2014 Senate and House Predictions

[osideguy92]

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)

[Talleyrand]

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

[JerryArkansas]

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)

[Vosem]

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.

[Horus]

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

[Gass3268]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Donerail]

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

[RogueBeaver]

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

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. 

[Vosem]

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.

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

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. 

[Vosem]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[Miles]

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. 

[Vosem]

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.

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.

[Miles]

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.

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).

[DrScholl]

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.

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.

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.

[Vosem]

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.

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.

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 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).

[Zioneer]

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).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

[Vosem]

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.

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).

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).

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

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

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

[DrScholl]

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).

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).

[Vosem]

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).

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

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?