If you headed the DCCC in 2018.....

[Suburbia]

If you headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018, which House seats currently held by Republicans or by a retiring House Democrat would you target for victory to take back the  House for the Democratic Party in 2018? I can't think of some districts, other than maybe:

CA-49: Doug Appelgate (D) against Darrell Issa (R)

[heatcharger]

Every district that Clinton carried but a Republican holds, along with VA-2 and GA-6, which could be ripe for picking off.

Making sure none of those Minnesota incumbents in Trump districts retire is also important.

[Suburbia]

I would add SC-5, the seat held by Mick Mulvaney, who may be the new Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Vincent Sheheen, can win if the GOP doesn't field a good candidate.

http://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/sheheen-south-carolina-haley/2016/12/27/id/765671/

[Mr.Phips]

Going after every Republican in a Clinton district is a must as well as going after the narrow Trump districts.  Taking a real shot at NE-02, IA-01, IA-03, PA-08, VA-02, ME-02, ect are musts if Dems want to have a prayer of making a real play for House control.  

[Heisenberg]

Going after every Republican in a Clinton district is a must as well as going after the narrow Trump districts.  Taking a real shot at NE-02, IA-01, IA-03, PA-08, VA-02, ME-02, ect are musts if Dems want to have a prayer of making a real play for House control.  

A path exists without the Iowa seats. Democrats need to accept that by going full SJW they've pissed away Iowa for at least a generation. It's gone, get over it.

[Mr.Phips]

Going after every Republican in a Clinton district is a must as well as going after the narrow Trump districts.  Taking a real shot at NE-02, IA-01, IA-03, PA-08, VA-02, ME-02, ect are musts if Dems want to have a prayer of making a real play for House control.  

A path exists without the Iowa seats. Democrats need to accept that by going full SJW they've pissed away Iowa for at least a generation. It's gone, get over it.

Those seats only went for Trump by a couple of points.  It's not like they are now rural Kentucky and Tennessee.

[Vosem]

There is one Iowa seat (IA-4, held by King) that Democrats really do seem to have pissed away; they did have a strong candidate and competed there in 2012, but otherwise that seat has been safe Republican for decades. The other 3 seats all voted for Trump by 4 points, which is no crushing margin; one is held by a Democrat, one was won by a Republican by single-digits; one was won by a Republican by double-digits. Certainly at least the first two are targets.

Iowa is the reverse of most states in that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are packed (Republicans are packed into the northwest corner of the state), so most of the state, geographically, is less Republican than Iowa as a whole.

Of course, this presumes a static state -- if Iowa continues to trend Republican, even those seats could become un-competitive, while on the other hand it wasn't so long ago that Iowa was a literally leans-Democratic state.

[Mr.Phips]

There is one Iowa seat (IA-4, held by King) that Democrats really do seem to have pissed away; they did have a strong candidate and competed there in 2012, but otherwise that seat has been safe Republican for decades. The other 3 seats all voted for Trump by 4 points, which is no crushing margin; one is held by a Democrat, one was won by a Republican by single-digits; one was won by a Republican by double-digits. Certainly at least the first two are targets.

Iowa is the reverse of most states in that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are packed (Republicans are packed into the northwest corner of the state), so most of the state, geographically, is less Republican than Iowa as a whole.

Of course, this presumes a static state -- if Iowa continues to trend Republican, even those seats could become un-competitive, while on the other hand it wasn't so long ago that Iowa was a literally leans-Democratic state.

IA-04 was always a bridge too far for Dems.  Not even Obama in 2008 could carry it.

[Vosem]

There is one Iowa seat (IA-4, held by King) that Democrats really do seem to have pissed away; they did have a strong candidate and competed there in 2012, but otherwise that seat has been safe Republican for decades. The other 3 seats all voted for Trump by 4 points, which is no crushing margin; one is held by a Democrat, one was won by a Republican by single-digits; one was won by a Republican by double-digits. Certainly at least the first two are targets.

Iowa is the reverse of most states in that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are packed (Republicans are packed into the northwest corner of the state), so most of the state, geographically, is less Republican than Iowa as a whole.

Of course, this presumes a static state -- if Iowa continues to trend Republican, even those seats could become un-competitive, while on the other hand it wasn't so long ago that Iowa was a literally leans-Democratic state.

IA-04 was always a bridge too far for Dems.  Not even Obama in 2008 could carry it.

Eh; under the current boundaries, it's a 50/49 McCain seat. And Democrats put up a fight there in 2012 even as Romney won it by significantly more (53/45). Certainly under the old boundaries it was always a safe Republican seat, but if the boundaries this decade had existed in the 2000s it would've been consistently competitive, and would probably have been likelier than not to flip in 2006/2008.

[PAK Man]

Iowa can be competitive with the right candidates. Matt McCoy is pretty disliked among many of the state's Democrats, so I wouldn't get him to run. I'd agree with Liz Mathis in IA-01 (though I personally am hoping Anesa Kajtazović tries again - she ran in 2014 and lost to more well-known candidates, but I really liked her; plus she's young).

Where Democrats failed with Monica Vernon was the fact that they invested very little money in the seat, as they assumed it would be an automatic pickup. It wasn't until closer to the election that they realized that maybe Obama's voters wouldn't turn out for her. And, unfortunately, they didn't. I've noticed Iowans tend to be very stubborn when it comes to their candidates; among my friends, at least, many Sanders supporters adamantly refused to back Clinton and went for Johnson instead. They probably didn't even vote in the House races. Iowa's not a lost cause for Democrats; they just need to do better recruiting (IA-03 especially; Staci Appel was pretty disliked when she was still in office, even among Democrats - I've met her, and while she was a nice person, there was something about her I didn't like. And national Dems never did seem all that excited about Jim Mowrer, for some reason).

A few other seats I'd target besides IA-03 and IA-03:

AZ-02 (There was no excuse for Democrats to not even compete here in 2016; the fact Clinton won this district I hope makes them take a second look - the seat was won by literally hundreds of votes in 2012 and 2014.)

CA-49 (Applegate came very close to knocking off Issa; I'd like to see him try again in a Trump midterm)

CO-06 (I don't know what it is with Coffman, but every single one of his candidates looks competitive on paper but can't knock him off. Still, with a Trump midterm, I hope they try again)

FL-26 (I hope Joe Garcia finally takes the hint that voters don't want him back - I knew as soon as he won the primary, this seat was lost. Maybe get Annette Taddeo to come back, or find another candidate)

FL-27 (Clinton won the district, but IRL is probably too entrenched to defeat. Wouldn't hurt to get somebody to run though)

GA-06 (The fact that Clinton narrowly won this shocked me; Democrats NEED someone here)

KS-03 (Another Clinton district with an incumbent who could be vulnerable in a Trump midterm.)

KY-06 (Jim Gray, who lives in this seat, actually won it during his senate race. I hear he's seriously considering challenging Barr. It frustrates me that Democrats have ignored this seat ever since Chandler narrowly lost it)

ME-02 (ANYBODY but Emily Cain. When she announced her rematch, I actually felt uneasy. She was the one rematch I was not looking forward to)

MN-02 (I'm still shocked that Lewis actually won this)

MT-AL (Juneau should give it another shot when it opens up with Zinke's confirmation)

NE-02 (Ashford only narrowly lost, though Bacon seems like he'd be popular. It'd be worth recruiting somebody for)

NJ-07 (Lance isn't popular in his own party, and Clinton won this district)

NY-01 (I'd like to see what Calone could pull off)

NY-19 (I don't know that I'd go with Teachout again, but this was a pretty close one)

SD-AL (Noem's retiring, and Democrats held this seat until 2010, so why not go for it?)

TX-23 (Gallego's loss was pretty shocking, but Democrats need to compete here.)

VA-02 (Absolutely no excuse for Dems' recruitment failure here in 2016; they need to try again)

VA-10 (I really hope Dems don't give up on this district)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

AZ-02 (There was no excuse for Democrats to not even compete here in 2016; the fact Clinton won this district I hope makes them take a second look - the seat was won by literally hundreds of votes in 2012 and 2014.)

The candidate was very bad.

[progressive85]

This would be my list.  A lot of these are never going to go blue, but the important thing would be to field very strong candidates even in conservative districts so that the Rs are forced to spend money in what would ordinary be safe seats. 

I think what  happened on  on Saturday was very rare.  It felt like a Tea Party Movement in one day.  I think that energy needs to be harnessed and poured completely into the 2018 elections.  I remember 2006 very well and I remember how they said the Democrats couldn't take it back, but they did.

Go to the town halls, start letter writing campaigns, have sit-ins, text these people, follow them on social media, film YouTube videos questioning them about Trump's agenda.

The ones marked with * are must-wins for a House takeover.  The Democrats need 24 seats.  It CAN happen.

AK - Don Young - I think he had scandal issues and he's had a couple of close calls.

AZ 2 - Martha McSally- Great life story, but swing district.  This was Gabby Giffords' seat.

AR 2 - French Hill- A guy with the first name 'French' just doesn't fit in with Arkansas.  This is the least Republican district in the state.

CA 10- Jeff Denham*- They tried with Michael Eggman in '16, but they may need to go with a stronger person.

CA 21- David Valadao- He keeps winning by large margins, probably entrenched.

CA 25- Steve Knight*- This guy said something about Medicare that was controversial, barely won.  I think California Republicans are going to have a rough 2018.

CA 39- Ed Royce

CA 45- Mimi Walters

CA 48- Dana Rohrabacher - Royce, Walters, and Rohrabacher have conservative seats, but there was a move towards Hillary in '16.

CA 49- Darrell Issa*- Absolutely has to go, and I think he feels like he's a top target.

CO 3- Scott Tipton- If the Democrats are having a really good night, this can be an indicator of just how good.

CO 6- Mike Coffman- he seems to be moderate, and he should be.  His district is swingy.

FL 16- Vern Buchanan- this guy first won back in '06 against a woman named Christine Jennings and it was razor-thin.  His margin in 2012 was not impressive.

FL 18- Brian Mast- The successor to Patrick Murphy, maybe Murphy can try for a comeback and win his old seat back?

FL 26- Carlos Curbelo- I like him, and that's the issue here.  Sadly, if Democrats sweep, he'll be defeated.

FL 27- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen- She's entrenched and has been popular here.  She's very pro-LGBTQ which helps define her as a moderate.

GA 6- Tom Price- Hillary won this district in a shocker and the Democrats need to try for it.

IL 6- Peter Roskam- Very hard I think to win this, but there should be a strong D candidate anyway.

IL 12- Mike Bost- This was extremely close in 2012.

IL 13- Rodney Davis- This was just as close in 2012.

IN 2- Jackie Walorski- She seems like she doesn't have as good of a hold on the district as maybe she should.  It was close in 2012.

IN-5- Susan Brooks- If she runs against Joe Donnelly, this becomes an open seat.  In an anti-Trump year, this is worth having a good candidate.

IN 8- Larry Bucshon- This area used to be very swingy, tying Bucshon to Trump may reduce his margin.

IN 9- Trey Hollingsworth- Shelli Yoder was a former Miss Indiana, and she's tried twice I believe.  He was not that popular.  This is the crown jewel of the Indiana seats - this seat will be a strong indicator of any national trend.

IA 1- Rod Blum- I think Anesa Kajtazovic would be great here.

IA 3- David Young- Might be as they say "fool's good" but this may be competitive...

KS 2- Lynn Jenkins- She may run for Governor, so this will be open.  Unlikely but Democrats could do well in Kansas.

KS 3- Kevin Yoder*- This guy because of he swam nude in the Red Sea or something like that.

KY 6- Andy Barr- Jim Gray won this district in the Senate race against Rand Paul.  Gray ran a very strong campaign.

ME- Bruce Poliquin*- This is New England and a Democratic House is likely to have an all-blue New England delegation.

MI 1- Jack Bergman- Was supposed to be closer in 2016.  I don't think this area is trending D.
 
MI 3- Justin Amash- He's a bit of a maverick, so I like him.  If this isn't close, he's entrenched.

MI 6- Fred Upton- This guy's been in there a while, the margins aren't great, but he must be very well-known in the district.

MI 7- Tim Walberg- This is a fundamentalist kind of a Republican and this is the most likely Michigan seat to switch.

MI 8- Mike Bishop- The girl from Little House on the Prairie was going to run here but then changed her mind.  He may be a good fit.

MI 11- David Trott- In 2012, the Democrat won one of the two elections.

MN 2- Jason Lewis- He's got a history, and his face blending into Trump's in a campaign ad may just do the trick.

MN 3- Erik Paulsen- Ds had hoped this would be competitive, but it wasn't.

MO 2- Ann Wagner- If she runs against Sen. McCaskill, this is an open seat, and its the least Republican of the currently red seats.

MT- Ryan Zinke- Montana is surprisingly competitive for a state that is regarded as so Republican at the presidential level.

NE 2- Don Bacon- Not sure if Brad Ashford wants to run in a rematch.

NJ 2- Frank LoBiondo- If he retires, this becomes a big opportunity.

NJ 3- Tom MacArthur- Needs someone viable

NJ 7- Leonard Lance- Hillary won here and the hold on the seat could be slipping.

NM 2- Steve Pearce- I don't know if this is the same district from 2008, but he was defeated.

NY 1- Lee Zeldin*- I don't think Zeldin's entrenched yet despite the Trumpism on Long Island.

NY 2- Peter King- He was not fond of Trump and might be a thorn in his side.

NY 11- Dan Donovan- Staten Island's very red, but could be swingy in a rough year for Republicans.

NY 19- John Faso- Zephyr I don't think was the best choice.

sorry...got tired of typing...

NY 21- Elise Stefanik
NY 22- Claudia Tenney
NY 23- Tom Reed
NY 24- John Katko
NY 27- Chris Collins
NC 2- George Holding
NC 9- Robert Pittenger
NC 13- Ted Budd
OH 1- Steve Chabot
OH 6- Bill Johnson
OH 7- Bob Gibbs
OH 10- Mike Turner
OH 14- David Joyce
OH 15- Steve Stivers
OH 16- Jim Renacci
PA 3- Mike Kelly
PA 6- Ryan Costello
PA 7- Pat Meehan
PA 8- Brian Fitzpatrick
PA 11- Lou Barletta
PA 12- Keith Rothfus
PA 15- Charlie Dent (even though I'd like to save him, he's my favorite House Republican)
PA 16- Lloyd Smucker
SC 7- Tom Rice
SD- Kristi Noem
TN 4- Scott DesJarlais
TX 23- Will Hurd
UT 4- Mia Love
VA 2- Scott Taylor
VA 5- Tom Garrett
VA 10- Barbara Comstock
WA 3- Jaime Herrera Beutler
WA 5- Cathy McMorris Rodgers
WA 8- Dave Reichert
WV 2- Alex Mooney
WI 1- Paul Ryan
WI 6- Glenn Grothman
WI 7- Sean Duffy
WI 8- Mike Gallagher
WY- Liz Cheney

[PAK Man]

AZ-02 (There was no excuse for Democrats to not even compete here in 2016; the fact Clinton won this district I hope makes them take a second look - the seat was won by literally hundreds of votes in 2012 and 2014.)

The candidate was very bad.

It seemed like Democrats' didn't even bother looking for a good candidate. The never considered AZ-02 a top race, even from day one, it seemed like.

[BuckeyeNut]

OH 1- Steve Chabot
OH 6- Bill Johnson
OH 7- Bob Gibbs
OH 10- Mike Turner
OH 14- David Joyce
OH 15- Steve Stivers
OH 16- Jim Renacci

Of these, only OH-1 and OH-10 are worth challenging. And even then, only when Chabot and Turner retire. They're just too popular. (Trump only won 51% of the vote in these CDs, but the incumbents both won quite handily.)

[Vosem]

OH 1- Steve Chabot
OH 6- Bill Johnson
OH 7- Bob Gibbs
OH 10- Mike Turner
OH 14- David Joyce
OH 15- Steve Stivers
OH 16- Jim Renacci

Of these, only OH-1 and OH-10 are worth challenging. And even then, only when Chabot and Turner retire. They're just too popular. (Trump only won 51% of the vote in these CDs, but the incumbents both won quite handily.)

I don't know that Steve Chabot is so popular, but he just hasn't gotten a serious challenge in a while. The guy is mildly gaffe-prone and in a district that's trending Democratic; he's probably the Democrats' best odds for a pickup in 2018 in Ohio. Turner is indeed very popular in his home area and that seat will only be worth targeting once he retires.

(Chabot was first elected in 1994; he's then gotten serious challenges in 1998, 2000, and 2006; lost in 2008; and barely came back in 2010; but since then Democrats have randomly given up on opposing him, even though the seat isn't so Republican).

I suggest P.G. Sittenfeld as a possible Democratic candidate here, though I also suggested it in 2016, when Chabot was struck by a scandal when he was accused of using taxpayer money to fund "official" trips to random countries, and the no-name Democrat here couldn't take advantage of it. Sittenfeld wouldn't have won, but he could've improved his name recognition and started off better in a 2018 race, rather than waste his time on a kamikaze Senate effort.

[BuckeyeNut]

OH 1- Steve Chabot
OH 6- Bill Johnson
OH 7- Bob Gibbs
OH 10- Mike Turner
OH 14- David Joyce
OH 15- Steve Stivers
OH 16- Jim Renacci

Of these, only OH-1 and OH-10 are worth challenging. And even then, only when Chabot and Turner retire. They're just too popular. (Trump only won 51% of the vote in these CDs, but the incumbents both won quite handily.)

I don't know that Steve Chabot is so popular, but he just hasn't gotten a serious challenge in a while. The guy is mildly gaffe-prone and in a district that's trending Democratic; he's probably the Democrats' best odds for a pickup in 2018 in Ohio. Turner is indeed very popular in his home area and that seat will only be worth targeting once he retires.

(Chabot was first elected in 1994; he's then gotten serious challenges in 1998, 2000, and 2006; lost in 2008; and barely came back in 2010; but since then Democrats have randomly given up on opposing him, even though the seat isn't so Republican).

I suggest P.G. Sittenfeld as a possible Democratic candidate here, though I also suggested it in 2016, when Chabot was struck by a scandal when he was accused of using taxpayer money to fund "official" trips to random countries, and the no-name Democrat here couldn't take advantage of it. Sittenfeld wouldn't have won, but he could've improved his name recognition and started off better in a 2018 race, rather than waste his time on a kamikaze Senate effort.

I may have over stated Chabot's strength. Definitely worth running someone there. The difference between Chabot and Turner is noticable. (59% of the vote vs. 64%.)

While Cincinnati and, to a lesser extent Hamilton County as a whole, have gotten more Democratic, Chabot's district got a fair bit more Republican with redistricting after he won it back in 2010.

The candidate he faced this year (Michele Young) seemed fairly competent in all honesty, which is why I'm hesitant about the ODP's chances. PG would have been better, but I think he's likely to wait until redistricting if he does run for the House. He has to be careful to not come across as too greedy now. Though I did recently realize he'll be term-limited off of City Council in 2021.

Aftab Pureval, the new County Clerk of Courts, could be an excellent candidate in the future.

[Young Conservative]

Iowa can be competitive with the right candidates. Matt McCoy is pretty disliked among many of the state's Democrats, so I wouldn't get him to run. I'd agree with Liz Mathis in IA-01 (though I personally am hoping Anesa Kajtazović tries again - she ran in 2014 and lost to more well-known candidates, but I really liked her; plus she's young).

Where Democrats failed with Monica Vernon was the fact that they invested very little money in the seat, as they assumed it would be an automatic pickup. It wasn't until closer to the election that they realized that maybe Obama's voters wouldn't turn out for her. And, unfortunately, they didn't. I've noticed Iowans tend to be very stubborn when it comes to their candidates; among my friends, at least, many Sanders supporters adamantly refused to back Clinton and went for Johnson instead. They probably didn't even vote in the House races. Iowa's not a lost cause for Democrats; they just need to do better recruiting (IA-03 especially; Staci Appel was pretty disliked when she was still in office, even among Democrats - I've met her, and while she was a nice person, there was something about her I didn't like. And national Dems never did seem all that excited about Jim Mowrer, for some reason).

A few other seats I'd target besides IA-03 and IA-03:

AZ-02 (There was no excuse for Democrats to not even compete here in 2016; the fact Clinton won this district I hope makes them take a second look - the seat was won by literally hundreds of votes in 2012 and 2014.)

CA-49 (Applegate came very close to knocking off Issa; I'd like to see him try again in a Trump midterm)

CO-06 (I don't know what it is with Coffman, but every single one of his candidates looks competitive on paper but can't knock him off. Still, with a Trump midterm, I hope they try again)

FL-26 (I hope Joe Garcia finally takes the hint that voters don't want him back - I knew as soon as he won the primary, this seat was lost. Maybe get Annette Taddeo to come back, or find another candidate)

FL-27 (Clinton won the district, but IRL is probably too entrenched to defeat. Wouldn't hurt to get somebody to run though)

GA-06 (The fact that Clinton narrowly won this shocked me; Democrats NEED someone here)

KS-03 (Another Clinton district with an incumbent who could be vulnerable in a Trump midterm.)

KY-06 (Jim Gray, who lives in this seat, actually won it during his senate race. I hear he's seriously considering challenging Barr. It frustrates me that Democrats have ignored this seat ever since Chandler narrowly lost it)

ME-02 (ANYBODY but Emily Cain. When she announced her rematch, I actually felt uneasy. She was the one rematch I was not looking forward to)

MN-02 (I'm still shocked that Lewis actually won this)

MT-AL (Juneau should give it another shot when it opens up with Zinke's confirmation)

NE-02 (Ashford only narrowly lost, though Bacon seems like he'd be popular. It'd be worth recruiting somebody for)

NJ-07 (Lance isn't popular in his own party, and Clinton won this district)

NY-01 (I'd like to see what Calone could pull off)

NY-19 (I don't know that I'd go with Teachout again, but this was a pretty close one)

SD-AL (Noem's retiring, and Democrats held this seat until 2010, so why not go for it?)

TX-23 (Gallego's loss was pretty shocking, but Democrats need to compete here.)

VA-02 (Absolutely no excuse for Dems' recruitment failure here in 2016; they need to try again)

VA-10 (I really hope Dems don't give up on this district)

They didn't compete in Arizona 2 because McSally raised a startling sum of money. She's a rising star; the RCCC wasn't about to lose her. It was more financially viable to be competitive elsewhere, so I do think there was reason.
And...
SD trended massively R. I think California is more viable for them to target than South Dakota.

[Nyvin]

Iowa can be competitive with the right candidates. Matt McCoy is pretty disliked among many of the state's Democrats, so I wouldn't get him to run. I'd agree with Liz Mathis in IA-01 (though I personally am hoping Anesa Kajtazović tries again - she ran in 2014 and lost to more well-known candidates, but I really liked her; plus she's young).

Where Democrats failed with Monica Vernon was the fact that they invested very little money in the seat, as they assumed it would be an automatic pickup. It wasn't until closer to the election that they realized that maybe Obama's voters wouldn't turn out for her. And, unfortunately, they didn't. I've noticed Iowans tend to be very stubborn when it comes to their candidates; among my friends, at least, many Sanders supporters adamantly refused to back Clinton and went for Johnson instead. They probably didn't even vote in the House races. Iowa's not a lost cause for Democrats; they just need to do better recruiting (IA-03 especially; Staci Appel was pretty disliked when she was still in office, even among Democrats - I've met her, and while she was a nice person, there was something about her I didn't like. And national Dems never did seem all that excited about Jim Mowrer, for some reason).

A few other seats I'd target besides IA-03 and IA-03:

AZ-02 (There was no excuse for Democrats to not even compete here in 2016; the fact Clinton won this district I hope makes them take a second look - the seat was won by literally hundreds of votes in 2012 and 2014.)

CA-49 (Applegate came very close to knocking off Issa; I'd like to see him try again in a Trump midterm)

CO-06 (I don't know what it is with Coffman, but every single one of his candidates looks competitive on paper but can't knock him off. Still, with a Trump midterm, I hope they try again)

FL-26 (I hope Joe Garcia finally takes the hint that voters don't want him back - I knew as soon as he won the primary, this seat was lost. Maybe get Annette Taddeo to come back, or find another candidate)

FL-27 (Clinton won the district, but IRL is probably too entrenched to defeat. Wouldn't hurt to get somebody to run though)

GA-06 (The fact that Clinton narrowly won this shocked me; Democrats NEED someone here)

KS-03 (Another Clinton district with an incumbent who could be vulnerable in a Trump midterm.)

KY-06 (Jim Gray, who lives in this seat, actually won it during his senate race. I hear he's seriously considering challenging Barr. It frustrates me that Democrats have ignored this seat ever since Chandler narrowly lost it)

ME-02 (ANYBODY but Emily Cain. When she announced her rematch, I actually felt uneasy. She was the one rematch I was not looking forward to)

MN-02 (I'm still shocked that Lewis actually won this)

MT-AL (Juneau should give it another shot when it opens up with Zinke's confirmation)

NE-02 (Ashford only narrowly lost, though Bacon seems like he'd be popular. It'd be worth recruiting somebody for)

NJ-07 (Lance isn't popular in his own party, and Clinton won this district)

NY-01 (I'd like to see what Calone could pull off)

NY-19 (I don't know that I'd go with Teachout again, but this was a pretty close one)

SD-AL (Noem's retiring, and Democrats held this seat until 2010, so why not go for it?)

TX-23 (Gallego's loss was pretty shocking, but Democrats need to compete here.)

VA-02 (Absolutely no excuse for Dems' recruitment failure here in 2016; they need to try again)

VA-10 (I really hope Dems don't give up on this district)

They didn't compete in Arizona 2 because McSally raised a startling sum of money. She's a rising star; the RCCC wasn't about to lose her. It was more financially viable to be competitive elsewhere, so I do think there was reason.
And...
SD trended massively R. I think California is more viable for them to target than South Dakota.

McSally raised a lot because her district was competitive,  the same can be said of Barb Comstock, Erik Paulsen, or Jeff Denham.   The donors know where to send the money.    I don't think McSally is a rising star,  she's quite socially conservative and takes some really hardline approaches to birth control and maternity leave.   She definitely has a lot of weak points to exploit.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Iowa can be competitive with the right candidates. Matt McCoy is pretty disliked among many of the state's Democrats, so I wouldn't get him to run. I'd agree with Liz Mathis in IA-01 (though I personally am hoping Anesa Kajtazović tries again - she ran in 2014 and lost to more well-known candidates, but I really liked her; plus she's young).

Where Democrats failed with Monica Vernon was the fact that they invested very little money in the seat, as they assumed it would be an automatic pickup. It wasn't until closer to the election that they realized that maybe Obama's voters wouldn't turn out for her. And, unfortunately, they didn't. I've noticed Iowans tend to be very stubborn when it comes to their candidates; among my friends, at least, many Sanders supporters adamantly refused to back Clinton and went for Johnson instead. They probably didn't even vote in the House races. Iowa's not a lost cause for Democrats; they just need to do better recruiting (IA-03 especially; Staci Appel was pretty disliked when she was still in office, even among Democrats - I've met her, and while she was a nice person, there was something about her I didn't like. And national Dems never did seem all that excited about Jim Mowrer, for some reason).

A few other seats I'd target besides IA-03 and IA-03:

AZ-02 (There was no excuse for Democrats to not even compete here in 2016; the fact Clinton won this district I hope makes them take a second look - the seat was won by literally hundreds of votes in 2012 and 2014.)

CA-49 (Applegate came very close to knocking off Issa; I'd like to see him try again in a Trump midterm)

CO-06 (I don't know what it is with Coffman, but every single one of his candidates looks competitive on paper but can't knock him off. Still, with a Trump midterm, I hope they try again)

FL-26 (I hope Joe Garcia finally takes the hint that voters don't want him back - I knew as soon as he won the primary, this seat was lost. Maybe get Annette Taddeo to come back, or find another candidate)

FL-27 (Clinton won the district, but IRL is probably too entrenched to defeat. Wouldn't hurt to get somebody to run though)

GA-06 (The fact that Clinton narrowly won this shocked me; Democrats NEED someone here)

KS-03 (Another Clinton district with an incumbent who could be vulnerable in a Trump midterm.)

KY-06 (Jim Gray, who lives in this seat, actually won it during his senate race. I hear he's seriously considering challenging Barr. It frustrates me that Democrats have ignored this seat ever since Chandler narrowly lost it)

ME-02 (ANYBODY but Emily Cain. When she announced her rematch, I actually felt uneasy. She was the one rematch I was not looking forward to)

MN-02 (I'm still shocked that Lewis actually won this)

MT-AL (Juneau should give it another shot when it opens up with Zinke's confirmation)

NE-02 (Ashford only narrowly lost, though Bacon seems like he'd be popular. It'd be worth recruiting somebody for)

NJ-07 (Lance isn't popular in his own party, and Clinton won this district)

NY-01 (I'd like to see what Calone could pull off)

NY-19 (I don't know that I'd go with Teachout again, but this was a pretty close one)

SD-AL (Noem's retiring, and Democrats held this seat until 2010, so why not go for it?)

TX-23 (Gallego's loss was pretty shocking, but Democrats need to compete here.)

VA-02 (Absolutely no excuse for Dems' recruitment failure here in 2016; they need to try again)

VA-10 (I really hope Dems don't give up on this district)

They didn't compete in Arizona 2 because McSally raised a startling sum of money. She's a rising star; the RCCC wasn't about to lose her. It was more financially viable to be competitive elsewhere, so I do think there was reason.
And...
SD trended massively R. I think California is more viable for them to target than South Dakota.

McSally raised a lot because her district was competitive,  the same can be said of Barb Comstock, Erik Paulsen, or Jeff Denham.   The donors know where to send the money.    I don't think McSally is a rising star,  she's quite socially conservative and takes some really hardline approaches to birth control and maternity leave.   She definitely has a lot of weak points to exploit.

McSally had a really incompetent opponent in 2016 who had no idea how to fund-raise and almost didn't have a campaign(the only things I heard about him were attack ads against him).

[publicunofficial]

If the DCCC seriously wants to take back the House, they HAVE to look into seats that they've ignored in the past or seats they've never even considered.

They absolutely cannot afford to say "Well this seat is only R+1, but ehhhh the incumbent raises a lot of money so let's not bother". I'm tired of half the competitive seats getting taken off the table before the start of primary season because the DCCC just gave up looking for a candidate there.


Top-Tier (Seats I cannot envision a Democratic majority without):

-CO-06
-IA-01
-CA-49
-FL-26
-VA-10
-TX-23
-NE-02

Mid-Tier (Tougher races, but still seats the DCCC needs to target):

-AZ-02
-MN-02
-MN-03
-CA-10
-CA-21
-CA-25
-NY-01
-NY-19
-NY-22
-NY-24
-ME-02
-FL-18
-FL-27
-PA-06
-PA-07
-PA-08
-KS-03
-IA-03
-VA-02
-WA-08

Third Tier (The DCCC should look for candidates here and try to make something happen, but are still long-shots that should be triaged early if conditions aren't right):

-MT-AL
-CA-39
-CA-45
-CA-48
-UT-04
-CO-03
-TX-32
-TX-07
-NY-21
-NY-11
-NY-23
-NJ-02
-NJ-03
-NJ-07
-IL-12
-IL-13
-IL-06
-MI-07
-MI-08
-MI-11
-KY-06

A lot of these second and third tier seats are in areas where Democrats need to be competitive again if they want to stop Trump's re-election. Even a losing campaign in these areas is useful to gauging which areas have fully trended to the right and which are still open to the right kind of Democrat.

[Maxwell]

Coffman may be the fakest moderate of any GOP "moderate" and that's saying quite a lot. He was literally a birther before he realized his district was a swing district.

[Heisenberg]

Hate to break it to you publicunofficial, but IA-01 is definitely tier two or even three. The rest I agree. Blum sems pretty safe, and Iowa is quickly trending hard right and soon IA-01 will stabilize at around R+6 with not much elasticity. That's what I see going forward.

[publicunofficial]

Hate to break it to you publicunofficial, but IA-01 is definitely tier two or even three. The rest I agree. Blum sems pretty safe, and Iowa is quickly trending hard right and soon IA-01 will stabilize at around R+6 with not much elasticity. That's what I see going forward.

If IA-01 is a considered Safe R seat, then the Democrats shouldn't even bother existing. The midwest has swung back and forth between parties for decades now, and if Democrats can't compete in a seat that Bruce Braley easily held 4 years ago then something has gone terribly wrong.

That's why I say IA-01 is a must-win seat. If Democrats can't make a race there, then they can't compete ANYWHERE.

[Donerail]

IRL is definitely not unbeatable in a Clinton +21 district that IRL won by less than 10 points against a nobody. If Dems can't flip this in 2018, they don't even deserve to win the House.

The issue with trying to unseat IRL in 2018 is that what Democrats need to do isn't just win her seat, but break the Cuban machine that currently controls the area. That's essential not just to Democrats winning a couple seats in Congress, but to Dems taking the State Senate (and, more optimistically, the State House). There was a lot of progress made in 2016 on that front, and Dems are building a bench with people like Baez, Asencio, and Duran in the House, plus JJR in the Senate, but we need to focus more on downballot offices and build control that way. If Dems dump a bunch of money into the contest, they may have a 50-50 chance of picking up the seat, but they'll face an expensive fight to hold it every cycle afterwards. If they wait a few years on that and instead start by picking off the Republican bench in Dade, making it so Democrats hold the power in Miami politics, Dems gain a seat (well, two or three) that vote like C+21 seats should.

[Heisenberg]

Hate to break it to you publicunofficial, but IA-01 is definitely tier two or even three. The rest I agree. Blum sems pretty safe, and Iowa is quickly trending hard right and soon IA-01 will stabilize at around R+6 with not much elasticity. That's what I see going forward.

If IA-01 is a considered Safe R seat, then the Democrats shouldn't even bother existing. The midwest has swung back and forth between parties for decades now, and if Democrats can't compete in a seat that Bruce Braley easily held 4 years ago then something has gone terribly wrong.

That's why I say IA-01 is a must-win seat. If Democrats can't make a race there, then they can't compete ANYWHERE.

If it opens up in 2020 or 2022, then maybe (it would likely be a "last hoorah" and flip by 2026 or 2028), but trust me, an Iowa zoom to the right is something that was a long time coming, and for a while I just knew it would happen sooner or later. Sorry Democrats, Iowa is gone (or will be realyl soon) and within 10 years it'll be Likely R (and closer to safe), and about R+10, with IA-04 being the most conservative district, and IA-02 and -03 being the least.

That said, I accept that my party will have totally lost New Hampshire by 2020 or 2022. It was bound to happen, and I saw it coming a while ago.