basic sense, it also meant that there were a lot more vulnerable Democrats back then, because so many of them represented very Republican districts. That situation is not there in reverse for the Democrats this time. Democrats, for instance, already control about two thirds of the Northeastern congressional delegation.

Right, and this factor helped give the GOP a 52 seat gain, and obviously the Dems, for this reason as well as gerrymandering, can't possibly gain 52 seats.

However, everything is in relative terms. An equivalent to 1994 in terms of the political climate would mean a Democratic gain of 18-24 seats. This calculation is already taking into consideration the overall political landscape factors that you mentioned. So my quetsiton is why the Democrats won't even gain 18-24 then given Bush's current situation.

At least, this is assuming I understand Sam's 18-24 figure accurately; I assume he is saying that if the political factors (not the demographic or geographical factors) are as bad for Republicans this year as they were for Dems in 1994, then this would be an equivalent result.

So while a Democratic gain of 20 seats wouldn't look like much in historical terms, it would be as impressive as the GOP's 52 seat pickup in 1994 in terms of the difficulty of the accomplishment.