Talk Elections

Here are mine. Give me yours!:

Senate: 50 DEM, 50 GOP (GOP+5)

GOP Gains: AK, AR, LA, NC, SD, WV

DEM Gains: ME


House: 227 GOP, 208 DEM (DEM+7)

In Maine, do you anticipate Collins retiring? If she runs, I think she'll get 65+% of the vote.

Senate: 52 Gop

Gop Gains: AK, AR, LA, NC, SD, WV (not including Ma with scott brown winning in 2013 special election)

House: 230 Gop, 205 Dem (Dem +7)

If you force me to give actual numbers, I'd say GOP+5 (AK, AR, LA, SD, WV) in the Senate and +8 for the GOP in the House. A +7 Democratic gain requires a Democratic victory in the popular vote of 1-3 points, which I don't see happening.

Senate D:49+2 R:49
House R:219 D:216

I'll say GOP+2 (SD, WV and 1 of AK, AR or LA while Collins retires and Dems pick up ME) and the Democrats get closer to the majority in the House but fall short. 224 GOP, 211 DEM (DEM +10). Democrats will win the House popular vote, but the gerrymandering keeps the GOP in the majority.

I all honesty, I don't think the GOP has gotten its act together where it won't lose one or two of these prime pick-up opportunities because of amateur mistakes. The rank and file saw hard line conservatism repudiated, and for some reason, will probably wind up doubling down on their terrible hand.

Senate: D 48+2, R 50 (ties broken in favor of the Democrats)

GOP+3
GOP+5: LA, MT, SD, WV, MA
Dem+2: GA, KY

Louisiana & Montana: GOP pickup from incumbent
South Dakota & West Virginia: GOP pickup from open
Massachusetts: GOP pickup (open, special)
Georgia: Dem pickup (incumbent defeated in primary)
Kentucky: Dem pickup from incumbent

House: Dem +3

House: 240 Pub, 195 Dem.

Senate: GOP 49-50, Dem 50-51. Pubs pick up AK, LA, SD, WV and Brown wins a full term in 2014. Unless the Pubs recruit a Congresscritter for AR I'd bet on Pryor holding on. WV depends on SMC getting a clear or relatively clear path in the primary.

No it wouldnt.  Essentially an even popular vote would probably give Democrats a seven seat gain.  If Republicans do gain seats, it wont be more than five, as there are very few Democrats left in tough seats. 

Why? Essentially an even popular vote should give essentially the same result as 2012, as the lines won't change and the vote was essentially even in 2012. Also, there are significantly more vulnerable Democrats than vulnerable Republicans:

Democrats who won by a margin of 5% or less in 2012:
1. Ann Kirkpatrick (Arizona 1)
2. Ron Barber (Arizona 2)
3. Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona 9)
4. Ami Bera (California 7)
5. Julia Brownley (California 26)
6. Raul Ruiz (California 36)
7. Scott Peters (California 52)
8. Elizabeth Esty (Connecticut 5)
9. Patrick Murphy (Florida 18)
10. Brad Schneider (Illinois 10)
11. John Tierney (Massachusetts 6)
12. Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire 1)
13. Tim Bishop (New York 1)
14. Sean Maloney (New York 18)
15. Bill Owens (New York 21)
16. Dan Maffei (New York 24)
17. Mike McIntyre (North Carolina 7)
18. Pete Gallego (Texas 23)
19. Jim Matheson (Utah 4)

Republicans who won by a margin of 5% or less in 2012:
1. Mike Coffman (Colorado 6)
2. Dan Webster (Florida 10)
3. Rodney Davis (Illinois 13)
4. Jackie Walorski (Indiana 2)
5. Andy Barr (Kentucky 6)
6. Dan Benishek (Michigan 1)
7. Michele Bachmann (Minnesota 6)
8. Lee Terry (Nebraska 2)
9. Tom Reed (New York 23)
10. Chris Collins (New York 27)
11. Jim Renacci (Ohio 16)
12. Keith Rothfus (Pennsylvania 12)

An analogous list would show there are more Romney-Democrat than Obama-Republican districts. The math suggests that, without a more Democratic climate than 2012 was, Democrats will probably be largely on the defensive in the House in 2014.

In 1998, Democrats got a low percentage of the popular vote than in 1996, yet got five more seats.  This isnt linear. 

Many of these seats that Democrats won(AZ-09, CA-26, CA-52, CT-05, IL-10, MA-06, NY-24) now that Democrats are incumbents in those seats.  TX-23 is a seat that Gallego is perfect for, unlike the lazy Ciro Rodriguez who was too liberal and hated raising money. 

Pretty much every seat that Democrats won in 2012(save for NC-07, UT-04, FL-18) are seats that for all purposes, should be held by a Democrat.  This isnt like 2010 when Democrats 50 or so seats that they had no business holding.  The current House balance is essentially where it should be. 

Yeah...if the popular vote is roughly even, a larger majority of seats is held by the 'right' party than in previous cycles. But if the Republicans win back even a couple points, they stand to gain more than if the Democrats will back a similar number of points -- they just have more opportunities.

Really, if Gallego is a better fit for his district than Rodriguez, it's still a swing district that has historically flipped between the parties. The only seat on that list is really 'safe Democratic' is probably MA-6. Maybe NY-24. But the others are all swing districts which could totally swing in a good Republican year.

Republicans aren't going to win anything that's D+ in PVI, they won only one seat like that last year, CA-31 and that race didn't even include a Democrat. R+ seats are the only place they have a chance in and even some of those are difficult.

LoBiondo may end up with a D+1 seat. It was EVEN in 2008 and most of the counties swung slightly to Obama. 

I was going to point out loBiondo, yeah, but...this post is funny enough I don't have to.

Why not? Why are Republicans incapable of winning D+1 or 2 or 3 when they have a better candidate with a better campaign or a better environment than the Democrats do? Just like Democrats are capable of winning R+1 or 2 or 3 when they run a better campaign and a better candidate or have a better environment than the Republicans do. Those numbers aren't etched in stone either, seats shift over time, sometimes even from the Democrats to the Republican Party.

I think part of the reason is that its seems that there are more competitive R PVI districts than those with D PVI's.

For example, if you look at states like NC or OH, Republicans could never win the districts with Democratic PVI's (like Butterfield's or Kaptur's). The most competitive districts in those states would be Republican leaning (like Johnson's or McIntyre's).

NJ-2 doesn't have it's PVI calculated as of yet, we'll have to see what it is, but incumbency plays a role there anyway. What I'm talking about are seats that flipped, every seat that changed from Democratic to Republican in 2012 had an R+ PVI and fairly high ones at that. All the updated PVIs aren't available yet, but from what we know, a lot of D+ seats increased in PVI. D+ PVI seats are less marginal now, since more of them function as vote sinks.

It's true that Republicans won't be winning Democratic vote sinks anywhere, but not all Democratic seats are vote sinks -- marginal D+ PVIs do exist and there's no reason Republicans can't win them with a good candidate (like loBiondo) or a good environment or local strength or whatever. Just like Democrats can do the same thing to marginal R+ PVIs.

Miles is correct in that there are more competitive R+ PVIs, just because there are more R+ PVIs period because Republicans drew the lines, but this doesn't negate the fact that almost however you calculate it, at this very early stage there are more vulnerable Democratic-held seats than Republican-held seats. Charlie Cook, the first professional prognosticator to come out with House rankings ( http://cookpolitical.com/house/charts/race-ratings ) also lists 16 Leans/Tossup seats held by Democrats to just 6 held by Republicans; more than doubling up on them. (If you add Likelies, the ratio is less prodigious but nevertheless present; 33 Democratic-held to 25 Republican-held).

I think that in Matheson's seat and the close Arizona Congressional races, the Republicans just need better candidates. Or the same candidates to run in a non-presidential year. Martha McSally and Mia Love could probably beat Ron Barber and Jim Matheson respectively in 2014, and I predict that they might try again then. Vernon Parker seemed like the worst possible opponent against Kyrsten Sinema though (she probably would have lost against someone who didn't accuse her of practicing pagan rituals), so the Republicans will have to find a better opponent in 2014. Not sure about Ann Kirkpatrick. Her seat sounds like it would be slightly safer than the others.

Not sure on the close elections in other states, but I think John Tierney might be beaten next year, whether by primary challenge (likely) or Republican victory (unlikely).

I predict that something unforeseeable will happen that will have a major impact on at least one important race.

Matheson has a pretty prodigious machine, so either Love would need to run a better-funded race and have an equally good environment as in 2012 or Republicans would need a better candidate, like state Senator Aaron Osmond (who I believe I know about from reading your posts). I don't know how Kirkpatrick is safer than the others; Kirkpatrick is in a Romney >50% seat (Barber is in a Romney >40% seat and Synema should be the safest in a 51-47 Obama district).


It seems to me that the Tierney scandal will be old news by 2014 -- I suppose we'll see.


Goes without saying...

BTW, everyone should bookmark this awesome page with CD presidential results: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections

There aren't that many seats with D+ PVIs that are really marginal, almost all them went up this year, even some that aren't vote sinks. The Democrats that Cook labeled the most vulnerable are in R+ districts, ones in D+ seats are further down the list. Plus, polarization is a lot more set in and even moderate Republicans lost D+ seats this years (CT-5, MA-6).

That's true, but it doesn't deny the fact that Democrats hold more marginal (R+) seats than Republicans do. From which it follows that without a very good environment for the Democrats they will largely be playing defense in 2014.

IL-10 is not a swing seat.  That's like calling PA-12 a swing seat.  IL-10 not only went for Obama with 63% and 58%, but even went for John Kerry by about 10 points.  TX-23 has been usually held by Hispanic Democrats(or half Hispanic if you count Kazan who held the seat from 1968 to 1984) and the two times Democrats lost it in the past were to due to a scandal(1992) and a huge GOP wave and a weak incumbent in 2010. 

With regards to AZ-01, Kirkpatrick only lost by six in the 2010 wipeout in a seat that was four points more Republican.  In the current district, she would have won even in 2010. 

Even in the 2010 wipeout of a century, Republicans were not winning many D PVI districts.  If they couldnt do it then, what makes you think they will in 2014 when they will have a harder time due to the fact that they are an unpopular House majority? 

At the local level at least, PA-12 and IL-10 are still kinda swingy, though I don't expect them to flip in 2014.

House GOP 243 Dems 192 GOP +9
Senate GOP pickups, Louisiana, Massachusetts,South Dakota, West Virginia.
Dem Pickups ME( I think Collins pulls a Snowe and waits until the last possible moment to retire)
Net Senate Dems 50 GOP 48 Independents 2
GOP +3

True. Though I think Matheson's machine might not quite quite as well in a non-presidential year and in a district that was rendered even more conservative than his old one was. I do hope Matheson survives, then runs for Governor in 2016 though. We need another Dem Governor.

Oh, and as a side note, on another forum, I compiled a list of the possible 2014 GOP challengers to Matheson, and my (heavily biased) opinions on each one. Here it is:


Mia Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Love): Mia Love is currently still Mayor of Saratoga Springs (I think her term comes up this year, but it may be a five year term that ends in 2015), and seeing as how she lost by only about 700 votes last year, it's very likely she'll try again. And to be honest, I think she may just beat Matheson this time. If she doesn't though, I predict she'll try for a different seat. She's young and popular though, so she has a lot of options open. I think she might try for Governor in 2016.

Merrill Cook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrill_Cook): Merrill Cook (no relation to gubernatorial candidate Peter Cooke) is one of those odd guys who held elective office a while back and can't seem to shake the desire to hold office again, even when it's absolutely certain that they'll never be an elected politician ever again. He's also a crazy guy who lost at convention to a Republican that lost badly to Matheson, who took Cook's seat in 2000. Every two years since then, Cook tries and fails to get elected to something (including Matheson's seat), and provides a good joke every time. This time he ran for Salt Lake County Mayor and lost to a guy with anger issues and a guy who literally published falsehoods under a false name. Cook hates Matheson, so he may try again for Matheson's new seat. He's the same age as Bill Clinton and Dubya though, so he may retire for good soon.

Morgan Philpot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Philpot): Philpot is like Merrill Cook, in that he hates Matheson and really sucks at getting elected to anything. Philpot's difference is that he's younger, has never been elected to federal Congress, and hates Governor Herbert and Obama more than Matheson. I think he's likelier than Cook to run against Matheson, but will serve the same role.

Carl Wimmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wimmer): He's a former state Rep (resigned to run against Matheson this last year in fact), but lost to Mia Love at convention. He's also the guy who wanted to effectively criminalize miscarriages (http://www.alternet.org/story/145966/meet_the_man_behind_utah%27s_new_law_criminalizing_miscarriages). Yeah, seriously. He had some hilarity going on after his loss to Mia Love regarding his false claim of being hired by the Nevada GOP to fix their state party (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557082/Carl-Wimmer-blames-nonfunctional-Nevada-GOP-for-his-not-getting-job.html?pg=all), but he's young, and I think he'll be back.

Stephen Sandstrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sandstrom): Like Wimmer, Sandstrom is a former state representative. He also lost to Mia Love and is (was) also kind of crazy, since he's the guy who wanted to bring the Arizona-style immigration laws to Utah even after the LDS Church and a large portion of the rest of the state went "no that's stupid". Since then he's apparently met with several illegal immigrants and changed his tune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54025401-90/sandstrom-utah-immigration-law.html.csp). I'm thinking that tune-changing may be part of a future bid for Congress, but I doubt it. He's (now) hated by the influential enforcement-only crowd in the Utah GOP and his old buddies would love to campaign against him.

Aaron Osmond (http://www.aaronosmond.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=4&Itemid=5): Yes, we seriously have an Osmond as a state senator here in Utah. This is not a joke. He actually represents part of my home city of West Jordan (though he isn't my own state senator), and has a decent reputation. He's actually charismatic and fairly reform-minded (for a Utah Republican), wanting to ban "boxcar bills" (basically opening a bill file, giving it a generic title, then waiting until the end of the legislative session to give it bill language), so he could have a chance if he wanted to run on a "clean slate" campaign. Also young-ish and etc. Doesn't have any scandals besides wanting to gut sex education in schools. I think he may try for Governor in 2016, or Senator in 2018.

Thomas Wright: He doesn't have a Wiki or other page (only a Twitter page), but he's the Utah GOP State Chairman. He's done a pretty good job (though in Utah, you only have to have a pulse to do a fine job as GOP party chair), and seems to be a good advocate for the GOP. He's young and noncontroversial. His Democratic counterpart Jim Dabakis has gotten elected office, so I think he may want to "one-up" now-State Senator Dabakis by knocking down the Utah Dem's last hope in Congress. My gut feeling is that he's going to try for Governor in 2016 (especially if Herbert retires) though.

Mike Winder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Winder): I didn't have Mike Winder in the original list, but he could very well be a contender for Matheson's seat. He's the current Mayor of West Valley City, Utah's second largest city and a growing multicultural hub (if I remember correctly, it's population of Hispanics and other minorities is the biggest in Utah. Winder is young, dynamic, moderate, has really helped his city.... And he published articles promoting his city under a false name (Richard Burwash). Winder lost the GOP primary for Salt Lake County Mayor this year partially because of the Burwash thing, but time will probably heal that wound and Winder might try for Matheson's seat, though I think he'll try again for County Mayor in 2016.

There's also rumors of Josh Romney wanting to build a political future in Utah, and he was approached to run against Matheson in 2010 (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695256036/Josh-Romney-mulling-politics.html?pg=all), but I don't think he'll go for it this time. He's even more of a political newbie than the rest of these weak candidates (apart from Mia Love, who I think is learning from her mistakes last year), and Matheson has faced every single one of them down.


Possibly, but he strikes me as the kind of politician that can be roped into a scandal easily.

^^I'm surprised you think Matheson will fare worse in 2014 than 2012.  2012 was the absolute worst year a Democrat could run in probably the history of Utah.  Although Romney was not too popular nationally, he was Utah's "favorite son" - the first Mormon presidential candidate, and Republican turnout was much higher than in any past year.

I don't think anyone can predict the results of 2014 yet but I can say which seats are the most likely to be lost by both parties:

SENATE:
Democrats (most likely to least likely):
1. West Virginia
2. South Dakota
3. Louisiana
4. Alaska

I don't think there's really any danger for Dems beyond that.
Republicans:
1. Maine
2. Kentucky - outside chance, only if it's a really good year for Dems

HOUSE

Most vulnerable Democrats:

1. West Virginia 3 (if Rahall retires to run for Senate)
2. Florida 18 - Patrick Murphy (if Republicans get a sane candidate)
3. A bunch of seats that are very marginal and could become vulnerable if it's a bad year for Dems:
- California (Peters, Ruiz, Bera)
- Arizona (Synema, Kirkpatrick)
- Texas (Gallego)
- New York (S.P. Maloney)
- North Carolina (McIntyre)

Most vulnerable Republicans:
1. California 31 - Gary Miller
2. Michigan 11 - Kerry Bentivolio
3. Illinois 14 - Rodney Davis
4. Michigan 1 - Benishek
5. Indiana 2 - Jackie Walorski
6. Nebraska 2 - Lee Terry
7. Kentucky 6 - Andy Barr
8. West Virginia 2 - OPEN SEAT
9. Florida 2 - Southerland

Oh, I don't think he'll lose, but I'm just saying that his political machine, just like most modern Democratic political machines, doesn't work as well in non-presidential years. Yes he had higher vote percentages before, but that was with a tremendously better district. This was his first election with his new district, and he barely won even using all the tricks he's got.

And there's some indication some possible Love voters stayed home because they wanted to vote for Romney more than Love, but didn't see the point in voting because Romney would easily win in the state. So that's why I'm saying that if he's going to lose, it'll be in 2014. I still expect Matheson to win, and probably win comfortably (comfortably for him at least).

Either way, that earlier post wasn't claiming Matheson would lose, it was more a "who's who" of Matheson challengers, and pointing out that he'd have trouble against the strongest contenders.

Rahall would be an absolute idiot to run for Senate.  He wouldnt carry a single county outside of his Congressional district and would probably be lucky to run even in House own district against someone like Caputo. 

MI-11 doesn't belong here at all. CO-06 might.

Dem pickups: Kentucky, Maine if Collina retires

Republican Pickups: WV, Alaska, LA, SD, AR. Pick a number between one and three of these.

House is right
Dems lose four SD and WVa and any two out of AK, NC, LA, or MT.

Senate- Republicans+6

Massachusetts, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, South Dakota, and West Virginia (However if Brown and Cotton don't run, those seats are ours and I could see Begich and Landrieu pulling out an upsets, though I wouldn't bet on them right now).

House- Republicans+2

Democratic Gains- Gary Miller, Mike Coffman, Tom Reed, and Bill Young (with retirement)
Republican Gains- Ann Kirkpatrick, Mike McIntyre, Nick Rahall, Collin Peterson (with retirement), Ron Barber, and Patrick Murphy

Never struck me as the kind of guy to retire (and I highly doubt the seat'd go Dem even if he did.

The NRCC's target list is out. Among their top 7 targets, there are no D+ seats.

http://www.nrcc.org/2013/01/15/2012-presidential-results-by-congressional-district/

Who are potential candidates for the seat if he were actually to retire? I put it as a gain because I though Ehrlich did okay this year, considering who she was running against, and if/when he retired, it would be ripe for a pickup.

Didn't the NRCC have to dissuade Young from retiring, too?

Didn't hear about the NRCC thing, but Bill Young strikes me as the kind of guy who'll stay in Congress (as chair of Defense Appropriations) well beyond the point where he should retire (namely, when he starts seeing things that aren't there (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/us-rep-bill-young-says-hes-the-victim-of-burglaries-police-disagree/1253210)), and the people will happily keep re-electing him (a local blogger compared him keeping his seat as Chair of the Defense subcommittee like Tampa Bay hosting a Super Bowl).

The thing about Ehrlich is, she did well electorally, but she ran a pretty nasty campaign. Her mailers were not the kind of thing you run against someone as well-respected and beloved as Bill Young. If the seat suddenly went vacant, the Democrats would probably run someone like former State Rep. and possible St. Petersburg Mayoral candidate Rick Kriseman or County Commissioner Charlie Justice. The Republicans could easily win the seat with State Sen. Jeff Brandes (Tea Party type, multimillionaire), State Sen. Jack Latvala (moderate Senate R leader) or former St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker.

Here is a list of all Congresscritters in opposite districts....

7 Romney Democrats:
Barber, Kirkpatrick, Murphy, Barrow, Peterson, McIntyre, and Matheson.

14 Obama Republicans:
Denham, Valadao, Miller, Coffman, Young, Ros-Lehtinen, Latham, Kline, Paulsen, Heck, Gibson, Grimm, Rigell, and Reichert

Likely RD: Gallego
Likely OR: Runyan, LoBiondio, maybe King.

These guys could all be in trouble in 2014 or 2016, or in some cases, they are prime opportunities to flip when the incumbent retires.

I believe Lavalta lives in the Bilirakis seat, not this one. 

You missed Rahall.

Latvala lives in Clearwater, which is in Young's seat. His current Senate district includes the Pinellas parts of Bilirakis and the northern half of Young's, but he's R-Clearwater.

I think Lee Terry(R-NE 2) is very vunerable. He only won his seat by 2 points last year.

CA 31- I don't know on paper Miller looks vunerable but election time you don't know how thats gonna turn out. He is probably in a seat that is the most moderate district a Republican currently holds.

MI 11 only looks appetizing to the Dems because of the reindeer ranching tea partier that currently holds the seat.

I think the Republicans should eye CA-26 next cycle. Brownley is too liberal to hold that seat I think. Strickland was a "Moderate Conservative" and he still lost. Signing the "Norquist Tax Pledge" I think made him look polarizing.

Sean Patrick Maloney's seat we need more of an Economic Moderate R to win that seat. Hayworth was mostly a straight down the line Tea Partier. She wasn't a good fit for the district.

I would think Lee Terry is only vulnerable in Democratic wave years or presidential cycles. With the lower turnout, I think he'll be okay in 2014, but a heavy target in 2016.

State Senator Heath Mello would be a very attractive candidate. He's only 33 and was chosen to chair the Appropriations Committee in the Republican-controlled (technically nonpartisan) legislature. His district is in southern Omaha.

CA-26 will probably not go back to Republicans absent a GOP wave. 

Maloney will be a far tougher target for Republicans than Hall was for several reasons.  The first is that the district shifted about a point to the left in redistricting.  The other big reason is that Maloney will raise an enormous amount of money, unlike Hall, who hated having to raise money and was a generally lazy campaigner. 

The Tea Party will blow at least 2 Senate seats for the Republicans.  There's no reason to expect anything else.

CO jane norton and NC Virginia Foxx and maybe Nh guinta.

Colorado probably wont matter much.  That state is getting tougher and tougher for the GOP every cycle. 

I think it's too early to tell specific results so I ranked them in order of safeness. I personally don't think the Republicans will take over unless there's another 2010. You know the deal, likely means all the cards have to fall right, lean means there's some time for the other side to take it. Bold means pickups, italics are hypothetical depending on who wins.

Safe R: Wyoming, Idaho, Kansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, SCG, Mississippi, Texas, SCS, Maine
Likely R: Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia
Lean R: South Dakota, Scott Brown
Toss-up: Alaska, Louisiana
Lean D: Arkansas, North Carolina, Montana
Likely D: Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado
Safe D: Michigan, Virginia, New Mexico, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, Ed Markey, Illinois, Rhode Island

First predictions, how are they?

Good, but I think MA would be a tossup at best if Brown ran.

This is the first time my district's representative wasn't in the majority. So just pick a fairly electable fellow and hope for a good Republican year. Or don't, and let me be represented by a Democrat. That's okay too xD

....I miss John Hall.

The italics were for were whoever the incumbent is in 2014. If Brown wins, it's Lean R (except for a tossup), and if it's Markey it's a safe Democratic seat.  For the special election this year I think it's a tossup between the two.

Ah, that makes more sense.

Republican Hamilton Fish held this seat from 1968 to 1994 and he was in the minority the whole time. 

*first time since 1994. And Sean Patrick Maloney's situation is the opposite.

Well CA-26 did start out R+3 in redistricting I think. I don't think Brentwood is liberal either. I think the district is pretty "centrist" fiscally and doesn't want a hard line fiscal liberal. They only voted for Brownley I think because of Strickland signing "The Norquist Tax Pledge"as I said before.

Yeah John Hall got lucky because 2006 and 2008 were Dem wave years.

CA-26 was D+2 after redistricting and Strickland tried to fashion himself a moderate, but his record in the legislature was very conservative. CA-26 consist mostly of Ventura County and Oxnard weighs pretty heavily on the balance of the district. The NRCC didn't even buy airtime in that race.

Strickland only lost by 4(52-48%) though I think.

It was actually 5.4%, 52.7% to 47.3%.

Senate: 51 GOP, 47 DEM, 2 IND (really DEM)

House: 248 GOP, 187 DEM

The non-incumbent party always gains in a midterm (especially in the House, but in the Senate too).

Republicans are the incumbent party in the House. 

Good yr for Dems as far as governorships and senate. Dems will control 49 seats 2 Ind and 49 GOP.

Pretty sure he's talking about the White House.