2014 Senate and House Predictions

[DrScholl]

Republicans aren't going to win anything that's D+ in PVI, they won only one seat like that last year, CA-31 and that race didn't even include a Democrat. R+ seats are the only place they have a chance in and even some of those are difficult.

[DrScholl]

Republicans aren't going to win anything that's D+ in PVI, they won only one seat like that last year, CA-31 and that race didn't even include a Democrat. R+ seats are the only place they have a chance in and even some of those are difficult.

I was going to point out loBiondo, yeah, but...this post is funny enough I don't have to.

Why not? Why are Republicans incapable of winning D+1 or 2 or 3 when they have a better candidate with a better campaign or a better environment than the Democrats do? Just like Democrats are capable of winning R+1 or 2 or 3 when they run a better campaign and a better candidate or have a better environment than the Republicans do. Those numbers aren't etched in stone either, seats shift over time, sometimes even from the Democrats to the Republican Party.

NJ-2 doesn't have it's PVI calculated as of yet, we'll have to see what it is, but incumbency plays a role there anyway. What I'm talking about are seats that flipped, every seat that changed from Democratic to Republican in 2012 had an R+ PVI and fairly high ones at that. All the updated PVIs aren't available yet, but from what we know, a lot of D+ seats increased in PVI. D+ PVI seats are less marginal now, since more of them function as vote sinks.

[DrScholl]

It's true that Republicans won't be winning Democratic vote sinks anywhere, but not all Democratic seats are vote sinks -- marginal D+ PVIs do exist and there's no reason Republicans can't win them with a good candidate (like loBiondo) or a good environment or local strength or whatever. Just like Democrats can do the same thing to marginal R+ PVIs.

Miles is correct in that there are more competitive R+ PVIs, just because there are more R+ PVIs period because Republicans drew the lines, but this doesn't negate the fact that almost however you calculate it, at this very early stage there are more vulnerable Democratic-held seats than Republican-held seats. Charlie Cook, the first professional prognosticator to come out with House rankings ( http://cookpolitical.com/house/charts/race-ratings ) also lists 16 Leans/Tossup seats held by Democrats to just 6 held by Republicans; more than doubling up on them. (If you add Likelies, the ratio is less prodigious but nevertheless present; 33 Democratic-held to 25 Republican-held).

There aren't that many seats with D+ PVIs that are really marginal, almost all them went up this year, even some that aren't vote sinks. The Democrats that Cook labeled the most vulnerable are in R+ districts, ones in D+ seats are further down the list. Plus, polarization is a lot more set in and even moderate Republicans lost D+ seats this years (CT-5, MA-6).

[DrScholl]

The NRCC's target list is out. Among their top 7 targets, there are no D+ seats.

http://www.nrcc.org/2013/01/15/2012-presidential-results-by-congressional-district/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DrScholl]

CA-26 was D+2 after redistricting and Strickland tried to fashion himself a moderate, but his record in the legislature was very conservative. CA-26 consist mostly of Ventura County and Oxnard weighs pretty heavily on the balance of the district. The NRCC didn't even buy airtime in that race.

[DrScholl]

Strickland only lost by 4(52-48%) though I think.

It was actually 5.4%, 52.7% to 47.3%.