So, it turns out the Democrat's path to majority was...

[Antonio the Sixth]

This:

Well, that's assuming uniform national swing, so of course it's not necessarily accurate. I guess the 50th seat is as likely to be Georgia as it is to be Iowa. Still, pretty interesting map.

[IceSpear]

Iowa probably would've fallen before Georgia, since Braley didn't need to crack 50% to win.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Iowa probably would've fallen before Georgia, since Braley didn't need to crack 50% to win.

Guess you're right. Edited the map.

[Nichlemn]

Iowa probably would've fallen before Georgia, since Braley didn't need to crack 50% to win.

This + more elastic.

[henster]

We lost Colorado solely because Udall ran such a poor campaign, had he ran a campaign like Begich did in AK we would've won I have no doubt about that. That's the only race that I think was salvageable.

[CountryClassSF]

We lost Colorado solely because Udall ran such a poor campaign, had he ran a campaign like Begich did in AK we would've won I have no doubt about that. That's the only race that I think was salvageable.

Cory Gardner was an excellent candidate. Is there any circumstance where credit can ever be given to Republicans for doing a good job? lol

[Holmes]

We lost Colorado solely because Udall ran such a poor campaign, had he ran a campaign like Begich did in AK we would've won I have no doubt about that. That's the only race that I think was salvageable.

Cory Gardner was an excellent candidate. Is there any circumstance where credit can ever be given to Republicans for doing a good job? lol

No, because he only won by 2%. An excellent candidate in Colorado would be able to win by at least high single digits in a wave election.

[coloradocowboi]

We lost Colorado solely because Udall ran such a poor campaign, had he ran a campaign like Begich did in AK we would've won I have no doubt about that. That's the only race that I think was salvageable.

Cory Gardner was an excellent candidate. Is there any circumstance where credit can ever be given to Republicans for doing a good job? lol

No, because he only won by 2%. An excellent candidate in Colorado would be able to win by at least high single digits in a wave election.

No, demographically the GOP has a very low ceiling in Colorado. Cory Gardener ran an excellent campaign, and I say that as a leftwing Dem who despises him personally.

[The Mikado]

We lost Colorado solely because Udall ran such a poor campaign, had he ran a campaign like Begich did in AK we would've won I have no doubt about that. That's the only race that I think was salvageable.

I think that Colorado and Iowa were lost by the Democrats running terrible campaigns. By contrast, Alaska and North Carolina were pitch-perfect Democratic campaigns that ran into brick walls in a stunningly Republican year. In a less GOP year, Hagan, at least, would've survived, but there was absolutely nothing she could do in 2014 to do better than she did.

[Maxwell]

We lost Colorado solely because Udall ran such a poor campaign, had he ran a campaign like Begich did in AK we would've won I have no doubt about that. That's the only race that I think was salvageable.

Cory Gardner was an excellent candidate. Is there any circumstance where credit can ever be given to Republicans for doing a good job? lol

No, because he only won by 2%. An excellent candidate in Colorado would be able to win by at least high single digits in a wave election.

Not against an established incumbent like Mark Udall. For a guy who ran an incompetent campaign, he had a lot of advantages.

[Xing]

The Democrats totally blew IA, and AK, CO, and NC would've held in a slightly better year, so that would've been their path to a majority.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the standard for Republicans now? have to win by a landslide or they get no credit.  It's a swing state that leans to the left, races are going to be close most of the time.

[publicunofficial]

For the record, the path to a Democratic HOUSE majority was this:


AZ-02 (McSally)
TX-23 (Hurd)
IA-01 (Blum)
NV-04 (Hardy)
WV-02 (Mooney)
UT-04 (Love)
FL-26 (Curbelo)
IL-10 (Dold)
NH-01 (Guinta)
ME-02 (Poliquin)
MI-01 (Benishek)
AR-02 (Hill)
CO-06 (Coffman)
GA-12 (Allen)
AK-AL (Young)
IL-12 (Bost)
IA-03 (Young)
AR-04 (Westerman)
NJ-03 (MacArthur)
WV-03 (Jenkins)
MI-07 (Walberg)
PA-06 (Costello)
MI-08 (Bishop)
NY-01 (Zeldin)
NY-11 (Grimm)
NJ-05 (Garrett)
CA-10 (Denham)
MT-AL (Zinke)
VA-02 (Rigell)
VA-10 (Comstock)


WI-06 (Grothman), would be the 219th seat.

[Maxwell]

I feel like NJ-2 would be more vulnerable than most of these districts should Lobiondo ever retire.

[publicunofficial]

I feel like NJ-2 would be more vulnerable than most of these districts should Lobiondo ever retire.

True, and FL-13 and CA-25 would be more vulnerable if the Democrats actually ran candidates there. The list is just what seats the Democrats came closest to winning in 2014.

As it stands, LoBiondo defeated his challenger by 25 points.

[Maxwell]

I feel like NJ-2 would be more vulnerable than most of these districts should Lobiondo ever retire.

True, and FL-13 and CA-25 would be more vulnerable if the Democrats actually ran candidates there. The list is just what seats the Democrats came closest to winning in 2014.

As it stands, LoBiondo defeated his challenger by 25 points.

Yes, I realized that as I wrote the post, but decided to make the comment anyways

[Holmes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the standard for Republicans now? have to win by a landslide or they get no credit.  It's a swing state that leans to the left, races are going to be close most of the time.

No. Ernst didn't win by a landslide but she gets credit for her win.

[Maxwell]

The Democrats totally blew IA, and AK, CO, and NC would've held in a slightly better year, so that would've been their path to a majority.

You do realize Alaska is an R+12, right? Do you mean Arkansas?

[moderatevoter]

True, but Begich lost by barely two percent (roughly eight thousand votes), whereas Pryor got Blanched.

[Maxwell]

True, but Begich lost by barely two percent (roughly eight thousand votes), whereas Pryor got Blanched.

See, but my confusion is he is using the lettering for Alaska as opposed to Arkansas, so I assume he is making the case that Democrats blew Alaska, which is a ridiculous statement.

[ElectionsGuy]

Alabama (94.6%)
Wyoming (54.8%)
Oklahoma (39.5%)
Oklahoma* (38.9%)
Maine (37.0%)
Nebraska (32.8%)
Idaho (30.6%)
Tennessee (30.0%)
West Virginia (27.6%)
Texas (27.2%)
South Carolina* (24.0%)
Mississippi (22.0%)
South Dakota (20.9%)
Montana (17.7%)
Arkansas (17.1%)
Kentucky (15.5%)
South Carolina (15.5%)
Louisiana (11.8%)
Kansas (10.6%)
Iowa (8.3%)
Georgia (7.7%)
Alaska (2.2%)
Colorado (1.9%)
North Carolina (1.5%)
Virginia (-0.8%)
New Hampshire (-3.3%)
Minnesota (-10.2%)
Illinois (-10.8%)
New Mexico (-11.2%)
Michigan (-13.3%)
New Jersey (-13.5%)
Delaware (-13.6%)
Oregon (-18.8%)
Massachusetts (-23.9%)
Rhode Island (-41.4%)
Hawaii* (-42.1%)

*Special election
Bold = Republican pickup

The tipping point for Democrat's defense of the Senate is Georgia. Using uniform swing, Dems would keep Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina, and they would gain Georgia, upsetting the six Republican gains and making the election a net gain of five Republican seats. However, GA is inelastic, as we know, and there would most certainly be a runoff in this situation, so I think Iowa was the real tipping point.

[nclib]

For the record, the path to a Democratic HOUSE majority was this:


AZ-02 (McSally)
TX-23 (Hurd)
IA-01 (Blum)
NV-04 (Hardy)
WV-02 (Mooney)
UT-04 (Love)
FL-26 (Curbelo)
IL-10 (Dold)
NH-01 (Guinta)
ME-02 (Poliquin)
MI-01 (Benishek)
AR-02 (Hill)
CO-06 (Coffman)
GA-12 (Allen)
AK-AL (Young)
IL-12 (Bost)
IA-03 (Young)
AR-04 (Westerman)
NJ-03 (MacArthur)
WV-03 (Jenkins)
MI-07 (Walberg)
PA-06 (Costello)
MI-08 (Bishop)
NY-01 (Zeldin)
NY-11 (Grimm)
NJ-05 (Garrett)
CA-10 (Denham)
MT-AL (Zinke)
VA-02 (Rigell)
VA-10 (Comstock)


WI-06 (Grothman), would be the 219th seat.

This would be the map:

Shows how gerrymandered it is. WI (3-5 with WI-6 next to flip) and VA (5-6) are close, but FL (11-16), OH (4-12), PA (6-12) are still very GOP in this scenario.

The only non-at-large Romney states having a Dem delegation are AZ (5-4, favorable independent commission) and WV (2-1, drawn by Dems, but not much different from a neutral map).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This should of been our map in 2014, and Landrieu would have had a fighting chance in the runoff, but the election ended too soon for her, and she was toast.

51-50 senate map

[Xing]

The Democrats totally blew IA, and AK, CO, and NC would've held in a slightly better year, so that would've been their path to a majority.

You do realize Alaska is an R+12, right? Do you mean Arkansas?

I'm sorry, I can see how my wording might've confused you. I meant that Democrats blew Iowa, not Alaska, Colorado, or North Carolina (well, they kind of blew Colorado, too). I meant that the other three could've been won in a better year for Democrats. Begich could've overcome Alaska's PVI in a better year, but the headwinds he faced were just too strong.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Begich, like Landrieu, would have done better had Keystone come up for a vote and not been thwarted by the Reid agenda. And Schweizer supported it, and Mnt would have surely made up for the loss in NC.

Mnt and AK like their oil, and Dems can win.