Path of Least Resistance to a Democratic House

[SPC]

Design the most plausible route for Democrats to retake the House. If you believe that the built-in advantage for Republicans is too insurmountable to do so in 2016, 2018, and 2020, design the most plausible route involving pickups of state legislatures and subsequent redistricting to get Democrats to 218.

This breakdown of CD results by margin should be helpful for this endeavor.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Republican elected to White House in 2016 ---> fyck ups all round, vast amount of people pissed off an alienated ---> 2018 wave.

[windjammer]

Republican elected to White House in 2016 ---> fyck ups all round, vast amount of people pissed off an alienated ---> 2018 wave.

[SPC]

I was hoping for an answer more specific, i.e. what 30 seats could you envision falling the easiest in a 2018 wave if one were to occur?

[Maxwell]

First thing Democrats have to do is pick up all of the Republican seats that are in the Obama territory (might not be the most easy task, considering some are held by people like Peter King or Charlie Dent who just wont lose their spot), and then pick off vulnerable incumbents in Republican areas (Dan Benishek comes to mind).

[Del Tachi]

Its important to keep in mind that demographic changes will continue to favor the Democrats going forward, and that by 2018 or 2020 a lot of the gerrymandered Republican seats from 2010 won't be as friendly to the GOP as they were when they were formed. 

[Clermont County GOPer]

First thing Democrats have to do is pick up all of the Republican seats that are in the Obama territory (might not be the most easy task, considering some are held by people like Peter King or Charlie Dent who just wont lose their spot), and then pick off vulnerable incumbents in Republican areas (Dan Benishek comes to mind).

Romney won Dent's district 50.8 to 47.9 it's not an obama seat

[Vega]

Republican elected to White House in 2016 ---> fyck ups all round, vast amount of people pissed off an alienated ---> 2018 wave.

[Maxwell]

First thing Democrats have to do is pick up all of the Republican seats that are in the Obama territory (might not be the most easy task, considering some are held by people like Peter King or Charlie Dent who just wont lose their spot), and then pick off vulnerable incumbents in Republican areas (Dan Benishek comes to mind).

Romney won Dent's district 50.8 to 47.9 it's not an obama seat

Okay fair enough, that's my mistake.

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... they would probably start by wiping the floor in the Southwest and Florida.  That gets them about 1/2 of the way there.  Then, they need to break one of the GOP gerrymanders.  VA is probably the most logical bet, but it could be PA or MI as well.  Then a few more suburban pickups outside of culturally Southern areas.

[publicunofficial]

Base - 188

Gain back 2014 seats:
NV-04 (Hardy)
ME-02 (Poliquin)
IA-01 (Blum)
AZ-02 (McSally)
FL-26 (Curbelo)
IL-10 (Dold)
TX-23 (Hurd)
NY-01 (Zeldin)
NH-01 (Guinta)
NY-24 (Katko)

Total - 198

Pick-Up marginal seats/More difficult seats that were lost in 2014:
CA-21 (Valadao)
CA-25 (Knight)
IL-12 (Bost)
IA-03 (Young)
FL-13 (Jolly)
MI-01 (Benishek)
CO-06 (Coffman)
CA-10 (Denham)
NY-21 (Stefanik)
NY-19 (Gibson)
VA-10 (Comstock)
UT-04 (Love)
GA-12 (Allen)

Total: 211


Seats that look difficult, but are necessary for a Dem majority:

NV-03 (Heck)
NY-23 (Reed)
IN-02 (Walorski)
IL-13 (Davis)
WV-02 (Mooney)
NJ-03 (MacArthur)
NY-11 (Grimm)
OH-14 (Joyce)
AR-02 (Hill)
MT-AL (Zinke)
WV-03 (Jenkins)

Total - 222

Bonus: Seats that are off the radar, but would be possible pick-ups if they became open.

WA-08 (Reichert)
FL-27 (Ros-Lehtinen)
FL-25 (Diaz-Balart)
VA-02 (Rigell)
CA-39 (Royce)
WA-03 (Herrera Beutler)
MN-02 (Kline)
NJ-02 (LoBiondo)
FL-07 (Mica)

Very unlikely this happens before 2022, but the path is there. If Democrats want to take back the House, their best bet is stopping Republican gerrymanders in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia; each of which would probably give them 2-4 more seats each under a fair map.

[Maxwell]

You could also include Peter King's district if he ever decides to retire.

[publicunofficial]

You could also include Peter King's district if he ever decides to retire.

Yeah, but NY-02 is pretty tough. GOP would likely hold it with a decent candidate, and I believe the bench there is pretty decent.

[smoltchanov]

I really don't see how to beat Allen (GA-12) and Love (UT-04) now, when they are incumbents. And you will need a LOT of luck plus a wave to beat such Republicans as Valadao, Gibson and some other from list above. Especially those who have relatively moderate reputation...

[publicunofficial]

I really don't see how to beat Allen (GA-12) and Love (UT-04) now, when they are incumbents. And you will need a LOT of luck plus a wave to beat such Republicans as Valadao, Gibson and some other from list above. Especially those who have relatively moderate reputation...

Valadao is clearly beatable in a presidential year. He only got 58% against Amanda Renteria this year, which is the same percentage he got against the awful John Hernandez in 2012 even though his percentage should've been way higher this year. He's probably one of the most vunerable Republicans in 2014.

[Frodo]

A terrible and unpopular Republican presidency. 

[IceSpear]

Assuming we hold the CA races and lose AZ-02, we're left with a 247-188 Republican majority. So Dems need to gain 30 seats. The path of least resistance would probably be:

NV-04 (Hardy)
IA-01 (Blum)
ME-02 (Poliquin)
NY-11 (Grimm)
NH-01 (Guinta)
FL-13 (Jolly)
NY-24 (Katko)
IL-10 (Dold)
IA-03 (Young)
NY-01 (Zeldin)
PA-08 (Open)
AZ-02 (McSally)
FL-26 (Curbelo)
CO-06 (Coffman)
CA-21 (Valadao)
NJ-03 (MacArthur)
VA-10 (Comstock)
IL-13 (Davis)
NV-03 (Heck)
TX-23 (Hurd)
MI-01 (Benishek)
AR-02 (Hill)
CA-10 (Denham)
CA-25 (Knight)
IL-12 (Bost)
WI-06 (Grothman)
PA-06 (Costello)
NY-21 (Stefanik)
VA-02 (Rigell)
WI-07 (Duffy)
MI-07 (Walberg)
WI-08 (Ribble)
WV-02 (Mooney)
MI-08 (Bishop)
FL-10 (Webster)
MT-AL (Zinke)
NY-19 (Gibson)
UT-04 (Love)

It was kind of annoying to rank these, so there's probably some mistakes (and I may have accidentally left out a few seats as well). While theoretically Dems may need to net more than 30 if they lose some of their own seats, realistically, any Democrat who survived 2014 will survive 2016 (Ben Chandler was the only Democrat who won in 2010 but lost in 2012). Though if Collin Peterson retires, they may be able to pick up that seat. Republican retirements could also put some more seats on the board that currently aren't (Kline, LoBiondo, Lance, Beutler, Reichert). If we just assume two of them do, that would put 40 Republican seats in play, and that's also assuming Democrats get good candidates for all of these. It will be very difficult for Democrats to regain the House. It will likely take a massive wave putting even more seats than these ones currently listed in play.

[Maxwell]

I think I agree with your list IceSpear, though I think Brad Ashford will probably be the Ben Chandler of 2016.

[The_Doctor]

Why AR 02? I understand UT 04, although I want to see if she becomes enough of a settled incumbent to win. At 37-38 seats, that would be enough for the Democrats to take 225 seats, and that list is pretty good otherwise.

[IceSpear]

Why AR 02? I understand UT 04, although I want to see if she becomes enough of a settled incumbent to win. At 37-38 seats, that would be enough for the Democrats to take 225 seats, and that list is pretty good otherwise.

AR-02 wasn't a blowout and it's the most Democratic district in Arkansas, so it's not a lost cause. It's probably a stretch though, but that goes for a lot of those on the bottom half of the list. I'm also interested to see if Love continues to underperform. Even though there's theoretically enough targets for Dems to retake the House, realistically some of these incumbents are going to survive even in a wave, and it would only take 11 surviving for Republicans to retain the House.

I think the biggest thing I noticed while making this list is how badly the loss of the Southern/Appalachian blue dog seats absolutely killed the Democrats. It's even worse because seats like Rahall's and Barrow's are probably gone forever now. We may be able to hold the presidency and Senate without these states, but with the House in the gerrymandered state it is now, it would truly take a massive wave at this point for Democrats to regain control.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm going to assume the house will be at 247-188. So they need a net gain of 30 seats to gain a majority. Here's a large list of possible Democratic targets.

AK-AL
AR-02
AZ-02
CA-10
CA-21
CA-25
CO-06
FL-13
FL-26
IL-10
IL-12
IL-13
IA-01
IA-03
ME-02
MI-01
MI-07
MI-08
MN-02
MT-AL
NV-04
NV-03
NH-01
NJ-03
NY-01
NY-11
NY-21
NY-23
NY-24
PA-06
TX-23
UT-04
VA-02
VA-10
WI-06
WI-07
WV-02

Some of these might seem ridiculous, but the wave always under emphasizes vulnerable candidates. They need to gain at least 30 to get a net of 30 because on top of that, they need to hold almost all the seats they currently have, which will tough for newly elected Gwen Graham and Brad Ashford. So, that's a very steep hill to climb.

[The_Doctor]

Makes sense to me IceSpear.

Should Maine 02 be lower on the list? After all, Polinquin and his conservative challenger took 58% of the vote, with turnout at 86%. I find Maine 02 interesting given turnout and demographics.

I'd rank IL 10 much higher, it seems to fluctuate based on the year. Given 2016, Dold could lose again. It's outside Chicago in the ring counties, which trend liberal.

I'd be interested in the geographic concentration and demographic concentration of this list. As you said the Democratic decimation in Appalachia has made going back to a majority much harder.

NV 04 (Las Vegas-ish) makes sense.

FWIW, question. Should it be 31 seats assuming NE 01 goes back to the Republicans in 2016?

Overall, this is a good list.

[IceSpear]

@ElectionsGuy: PA-08 is now an open seat (Fitzpatrick is retiring), so that will definitely be a top Dem target in 2016.

@SilentCal: With regards to ME-02, it depends on how you interpret the results. If you view it as a 58-42 conservative/liberal split, suddenly Poliquin is looking a lot more formidable. However, I have a strong hunch that most of the votes for the independent candidate were just generic protest votes. It doesn't really make any sense there would be a huge contingent of voters that thought Poliquin was a RINO, especially because he beat the more moderate Kevin Raye in the primary. And yeah, I actually forgot about Ashford. I could see him being the Ben Chandler of 2016 as Maxwell said. As for Graham, I don't see her in too much trouble. She did just beat a fairly generic Republican incumbent in a GOP wave.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

tbh I think the Montana/Dakota at large districts are more winnable than the Rahall/McIntyre/Barrow/Arkansas seats at this point.

Does nobody else think the southernmost New Mexico district is also relatively vulnerable? The incumbent there is kind of an idiot.

[publicunofficial]

It's somewhat difficult to tell which seats are competitive and which aren't at this point, because Republicans overperformed so much in 2014. But I'll add some thoughts.


-People are forgetting how competitive NY-19 is. Yes Gibson got 65% this year, but he was running in a great year for Republicans and for New York Republicans especially. He was also running against probably the worst candidate the Democrats put in a major race this year with Sean Eldridge, who is godawful. But Gibson only got 52% against a inoffensive some dude lawyer in 2012 (Which I believe was a neutral year, not a Democratic wave). Same with Reed in NY-23, who got 63% this year but only 52% in 2012. To take these seats out of contention, especially with a possible Hillary Clinton campaign coming up, is insane.

-Ashford is going to have a really tough race in 2016, but I'm not ready to call him the immediate underdog and certainly not a goner. The seat's only R+4, and while he had some help from a third-party and Terry's unavailability, Ashford clearly has SOME political talent. If the GOP nominates a less than excellent candidate (Like say, Dan Frei), I expect Ashford to hold on for at least a cycle.

-GA-12 is probably gone, but I'd consider John Barrow more likely to seek a re-match than Nick Rahall or other defeated Blue Dogs are. The man loves a good race, and if he gets in I think he puts the seat back into contention.