2014 Senate and House Predictions

[Mr.Phips]

If you force me to give actual numbers, I'd say GOP+5 (AK, AR, LA, SD, WV) in the Senate and +8 for the GOP in the House. A +7 Democratic gain requires a Democratic victory in the popular vote of 1-3 points, which I don't see happening.

No it wouldnt.  Essentially an even popular vote would probably give Democrats a seven seat gain.  If Republicans do gain seats, it wont be more than five, as there are very few Democrats left in tough seats. 

[Mr.Phips]

If you force me to give actual numbers, I'd say GOP+5 (AK, AR, LA, SD, WV) in the Senate and +8 for the GOP in the House. A +7 Democratic gain requires a Democratic victory in the popular vote of 1-3 points, which I don't see happening.

No it wouldnt.  Essentially an even popular vote would probably give Democrats a seven seat gain.  If Republicans do gain seats, it wont be more than five, as there are very few Democrats left in tough seats. 

Why? Essentially an even popular vote should give essentially the same result as 2012, as the lines won't change and the vote was essentially even in 2012. Also, there are significantly more vulnerable Democrats than vulnerable Republicans:

Democrats who won by a margin of 5% or less in 2012:
1. Ann Kirkpatrick (Arizona 1)
2. Ron Barber (Arizona 2)
3. Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona 9)
4. Ami Bera (California 7)
5. Julia Brownley (California 26)
6. Raul Ruiz (California 36)
7. Scott Peters (California 52)
8. Elizabeth Esty (Connecticut 5)
9. Patrick Murphy (Florida 18)
10. Brad Schneider (Illinois 10)
11. John Tierney (Massachusetts 6)
12. Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire 1)
13. Tim Bishop (New York 1)
14. Sean Maloney (New York 18)
15. Bill Owens (New York 21)
16. Dan Maffei (New York 24)
17. Mike McIntyre (North Carolina 7)
18. Pete Gallego (Texas 23)
19. Jim Matheson (Utah 4)

Republicans who won by a margin of 5% or less in 2012:
1. Mike Coffman (Colorado 6)
2. Dan Webster (Florida 10)
3. Rodney Davis (Illinois 13)
4. Jackie Walorski (Indiana 2)
5. Andy Barr (Kentucky 6)
6. Dan Benishek (Michigan 1)
7. Michele Bachmann (Minnesota 6)
8. Lee Terry (Nebraska 2)
9. Tom Reed (New York 23)
10. Chris Collins (New York 27)
11. Jim Renacci (Ohio 16)
12. Keith Rothfus (Pennsylvania 12)

An analogous list would show there are more Romney-Democrat than Obama-Republican districts. The math suggests that, without a more Democratic climate than 2012 was, Democrats will probably be largely on the defensive in the House in 2014.

In 1998, Democrats got a low percentage of the popular vote than in 1996, yet got five more seats.  This isnt linear. 

Many of these seats that Democrats won(AZ-09, CA-26, CA-52, CT-05, IL-10, MA-06, NY-24) now that Democrats are incumbents in those seats.  TX-23 is a seat that Gallego is perfect for, unlike the lazy Ciro Rodriguez who was too liberal and hated raising money. 

Pretty much every seat that Democrats won in 2012(save for NC-07, UT-04, FL-18) are seats that for all purposes, should be held by a Democrat.  This isnt like 2010 when Democrats 50 or so seats that they had no business holding.  The current House balance is essentially where it should be. 

[Mr.Phips]

Yeah...if the popular vote is roughly even, a larger majority of seats is held by the 'right' party than in previous cycles. But if the Republicans win back even a couple points, they stand to gain more than if the Democrats will back a similar number of points -- they just have more opportunities.

Really, if Gallego is a better fit for his district than Rodriguez, it's still a swing district that has historically flipped between the parties. The only seat on that list is really 'safe Democratic' is probably MA-6. Maybe NY-24. But the others are all swing districts which could totally swing in a good Republican year.

IL-10 is not a swing seat.  That's like calling PA-12 a swing seat.  IL-10 not only went for Obama with 63% and 58%, but even went for John Kerry by about 10 points.  TX-23 has been usually held by Hispanic Democrats(or half Hispanic if you count Kazan who held the seat from 1968 to 1984) and the two times Democrats lost it in the past were to due to a scandal(1992) and a huge GOP wave and a weak incumbent in 2010. 

With regards to AZ-01, Kirkpatrick only lost by six in the 2010 wipeout in a seat that was four points more Republican.  In the current district, she would have won even in 2010. 

Even in the 2010 wipeout of a century, Republicans were not winning many D PVI districts.  If they couldnt do it then, what makes you think they will in 2014 when they will have a harder time due to the fact that they are an unpopular House majority? 

[Mr.Phips]

^^I'm surprised you think Matheson will fare worse in 2014 than 2012.  2012 was the absolute worst year a Democrat could run in probably the history of Utah.  Although Romney was not too popular nationally, he was Utah's "favorite son" - the first Mormon presidential candidate, and Republican turnout was much higher than in any past year.

I don't think anyone can predict the results of 2014 yet but I can say which seats are the most likely to be lost by both parties:

SENATE:
Democrats (most likely to least likely):
1. West Virginia
2. South Dakota
3. Louisiana
4. Alaska

I don't think there's really any danger for Dems beyond that.
Republicans:
1. Maine
2. Kentucky - outside chance, only if it's a really good year for Dems

HOUSE

Most vulnerable Democrats:

1. West Virginia 3 (if Rahall retires to run for Senate)
2. Florida 18 - Patrick Murphy (if Republicans get a sane candidate)
3. A bunch of seats that are very marginal and could become vulnerable if it's a bad year for Dems:
- California (Peters, Ruiz, Bera)
- Arizona (Synema, Kirkpatrick)
- Texas (Gallego)
- New York (S.P. Maloney)
- North Carolina (McIntyre)

Most vulnerable Republicans:
1. California 31 - Gary Miller
2. Michigan 11 - Kerry Bentivolio
3. Illinois 14 - Rodney Davis
4. Michigan 1 - Benishek
5. Indiana 2 - Jackie Walorski
6. Nebraska 2 - Lee Terry
7. Kentucky 6 - Andy Barr
8. West Virginia 2 - OPEN SEAT
9. Florida 2 - Southerland

Rahall would be an absolute idiot to run for Senate.  He wouldnt carry a single county outside of his Congressional district and would probably be lucky to run even in House own district against someone like Caputo. 

[Mr.Phips]

Democratic Gains- Gary Miller, Mike Coffman, Tom Reed, and Bill Young (with retirement)

Never struck me as the kind of guy to retire (and I highly doubt the seat'd go Dem even if he did.

Who are potential candidates for the seat if he were actually to retire? I put it as a gain because I though Ehrlich did okay this year, considering who she was running against, and if/when he retired, it would be ripe for a pickup.

Didn't the NRCC have to dissuade Young from retiring, too?

Didn't hear about the NRCC thing, but Bill Young strikes me as the kind of guy who'll stay in Congress (as chair of Defense Appropriations) well beyond the point where he should retire (namely, when he starts seeing things that aren't there), and the people will happily keep re-electing him (a local blogger compared him keeping his seat as Chair of the Defense subcommittee like Tampa Bay hosting a Super Bowl).

The thing about Ehrlich is, she did well electorally, but she ran a pretty nasty campaign. Her mailers were not the kind of thing you run against someone as well-respected and beloved as Bill Young. If the seat suddenly went vacant, the Democrats would probably run someone like former State Rep. and possible St. Petersburg Mayoral candidate Rick Kriseman or County Commissioner Charlie Justice. The Republicans could easily win the seat with State Sen. Jeff Brandes (Tea Party type, multimillionaire), State Sen. Jack Latvala (moderate Senate R leader) or former St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker.

I believe Lavalta lives in the Bilirakis seat, not this one. 

[Mr.Phips]

I think Lee Terry(R-NE 2) is very vunerable. He only won his seat by 2 points last year.

CA 31- I don't know on paper Miller looks vunerable but election time you don't know how thats gonna turn out. He is probably in a seat that is the most moderate district a Republican currently holds.

MI 11 only looks appetizing to the Dems because of the reindeer ranching tea partier that currently holds the seat.

I think the Republicans should eye CA-26 next cycle. Brownley is too liberal to hold that seat I think. Strickland was a "Moderate Conservative" and he still lost. Signing the "Norquist Tax Pledge" I think made him look polarizing.

Sean Patrick Maloney's seat we need more of an Economic Moderate R to win that seat. Hayworth was mostly a straight down the line Tea Partier. She wasn't a good fit for the district.

CA-26 will probably not go back to Republicans absent a GOP wave. 

Maloney will be a far tougher target for Republicans than Hall was for several reasons.  The first is that the district shifted about a point to the left in redistricting.  The other big reason is that Maloney will raise an enormous amount of money, unlike Hall, who hated having to raise money and was a generally lazy campaigner. 

[Mr.Phips]

CO jane norton and NC Virginia Foxx and maybe Nh guinta.

Colorado probably wont matter much.  That state is getting tougher and tougher for the GOP every cycle. 

[Mr.Phips]

Sean Patrick Maloney's seat we need more of an Economic Moderate R to win that seat. Hayworth was mostly a straight down the line Tea Partier. She wasn't a good fit for the district.

This is the first time my district's representative wasn't in the majority. So just pick a fairly electable fellow and hope for a good Republican year. Or don't, and let me be represented by a Democrat. That's okay too xD

....I miss John Hall.

Republican Hamilton Fish held this seat from 1968 to 1994 and he was in the minority the whole time. 

[Mr.Phips]

Senate: 51 GOP, 47 DEM, 2 IND (really DEM)

House: 248 GOP, 187 DEM

The non-incumbent party always gains in a midterm (especially in the House, but in the Senate too).

Republicans are the incumbent party in the House.