Likely 2016 House Pickups for Democrats?

[Adam Griffin]

Feel free to make your own list. The stat below - while obviously much different when breaking down individual races and candidates - is mind-blowing.

More food for thought: there are 55 House Republicans currently elected in districts that have CPVIs of R+4 or less.

IA-1. Braley's Folly. A D+5 district; should fall back in line come 2016.

IA-3. I think this was a fluke. The Democrat won by 8 in 2012; the Republican won by 10 in 2014. Plenty of wiggle room to claw this one back reasonably.

IL-10.  Bob Dold in a resilient f[inks]er; got knocked out by a mere point in 2012 in a redrawn district, only to take it back in 2014 by 4 points. I think the new district is opportune enough to knock him out by a couple of points at minimum in 2016.

NY-24. Am I missing something here? This district has always been close and was close in 2012 (Democrat won by 5, a plurality) but then lost by 20 in 2014 (!?!). A depressing Democratic Party failure and probably indicative of the whole national election if I'm not misreading anything. Surely it'll rebound in 2016.

NV-4. Won by 8 (50-42) in 2012; the Republican beat the incumbent Democrat (who just so happened to be black - I'm sure that had nothing to do with it) by 3,100 votes in 2014. It was one of the last seats to be called.

ME-2. RIP MICHAUD. Unless the current incumbent can really make a name for himself at home this year and next, I don't see how this doesn't swing back to us.

CO-6. Yeah, a lot of us thought this one would go in 2012, and it was close (47-45), but no cigar. If there is another Libertarian running in 2016, the Democratic growth in the district should be enough to topple Coffman.

FL-26. Plague-ridden Joe Garcia lost by 4...in 2014. This one comes roaring back in 2016.

NH-1. Enough said.

These are the only ones I see thus far that I would consider quite likely, giving Democrats a total of 197 (all districts from D+8 to R+2 on 2014 CPVI). With that being said, there were quite a number in that range that I think could be won with the right investment, candidate and in a presidential year (but that are not likely to flip come 2016).

[Nyvin]

PA-8 is a good bet since Fitzpatrick is retiring.   The district is trending democrat slowly too.

MI-6 is another one that could flip,   I think Upton is too conservative for the district,  the democrats just need to get out the college age votes there.

[publicunofficial]

I'm not calling any race where Democrats haven't found a candidate yet a "automatic pick-up".  They're notably having recruitment issues for the New York seats like NY-24, NY-01, NY-21, and NY-19.

Right now I'm guessing that IA-01, NV-04, TX-23, FL-26, and possibly MI-07 flip for Democrats, while Republicans take the open FL-18 and knock off Ashford in NE-02.

[SWE]

McSally will lose

[pbrower2a]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

[smoltchanov]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I would generally agree with Walberg description, but he was able to win legislative seat for 16 years, and 4 out of 6 races for Congress (losing once in primary, where votes were heavily split, and 1 in general in extremely good Democratic year). So, either he is not so dumb, or - district is really conservative enough....

[Zioneer]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I hear he has a good challenger, Gretchen Driskell. She's been able to fundraise very well, and has been leading in a couple of polls.

[IceSpear]

I think IA-01 and NV-04 are going to flip back to the Dems in nearly any scenario. The rest really depend on candidate recruitment and political climate.

[MT Treasurer]

It will be really interesting to see what happens in ME-02.

[IceSpear]

PA-8 is a good bet since Fitzpatrick is retiring.   The district is trending democrat slowly too.

Bucks County has actually trended slightly Republican. In 2000/2004 it was a perfect bellwether county, but since then it's been slightly more Republican than the state as a whole. If Dems can find a good candidate it should be a toss up.

[Maxwell]

The most obvious ones are IA-1, NV-4, and NH-1, but I'd add an unmentioned one - MI-01. Benishek underperformed Romney significantly in 2012, and Cannon didn't perform too badly in 2014, so Benishek is probably underwater unless he turns things around.

[publicunofficial]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I would generally agree with Walberg description, but he was able to win legislative seat for 16 years, and 4 out of 6 races for Congress (losing once in primary, where votes were heavily split, and 1 in general in extremely good Democratic year). So, either he is not so dumb, or - district is really conservative enough....

Walberg is really not an impressive politician, more of a lucky one. He barely survived 2006 before loosing to Mark Schauer in 2008, then the 2010 wave swept him back in. In 2012 he got a decent 55-45 win over his opponent, which looks impressive until you find out that Walberg's opponent was a nobody 9/11 truther who had no funding from the Democratic Party. And then in 2014, another wave saves him in a close 53-41 race.

This year, however, he faces Gretchen Driskell, a very good challenger. She's experienced with tough races, can fundraise, and has somewhat of a "rising star" quality to her. IIRC, Sabato, Cook, and Rothenberg all have MI-07 rated as a Toss-Up this year.



Other races I would consider "sleeper" races that might become really competitive are UT-04; where Doug Owens seems likely to rematch Mia Love, CA-21; where former State Sen. Michael Rubio may be exploring a bid against David Valadao, and CA-25; which I predict Hillary will carry in 2016.

[Maxwell]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I would generally agree with Walberg description, but he was able to win legislative seat for 16 years, and 4 out of 6 races for Congress (losing once in primary, where votes were heavily split, and 1 in general in extremely good Democratic year). So, either he is not so dumb, or - district is really conservative enough....

Walberg is really not an impressive politician, more of a lucky one. He barely survived 2006 before loosing to Mark Schauer in 2008, then the 2010 wave swept him back in. In 2012 he got a decent 55-45 win over his opponent, which looks impressive until you find out that Walberg's opponent was a nobody 9/11 truther who had no funding from the Democratic Party. And then in 2014, another wave saves him in a close 53-41 race.

This year, however, he faces Gretchen Driskell, a very good challenger. She's experienced with tough races, can fundraise, and has somewhat of a "rising star" quality to her. IIRC, Sabato, Cook, and Rothenberg all have MI-07 rated as a Toss-Up this year.



Other races I would consider "sleeper" races that might become really competitive are UT-04; where Doug Owens seems likely to rematch Mia Love, CA-21; where former State Sen. Michael Rubio may be exploring a bid against David Valadao, and CA-25; which I predict Hillary will carry in 2016.

The 25th is a good call actually. Steve Knight's introduction to congress has so far been a disaster, yelling at protestors and raising very little. If Knight is primaried seriously, I think Republicans have a better shot at holding the seat due to the run-off system, but if he's not, then I think Democrats have a real chance of picking it up.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I would generally agree with Walberg description, but he was able to win legislative seat for 16 years, and 4 out of 6 races for Congress (losing once in primary, where votes were heavily split, and 1 in general in extremely good Democratic year). So, either he is not so dumb, or - district is really conservative enough....

Walberg is really not an impressive politician, more of a lucky one. He barely survived 2006 before loosing to Mark Schauer in 2008, then the 2010 wave swept him back in. In 2012 he got a decent 55-45 win over his opponent, which looks impressive until you find out that Walberg's opponent was a nobody 9/11 truther who had no funding from the Democratic Party. And then in 2014, another wave saves him in a close 53-41 race.

This year, however, he faces Gretchen Driskell, a very good challenger. She's experienced with tough races, can fundraise, and has somewhat of a "rising star" quality to her. IIRC, Sabato, Cook, and Rothenberg all have MI-07 rated as a Toss-Up this year.



Other races I would consider "sleeper" races that might become really competitive are UT-04; where Doug Owens seems likely to rematch Mia Love, CA-21; where former State Sen. Michael Rubio may be exploring a bid against David Valadao, and CA-25; which I predict Hillary will carry in 2016.

Source for the bolded part?

[ElectionsGuy]

The only "likely" ones I think are NV-04, TX-23, and IA-01. Outside of that, you have races that are very vulnerable for Republicans (but not likely pickups for Democrats) like NH-01, NY-24, NY-18, FL-26, AZ-02, IL-10, ME-02, etc.

[Xing]

The only "likely" ones I think are NV-04, TX-23, and IA-01. Outside of that, you have races that are very vulnerable for Republicans (but not likely pickups for Democrats) like NH-01, NY-24, NY-18, FL-26, AZ-02, IL-10, ME-02, etc.

This, though I would add ME-02 to the likely pick-up column. Races like NY-24 will be competitive, and are very plausible pick-ups for the Democrats, but calling them "likely" is going too far.

[free my dawg]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I would generally agree with Walberg description, but he was able to win legislative seat for 16 years, and 4 out of 6 races for Congress (losing once in primary, where votes were heavily split, and 1 in general in extremely good Democratic year). So, either he is not so dumb, or - district is really conservative enough....

Walberg is really not an impressive politician, more of a lucky one. He barely survived 2006 before loosing to Mark Schauer in 2008, then the 2010 wave swept him back in. In 2012 he got a decent 55-45 win over his opponent, which looks impressive until you find out that Walberg's opponent was a nobody 9/11 truther who had no funding from the Democratic Party. And then in 2014, another wave saves him in a close 53-41 race.

This year, however, he faces Gretchen Driskell, a very good challenger. She's experienced with tough races, can fundraise, and has somewhat of a "rising star" quality to her. IIRC, Sabato, Cook, and Rothenberg all have MI-07 rated as a Toss-Up this year.



Other races I would consider "sleeper" races that might become really competitive are UT-04; where Doug Owens seems likely to rematch Mia Love, CA-21; where former State Sen. Michael Rubio may be exploring a bid against David Valadao, and CA-25; which I predict Hillary will carry in 2016.

Source for the bolded part?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/1913878-155/a-love-owens-rematch-democrat-says-it

Not entirely sure where the news about Valadao was.

[publicunofficial]

MI-07? I live there. Tim Walberg is a third-rate political hack in a district that should be tailor-made for a Gerald Ford but that now has a Republican representative better suited for the Texas Panhandle than for south-central Michigan.

Tim Walberg simply does what Koch fronts tell him to do. It is only a matter of time.

I would generally agree with Walberg description, but he was able to win legislative seat for 16 years, and 4 out of 6 races for Congress (losing once in primary, where votes were heavily split, and 1 in general in extremely good Democratic year). So, either he is not so dumb, or - district is really conservative enough....

Walberg is really not an impressive politician, more of a lucky one. He barely survived 2006 before loosing to Mark Schauer in 2008, then the 2010 wave swept him back in. In 2012 he got a decent 55-45 win over his opponent, which looks impressive until you find out that Walberg's opponent was a nobody 9/11 truther who had no funding from the Democratic Party. And then in 2014, another wave saves him in a close 53-41 race.

This year, however, he faces Gretchen Driskell, a very good challenger. She's experienced with tough races, can fundraise, and has somewhat of a "rising star" quality to her. IIRC, Sabato, Cook, and Rothenberg all have MI-07 rated as a Toss-Up this year.



Other races I would consider "sleeper" races that might become really competitive are UT-04; where Doug Owens seems likely to rematch Mia Love, CA-21; where former State Sen. Michael Rubio may be exploring a bid against David Valadao, and CA-25; which I predict Hillary will carry in 2016.

Source for the bolded part?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/1913878-155/a-love-owens-rematch-democrat-says-it

Not entirely sure where the news about Valadao was.

According to The Nooner and other sources, there are rumors that Rubio will run in 2016. Rubio has opened a committee with the FEC, but hasn't raised any money.

Rubio currently works as a lobbyist for Chevron, a job he took so he could spend more time caring for his disabled newborn daughter.

[smoltchanov]

The only "likely" ones I think are NV-04, TX-23, and IA-01. Outside of that, you have races that are very vulnerable for Republicans (but not likely pickups for Democrats) like NH-01, NY-24, NY-18, FL-26, AZ-02, IL-10, ME-02, etc.

Agree completely. And will abstain for making detailed forecast until September next year. Last year it was approximately early September (or late August) when wave began to form, and a lot of campaigns turned upside down. For example - almost no one thought at that moment that Hogan may win governorship in Maryland, and that LaPage or Poliquin will win in Maine. And almost everyone was comvinced that Brownback will lose in Kansas and Scott - in Florida.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Sabato lists the following as Toss-Up Republican Seats. Here's my assessment of their vulnerability:

AZ-2 - Sally only won by 167 votes in 2014. Most obvious vulnerability.
IA-1 - Blum was a wave-rider. That being said, he did run slightly ahead of Ernst (who also carried the district) and shouldn't be counted out.
IL-10 - Schneider and Dold are locked in an eternal duel. However, Dold will likely have an easier time than he did in 2012 due to the fact that Kirk will likely run several points ahead of him in the district and provide some coattails. It will likely take a climate slightly better than 2012 to take Dold out.
NH-1 - Like Dold, Guinta will be helped in his eternal duel by the presence of a republican senator on the ballot - in this case, Kelly Ayotte. Probably roughly as vulnerable as Dold.
NV-4 - A result of anemic turnout due to Sandoval running essentially unopposed for Governor. This one probably flips unless Lucy Flores is the nominee, in which case it starts as Lean R.
NY-24, NY-19, PA-8 - Totally dependent on recruitment. With the right candidates, I could see these districts being anywhere from Lean D to Likely R in 2016.

[Torie]

If I had to bet right now, I see the Dem picking up IL-10, NV-04, NH-01, and NY-19, and IA-01. Certainly not IA-03. NY tends to be friendly to Pub incumbents who stay out of trouble. NY-24 will not be flipping back in all likelihood, not when the incumbent beat an incumbent by 20 points, who was not tarred by scandal, and reasonably competent, if obviously not good at bonding with the voters. I didn't mention Maine-02, because that state is so idiosyncratic, and again, it tends to keep incumbents in who stay out of trouble. See the Pubs having the advantage in PA-08, because they tend to run stronger candidates there than the Dems, and Bucks is trending a bit to the GOP. Sure the Dems could reasonably pick up some more seats, but I would be surprised if they net more than a 10 seat gain. I really don't see the Dems losing any seats however that they now hold (other than maybe the Murphy seat in Florida that he is vacating - call that one a toss-up). This assumes that the current lines remain in place. They may change in AZ and CA, and perhaps FL and VA as well. Even NV is a remote possibility.

[Mr.Phips]

If I had to bet right now, I see the Dem picking up IL-10, NV-04, NH-01, and NY-19, and IA-01. Certainly not IA-03. NY tends to be friendly to Pub incumbents who stay out of trouble. NY-24 will not be flipping back in all likelihood, not when the incumbent beat an incumbent by 20 points, who was not tarred by scandal, and reasonably competent, if obviously not good at bonding with the voters. I didn't mention Maine-02, because that state is so idiosyncratic, and again, it tends to keep incumbents in who stay out of trouble. See the Pubs having the advantage in PA-08, because they tend to run stronger candidates there than the Dems, and Bucks is trending a bit to the GOP. Sure the Dems could reasonably pick up some more seats, but I would be surprised if they net more than a 10 seat gain. I really don't see the Dems losing any seats however that they now hold (other than maybe the Murphy seat in Florida that he is vacating - call that one a toss-up). This assumes that the current lines remain in place. They may change in AZ and CA, and perhaps FL and VA as well. Even NV is a remote possibility.

I still don't think Polquin survives in a Presidential year.  Look at Jim Longley in 1996(both districts had similar partisanship then).  Longley didn't make any waves, but still lost to Tom Allen by 10 points.

[smoltchanov]

If I had to bet right now, I see the Dem picking up IL-10, NV-04, NH-01, and NY-19, and IA-01. Certainly not IA-03. NY tends to be friendly to Pub incumbents who stay out of trouble. NY-24 will not be flipping back in all likelihood, not when the incumbent beat an incumbent by 20 points, who was not tarred by scandal, and reasonably competent, if obviously not good at bonding with the voters. I didn't mention Maine-02, because that state is so idiosyncratic, and again, it tends to keep incumbents in who stay out of trouble. See the Pubs having the advantage in PA-08, because they tend to run stronger candidates there than the Dems, and Bucks is trending a bit to the GOP. Sure the Dems could reasonably pick up some more seats, but I would be surprised if they net more than a 10 seat gain. I really don't see the Dems losing any seats however that they now hold (other than maybe the Murphy seat in Florida that he is vacating - call that one a toss-up). This assumes that the current lines remain in place. They may change in AZ and CA, and perhaps FL and VA as well. Even NV is a remote possibility.

I still don't think Polquin survives in a Presidential year.  Look at Jim Longley in 1996(both districts had similar partisanship then).  Longley didn't make any waves, but still lost to Tom Allen by 10 points.

Poliquin turned out to be excellent fundraiser. And it seems Democrats are intent on running Cain again, who is a strong liberal. In ME-01 she would be great candidate , in substantially more conservative ME-02 (LePage won it rather easily over Michaud, who was both a congressman from it and more moderate to boot) - i doubt..

[MT Treasurer]

If I had to bet right now, I see the Dem picking up IL-10, NV-04, NH-01, and NY-19, and IA-01. Certainly not IA-03. NY tends to be friendly to Pub incumbents who stay out of trouble. NY-24 will not be flipping back in all likelihood, not when the incumbent beat an incumbent by 20 points, who was not tarred by scandal, and reasonably competent, if obviously not good at bonding with the voters. I didn't mention Maine-02, because that state is so idiosyncratic, and again, it tends to keep incumbents in who stay out of trouble. See the Pubs having the advantage in PA-08, because they tend to run stronger candidates there than the Dems, and Bucks is trending a bit to the GOP. Sure the Dems could reasonably pick up some more seats, but I would be surprised if they net more than a 10 seat gain. I really don't see the Dems losing any seats however that they now hold (other than maybe the Murphy seat in Florida that he is vacating - call that one a toss-up). This assumes that the current lines remain in place. They may change in AZ and CA, and perhaps FL and VA as well. Even NV is a remote possibility.

I still don't think Polquin survives in a Presidential year.  Look at Jim Longley in 1996(both districts had similar partisanship then).  Longley didn't make any waves, but still lost to Tom Allen by 10 points.

Poliquin turned out to be excellent fundraiser. And it seems Democrats are intent on running Cain again, who is a strong liberal. In ME-01 she would be great candidate , in substantially more conservative ME-02 (LePage won it rather easily over Michaud, who was both a congressman from it and more moderate to boot) - i doubt..

This, plus turnout in ME was very high in 2014 and Poliquin won anyway.

[Mr.Phips]

If I had to bet right now, I see the Dem picking up IL-10, NV-04, NH-01, and NY-19, and IA-01. Certainly not IA-03. NY tends to be friendly to Pub incumbents who stay out of trouble. NY-24 will not be flipping back in all likelihood, not when the incumbent beat an incumbent by 20 points, who was not tarred by scandal, and reasonably competent, if obviously not good at bonding with the voters. I didn't mention Maine-02, because that state is so idiosyncratic, and again, it tends to keep incumbents in who stay out of trouble. See the Pubs having the advantage in PA-08, because they tend to run stronger candidates there than the Dems, and Bucks is trending a bit to the GOP. Sure the Dems could reasonably pick up some more seats, but I would be surprised if they net more than a 10 seat gain. I really don't see the Dems losing any seats however that they now hold (other than maybe the Murphy seat in Florida that he is vacating - call that one a toss-up). This assumes that the current lines remain in place. They may change in AZ and CA, and perhaps FL and VA as well. Even NV is a remote possibility.

I still don't think Polquin survives in a Presidential year.  Look at Jim Longley in 1996(both districts had similar partisanship then).  Longley didn't make any waves, but still lost to Tom Allen by 10 points.

Poliquin turned out to be excellent fundraiser. And it seems Democrats are intent on running Cain again, who is a strong liberal. In ME-01 she would be great candidate , in substantially more conservative ME-02 (LePage won it rather easily over Michaud, who was both a congressman from it and more moderate to boot) - i doubt..

Cain still only lost by five points in an awful year for Democrats.