State legislatures 2016

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-democrats-look-regain-ground-legislatures.html

To recap:

Likely R - Alaska Senate, Florida both chambers, Iowa house, Kansas both chambers, Missouri both chambers, Ohio both chambers, Pennsylvania both chambers, West Virginia house

Lean R - Arizona both chambers, Michigan house, Minnesota house, New Hampshire house, North Carolina both chambers, Washington senate, West Virginia senate, Wisconsin both chambers

Toss-up - Colorado Senate, Connecticut Senate, Maine senate, Nevada both chambers, New Hampshire Senate, New Mexico house, New York senate

Lean D - Colorado House, Connecticut House, Iowa senate, Kentucky House, Maine house, Minnesota senate, New Mxico Senate, Washington house

Likely D - Illiniois both chambers, Oregon house

Too friendly for Democrats?

[windjammer]

For example, I would be shocked if the democrats regained control of the WI senate.

[Vega]

I would say the PA legislature is more lean R than likely. The R majorities aren't that big, and they have every reason to be unpopular.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

[Zioneer]

The Utah Democrats might win about 3-5 state house seats that they lost in 2014, but it won't be enough to even dent the super-majority. And in the state senate, maybe one or two seats could potentially go Democratic, but I doubt it. The one thing I'm sure of is that we won't keep losing more, at least not this year.

[Virginiá]

I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but why is Washington's state legislature so close when overall the state is pretty heavily Democratic in other races, particularly statewide? Democrats have lost seats in the State House in every election since 2008, which is just something I find a bit odd given how Democratic the state is overall and their relatively large turnout elections. Democrats only have a 1-seat majority now and if they don't buck the current 8-year trend, they'll effectively lose control of the State House and thus the entire legislature.

I would say the PA legislature is more lean R than likely. The R majorities aren't that big, and they have every reason to be unpopular.

The GOP's legislature majorities are the largest they have had since the 50s. Democrats need a net gain of 18 seats in the State House to carve out a bare majority. Neither party has achieved that many gains in one election in over a generation. To top it off, the state districts are thoroughly gerrymandered by Republicans to hold a majority, so that makes me think it would take a rather large wave to sweep them out of power.

However, based on voting trends of age groups in PA since the late 90s, I'd say Pennsylvania is trending more Democratic and as such as happened in other states, that effect could manifest itself rather abruptly with GOP seat losses if the trend does indeed continue.

[Mr.Phips]

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

Yeah, and CT House as only Lean D?  Democrats will likely pick up seats in both in a Presidential year.

[Mr.Phips]

Some of these are extremely odd.  I would be shocked if the NM House doesn't flip with Trump at the top of the ticket, and 1 seat majority or not, there's virtually no chance Democrats regain the WV senate.  And Democrats have a better chance of at least tying the FL Senate than winning anything in the Lean R category other than MN/WA and maybe NH Senate.  I'd be a little surprised if the ME or NY Senate flips this year.  I'd also put AZ Senate as a toss up given Trump and that it was only a 2 seat margin after 2012.

I would.bet that ME Senate does flip.  NY technically already has, but Dems won't get an IDC proof majority.

[Ebsy]

Missouri Democrats are looking to push out of super minority status in the state House, but it is an uphill battle.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but why is Washington's state legislature so close when overall the state is pretty heavily Democratic in other races, particularly statewide? Democrats have lost seats in the State House in every election since 2008, which is just something I find a bit odd given how Democratic the state is overall and their relatively large turnout elections. Democrats only have a 1-seat majority now and if they don't buck the current 8-year trend, they'll effectively lose control of the State House and thus the entire legislature.

I know little about WA politics, but my guess would be it's in a similar situation to that of the New York Senate: conservative rural areas are overrepresented in the legislature and urban areas are underrepresented.  Maybe one of our WA posters can enlighten us.

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

Yeah, and CT House as only Lean D?  Democrats will likely pick up seats in both in a Presidential year.

They're probably banking on Malloy's ridiculously low approval numbers.  But even then, the popularity of a sitting governor has minimal impact on legislative seats.

[Mr.Phips]

I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but why is Washington's state legislature so close when overall the state is pretty heavily Democratic in other races, particularly statewide? Democrats have lost seats in the State House in every election since 2008, which is just something I find a bit odd given how Democratic the state is overall and their relatively large turnout elections. Democrats only have a 1-seat majority now and if they don't buck the current 8-year trend, they'll effectively lose control of the State House and thus the entire legislature.

I know little about WA politics, but my guess would be it's in a similar situation to that of the New York Senate: conservative rural areas are overrepresented in the legislature and urban areas are underrepresented.  Maybe one of our WA posters can enlighten us.

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

Yeah, and CT House as only Lean D?  Democrats will likely pick up seats in both in a Presidential year.

They're probably banking on Malloy's ridiculously low approval numbers.  But even then, the popularity of a sitting governor has minimal impact on legislative seats.

Yeah, in a Presidential year, it won't matter a bit.  The Presidential race will drive all downballot.races.

[mds32]

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

More like Lean D. It is going to be in play because of Malloy. I can already see the GOP gaining one seat and making it 20-16 at least.

[Nyvin]

The NH House is definitely not "Lean R" it's pure tossup like always.   It follows the national/state swing almost precisely every election.    The current size of the Republican majority is pretty meaningless, just like it was for Democrats in 2014.   You don't need a "Democratic wave" like the article says, you just need the state to vote 50%+ Democratic.  

Gerrymandering doesn't accomplish much for the NH House.

[mds32]

I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but why is Washington's state legislature so close when overall the state is pretty heavily Democratic in other races, particularly statewide? Democrats have lost seats in the State House in every election since 2008, which is just something I find a bit odd given how Democratic the state is overall and their relatively large turnout elections. Democrats only have a 1-seat majority now and if they don't buck the current 8-year trend, they'll effectively lose control of the State House and thus the entire legislature.

I know little about WA politics, but my guess would be it's in a similar situation to that of the New York Senate: conservative rural areas are overrepresented in the legislature and urban areas are underrepresented.  Maybe one of our WA posters can enlighten us.

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

Yeah, and CT House as only Lean D?  Democrats will likely pick up seats in both in a Presidential year.

They're probably banking on Malloy's ridiculously low approval numbers.  But even then, the popularity of a sitting governor has minimal impact on legislative seats.

Yeah, in a Presidential year, it won't matter a bit.  The Presidential race will drive all downballot.races.

I would argue that the GOP will take the Washington State House this cycle because of the presidential race. Two Lean R seats are open that the Democrats are defending. And with the GOP essentially keeping all their tough seat incumbents in the election they are likely to keep their 48 seats at least.

The State Senate the GOP is mainly playing defense, but with most of the GOP incumbents that are in tough districts staying in the Democrats are going to have a tough time taking the seats. Especially since these candidates already won with Obama on the ballot. With an open presidential election with plenty of disarray they all can easily win re-election.

In PA although the legislature may start to trend Democratic soon it will inch towards the GOP a little bit more. A 32-18 Senate majority is likely since Wonaziak and his R+20 seat is going to receive a ton of attention on the GOP side to pad its rather large majority already. Also I question how the Democrats can go on offense here when the GOP itself is able to not only go on the offensive but have a plan to achieve super-majority status in the Senate.

[Green Line]

Basically every state write-up in the OP link: Would be Republican but LATINO TURNOUT will make this chamber competitive.  The author didn't really try too hard.

[Maxwell]

Oklahoma Dems are trying to get out of super minority status this year via TEACHER REVOLT, but the map will be pretty tough.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Kentucky House might go 56-44 D.

[RINO Tom]

The Kentucky House might go 56-44 D.

If it does, it'll be because a whole lot of "rural romps" (the folks you used to defend, now degrade ... Anything to be a hack!) are coming home to the Democrats.

[Seattle]

I'm not sure if I've asked this before, but why is Washington's state legislature so close when overall the state is pretty heavily Democratic in other races, particularly statewide? Democrats have lost seats in the State House in every election since 2008, which is just something I find a bit odd given how Democratic the state is overall and their relatively large turnout elections. Democrats only have a 1-seat majority now and if they don't buck the current 8-year trend, they'll effectively lose control of the State House and thus the entire legislature.

I know little about WA politics, but my guess would be it's in a similar situation to that of the New York Senate: conservative rural areas are overrepresented in the legislature and urban areas are underrepresented.  Maybe one of our WA posters can enlighten us.

Toss-up - Connecticut Senate

I don't think so, Tim.

Yeah, and CT House as only Lean D?  Democrats will likely pick up seats in both in a Presidential year.

They're probably banking on Malloy's ridiculously low approval numbers.  But even then, the popularity of a sitting governor has minimal impact on legislative seats.

Yeah, in a Presidential year, it won't matter a bit.  The Presidential race will drive all downballot.races.

I would argue that the GOP will take the Washington State House this cycle because of the presidential race. Two Lean R seats are open that the Democrats are defending. And with the GOP essentially keeping all their tough seat incumbents in the election they are likely to keep their 48 seats at least.

The State Senate the GOP is mainly playing defense, but with most of the GOP incumbents that are in tough districts staying in the Democrats are going to have a tough time taking the seats. Especially since these candidates already won with Obama on the ballot. With an open presidential election with plenty of disarray they all can easily win re-election.

Uhhh, with Trump on top of the ticket, there's going to need to be a mighty amount of ticket splitting  to get the Republicans to pick up the house and even, I think, hold the senate.

Basically, RIP republicans of East King county and even potentially South King county: http://crosscut.com/2016/05/trump-may-be-doing-permanent-damage-to-washington-gop/?platform=hootsuite

I don't think Steve Litzow will survive... in a district that voted well over 60% D in the primary. There aren't very many other vulnerable Dems in the senate. The House is a bit more fluid, in that there are plenty of Ds and Rs in marginal seats.

[smoltchanov]

^ I would prefer Litzow (quite reasonable and moderate) to survive instead of usual far-right types from "reliable Republican districts"....

[publicunofficial]

^ I would prefer Litzow (quite reasonable and moderate) to survive instead of usual far-right types from "reliable Republican districts"....

I think we all would, but that's just now it works.

If Democrats could build a majority by taking out pols like Pam Roach, Don Benton, Doug Ericksen, ect. I would love it. But the Steve Litzow's and Andy Hill's are the ones that are vunerable.

[smoltchanov]

^ I would prefer Litzow (quite reasonable and moderate) to survive instead of usual far-right types from "reliable Republican districts"....

I think we all would, but that's just now it works.

If Democrats could build a majority by taking out pols like Pam Roach, Don Benton, Doug Ericksen, ect. I would love it. But the Steve Litzow's and Andy Hill's are the ones that are vunerable.

I know that. It's a "moderate's curse" - they, usually, represent districts which are susceptible to waves and, generally, swingy (sometimes - even lean to opposite party). While "party faithful" (and it doesn't matter - far right or far left) usually come from very reliable districts, and thus - survive even "apocalypses".... Sad (from MY point of view)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Kentucky House might go 56-44 D.

If it does, it'll be because a whole lot of "rural romps" (the folks you used to defend, now degrade ... Anything to be a hack!) are coming home to the Democrats.

Degrade??? I love rural folks. Look at the way Vermont and Elliott County vote, and you'll see why.

The seat in Nelson County is probably going to flip to the Democrats.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

^ I would prefer Litzow (quite reasonable and moderate) to survive instead of usual far-right types from "reliable Republican districts"....

I think we all would, but that's just now it works.

If Democrats could build a majority by taking out pols like Pam Roach, Don Benton, Doug Ericksen, ect. I would love it. But the Steve Litzow's and Andy Hill's are the ones that are vunerable.

I know that. It's a "moderate's curse" - they, usually, represent districts which are susceptible to waves and, generally, swingy (sometimes - even lean to opposite party). While "party faithful" (and it doesn't matter - far right or far left) usually come from very reliable districts, and thus - survive even "apocalypses".... Sad (from MY point of view)

[Vega]

There is a moderate chance that the Hawaii Senate will be completely made up of Democrats after the elections. Sam Slom is pretty vulnerable, apparently.