Which seat is more likely to go Democratic: WY-AL or OH-02?

[MarkWarner08]

I'd also add CO-05 and CO-04 to this list. These are two more suddenly competitive deep red seats.

[socaldem]

I think Donnelly is a decent candidate and a good fit for South Bend, Indiana.  

Zach Space, though, will have trouble, if he wins, something that I still have a hard time believing.  Joy Pagett is really the most prominant only Ohio GOPer in the 18th district and if she can't win, I don't see who can.  The district, meanwhile, is not all that GOP-leaning and is in ancestral Dem territory (except for Holmes County).  That said, Space is very weak.  I hope a strong Democrat challenges him in the 2008 primary and I think that the Dem would be favored to hold the seat.

I think Carney could hold PA-10, too.  Just look at how easily Holden has held PA-17 another heavily Republican district in rural Eastern PA.

[Sam Spade]

The Senate is more likely to shift party control than the House. The reason is that entire states are more likely to feel the national wave than individual House districts. The Senate has flipped control five times since 1990; the House has flipped once. The Senate flipped in 1995, January 2001 as Gore broke the tie, again in January as Cheney broke the tie, then in May 2001 when Jeffords jumped parties, then in 2003 when the GOP won back control.

1986 and 1980 are some more examples of the Senate flipping.  The House has flipped just 3 times in the last 74 years. The Senate did flip in 2001, albeit for a couple of weeks.

2000 was a rare election, in more ways than one.  But even that election didn't cause a flip.  Historically, the Senate has been more likely to flip than the House.  But why?

Because historically, and we can go back pretty far on this one, the chamber with the majority party holding the lesser percentage has usually been the one more likely to flip (and actually 2000 didn't flip it, as we both well know).  Only in very rare occasions (and I'd have to look up when) in the past 50-75 years has that chamber been the Senate and this is one of those rare occasions.

Percentages such as this do matter in my analysis.

I know, but look at the House majorities during those time periods.  It would never have flipped, absent an 1894 situation.

[MarkWarner08]

The Senate is more likely to shift party control than the House. The reason is that entire states are more likely to feel the national wave than individual House districts. The Senate has flipped control five times since 1990; the House has flipped once. The Senate flipped in 1995, January 2001 as Gore broke the tie, again in January as Cheney broke the tie, then in May 2001 when Jeffords jumped parties, then in 2003 when the GOP won back control.

1986 and 1980 are some more examples of the Senate flipping.  The House has flipped just 3 times in the last 74 years. The Senate did flip in 2001, albeit for a couple of weeks.

2000 was a rare election, in more ways than one.  But even that election didn't cause a flip.  Historically, the Senate has been more likely to flip than the House.  But why?

Because historically, and we can go back pretty far on this one, the chamber with the majority party holding the lesser percentage has usually been the one more likely to flip (and actually 2000 didn't flip it, as we both well know).  Only in very rare occasions (and I'd have to look up when) in the past 50-75 years has that chamber been the Senate and this is one of those rare occasions.

Percentages such as this do matter in my analysis.

I know, but look at the House majorities during those time periods.  It would never have flipped, absent an 1894 situation.

That's a good point. But there were also more competitive seats in 1986 than there are in 2006. I was recently thumbing through the 1986 Almanac of American Politics and I was stunned to see so many 51-49 and 50-50 House races. Since there was so many races in contention, flipping the chamber was easier than many might think.

[Sam Spade]

The Senate is more likely to shift party control than the House. The reason is that entire states are more likely to feel the national wave than individual House districts. The Senate has flipped control five times since 1990; the House has flipped once. The Senate flipped in 1995, January 2001 as Gore broke the tie, again in January as Cheney broke the tie, then in May 2001 when Jeffords jumped parties, then in 2003 when the GOP won back control.

1986 and 1980 are some more examples of the Senate flipping.  The House has flipped just 3 times in the last 74 years. The Senate did flip in 2001, albeit for a couple of weeks.

2000 was a rare election, in more ways than one.  But even that election didn't cause a flip.  Historically, the Senate has been more likely to flip than the House.  But why?

Because historically, and we can go back pretty far on this one, the chamber with the majority party holding the lesser percentage has usually been the one more likely to flip (and actually 2000 didn't flip it, as we both well know).  Only in very rare occasions (and I'd have to look up when) in the past 50-75 years has that chamber been the Senate and this is one of those rare occasions.

Percentages such as this do matter in my analysis.

I know, but look at the House majorities during those time periods.  It would never have flipped, absent an 1894 situation.

That's a good point. But there were also more competitive seats in 1986 than there are in 2006. I was recently thumbing through the 1986 Almanac of American Politics and I was stunned to see so many 51-49 and 50-50 House races. Since there was so many races in contention, flipping the chamber was easier than many might think.

But in 1986, the Republicans started off with a 54-46 (54.00%) majority in the Senate and the Democrats had a 253-182 margin in the House (58.17%).  That is a whopping divergence in numbers.

After the election, it became 54-46 Democrat (55.00%) in the Senate and 258-177 (59.31%) in the House, a much more reasonable differential.

All the close House seats you're seeing are the ones the GOP should have won anyway.  If the House were closer to the Dems, you would have seen much more movement.

[nclib]

Charlie Cook now rates both these races as Toss-up.

[mgrossbe]

Hill will actually be a fourth term congressman and i do not see soudrel trying for a fourth time to beat him so it will be left up to some state senator to try to take on hill. Hill will easily have the edge in that scenerio. As far as donnelly and ellsworth go. We will have a strong dem canidate for governor since daniels is so disliked and it will be seen as a real pick up opp. maybe roemer or petterson pontentially vi simpson(st. sen). That will help also rarely does a straight ticket win here. 2004 was a great year for goppers in the state bayh won easily. 2000 was another bush year o'bannon, hill, roemer all won.  Just examples who knows what the climate will be. heck pelosi could go crazy doubt it but it certainly would put them all in jeopardy.