Dems in Trump CD's; Reps in Clinton CD's

[Cynthia]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

Spellcheck is your friend

I agree

[Young Conservative]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

Spellcheck is your friend

I agree

Sorry my computer is broken so I have been typing on my phone:( I'm notoriously poor at using smart phones.

[progressive85]

Kevin Yoder's seat seems like a prime pickup opportunity.  They need to find a top notch recruit.

[Kingpoleon]

Kevin Yoder's seat seems like a prime pickup opportunity.  They need to find a top notch recruit.

Joe Reardon and Chris Steineger are two politicians who could consider running. I don't know of any statewide elected Democrats who live in the district.

[Nyvin]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

[Young Conservative]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

[hurricanehink]

Typically NJ-02 (held by R LoBiondo) votes Democrat at the presidential level. I can't find how the district voted in 2016 at the presidential level.

[Mr.Phips]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too). 

[RINO Tom]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too). 

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

[Young Conservative]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too).  

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

Tom is correct. If you play the long term too prematurely, then the long term event you've been planning for will never happen.
Also, there is a district in Michigan that I saw on the Macomb county website that voted for Clinton by just a few points that had previously been incredibly democratic I believe it was district 9. Also, I'll check the other seas, but you're blasé attitude will only serve to cause scenarios like 2016 to continue. Be concerned, not blissfully ignorant.

[Heisenberg]

For the Michigan seats, MI-05 almost went to Trump, but it was drawn as a vote sink. A more fairly drawn MI-05 would have gone for Trump. MI-09 has a lot of Macomb "Trump Democrats," and almost went GOP in 2010, but I don't think that one is in reach.

[Mr.Phips]

For the Michigan seats, MI-05 almost went to Trump, but it was drawn as a vote sink. A more fairly drawn MI-05 would have gone for Trump. MI-09 has a lot of Macomb "Trump Democrats," and almost went GOP in 2010, but I don't think that one is in reach.

MI-09 went 50%-45% Clinton and is much different than Gary Peters old district that you refer to.  The old MI-09 was mostly Oakland county and was held by Republicans for decades before Peters won it in 2008.  That seat was cut up and split between the now Republican MI-08 and MI-11 with only a small part in the current MI-09.

[Heisenberg]

For the Michigan seats, MI-05 almost went to Trump, but it was drawn as a vote sink. A more fairly drawn MI-05 would have gone for Trump. MI-09 has a lot of Macomb "Trump Democrats," and almost went GOP in 2010, but I don't think that one is in reach.

MI-09 went 50%-45% Clinton and is much different than Gary Peters old district that you refer to.  The old MI-09 was mostly Oakland county and was held by Republicans for decades before Peters won it in 2008.  That seat was cut up and split between the now Republican MI-08 and MI-11 with only a small part in the current MI-09.

Oops, my bad, you are correct. Peters is a very savvy politician, having survived 2010 in a historically R district, and then he also managed to win a Democratic primary in a heavily Black district in 2012 (with a split in the Black vote). But yes I was correct in that MI-09 was a little closer than normal but still went for Clinton rather comfortably.

[Nyvin]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too).  

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

Well, most of those states except Wisconsin and Iowa will be losing districts anyway come 2020.   And most of the surrounding districts are just barely Republican.  Probably the national Dem's strategy is just to let the incumbents ride it out until 2020 and then get better maps in place once the seats are removed.

If none of them lost in 2016 then the chances of any of them getting voted out while Trump is in office are pretty much non-existent (as far as we can tell).

I will say that Minnesota is a bit scary.

[publicunofficial]

"Dems shouldn't target these seats! They should be looking at THESE seats!"

[Figueira]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too).  

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

Well, most of those states except Wisconsin and Iowa will be losing districts anyway come 2020.   And most of the surrounding districts are just barely Republican.  Probably the national Dem's strategy is just to let the incumbents ride it out until 2020 and then get better maps in place once the seats are removed.

If none of them lost in 2016 then the chances of any of them getting voted out while Trump is in office are pretty much non-existent (as far as we can tell).

I will say that Minnesota is a bit scary.

I realize that this thread is about the House, but the Senate is still important, and unaffected by population changes. Sure, Georgia has a higher population than Wisconsin and Iowa combined, but it still only has two Senators.

[Nyvin]

The 4 Orange County, California seats (39, 45, 48, and 49) need to be the top priority for the DCCC.

No point focusing on those of you lose all your modwestrn seats.

What else is there to lose?   The three rural Minnesota seats and maybe WI-3?   Beyond that the GOP is pretty much maxed out there.

The final democratic Iowa seat, potential for two seats in michigan, a seat in PA, seats in Wisconsin, and seats in Minnesota. If you lose the seats there, the gains are wiped out.

In Michigan?  What seats?  Every seat in that state that Dems hold is a Dem vote sink.

In Wisconsin, the only potential seat in any risk is WI-03.  The other two Dem seats are safe Dem until the cows come home (and probably after that too).  

So after 2016, Democrats' plan of attack isn't to win back areas that were always favorable to Democrats but rather try to pick off areas that have always liked Republicans but are now more diverse?

Glad to see they've learned nothing.

Well, most of those states except Wisconsin and Iowa will be losing districts anyway come 2020.   And most of the surrounding districts are just barely Republican.  Probably the national Dem's strategy is just to let the incumbents ride it out until 2020 and then get better maps in place once the seats are removed.

If none of them lost in 2016 then the chances of any of them getting voted out while Trump is in office are pretty much non-existent (as far as we can tell).

I will say that Minnesota is a bit scary.

I realize that this thread is about the House, but the Senate is still important, and unaffected by population changes. Sure, Georgia has a higher population than Wisconsin and Iowa combined, but it still only has two Senators.

Yeah, but the good thing about Senators is they aren't affect by the geography of the states.

In the long run the Demographics of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania very much still favor Democrats.   The Urban areas will just grow to be too much to handle at some point or another.   It's really just Ohio and Iowa that are going the way of Alabama.  

The thing with the House is that the urban concentration of votes put the outer seats at risk, even though the statewide vote might still favor democrats, or at least be competitive,  while the urban-core districts just get more friendly to Dems.

[ElectionsGuy]

So the CD's that Trump won in CA are: 1, 4, 8, 22, 23, 42, 50. All the rest went to Clinton? 46/53, that's definitely historic.

[Young Conservative]

So the CD's that Trump won in CA are: 1, 4, 8, 22, 23, 42, 50. All the rest went to Clinton? 46/53, that's definitely historic.

Yes,  but not as noteworthy as the midwestern results.

[MT Treasurer]

In the long run the Demographics of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania very much still favor Democrats.   The Urban areas will just grow to be too much to handle at some point or another.  

There's no way you can know that at this point. And growth of urban areas doesn't always favor Democrats, especially when it's a relatively slow growth. IIRC, you also said before the election that NC was already a blue state because of "population growth".

[Young Conservative]

In the long run the Demographics of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania very much still favor Democrats.   The Urban areas will just grow to be too much to handle at some point or another.  

There's no way you can know that at this point. And growth of urban areas doesn't always favor Democrats, especially when it's a relatively slow growth. IIRC, you also said before the election that NC was already a blue state because of "population growth".

Or, in the case of michigan's Detroit, decline.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So the CD's that Trump won in CA are: 1, 4, 8, 22, 23, 42, 50. All the rest went to Clinton? 46/53, that's definitely historic.

Yes,  but not as noteworthy as the midwestern results.

     Combined, they point to the increasing polarization of the country along geographic lines.

[Devils30]

Disagree, I think an economic message geared toward the working class of all races is what is needed by the Democratic Party. To win the Senate they will need these midwestern states. The Senate will be a bigger problem next decade than the House. Many of the midwestern Trump voters would have chosen Biden, Bernie or Kaine over Trump. They just hate Hillary's elitist form of liberalism.

[Devils30]

People are tired of the stagnating wages, excessive executive pay and cost of college even in the richest districts. People making 100-200K a year are tired of this garbage already as well. As long as the Dems stick with progressivism and not full-blown communism it will be okay. No 90% tax rates but they can safely advocate for higher rates.

Bullock would be fine for 2020, he's pro choice and could be someone with a Bernie like message. With Trump in office, the professionals have nowhere else to go. He would be a good candidate for the long lost 400 electoral vote landslide. A lot of younger Dems don't mind this type of Democratic Party, people are falsely assuming the suburban gains for Hillary are incompatible with winning more working class whites.

[Devils30]

If Trump's job approval ratings match his personal favorables he has zero chance. The Dems will have an open primary with 6-8 candidates or so, without a clear favorite. The competition will be good. Someone like Bullock could be strong in Iowa and New Hampshire for sure. If you combine that with outreach to African Americans, win South Carolina and game over. His background fighting the citizens United decision would be good cred, especially if Trump is 4 years of a mess.