Safe House district double standard

[I’m not Stu]

This annoys me. Why do Democrats concede many safe R districts and not run anyone, while Republicans always contest many safe D districts? Tulsa Democrats rarely run in OK-1, but West Covina Republicans always run in CA-32. I have even heard some here say Democrats should concede ME-2, a swing district Poliquin might possibly lose! Why can't Democrats just run candidates without investing anything? What's with this cowardly defeatist attitude some state Democratic parties have?

[PragmaticPopulist]

I think it's because most state parties have been decimated, and Ds have just not bothered as much as Rs to field candidates in as many places as possible.

[Nyvin]

I think it's because most state parties have been decimated, and Ds have just not bothered as much as Rs to field candidates in as many places as possible.

That's most definitely changing for 2018!

[Crumpets]

I think a big reason is that safe republican districts tend to be immense in size while safe Democratic districts can cover as little as a few neighborhoods in a big city. It would be quite an endeavor to run a sacrificial lamb campaign if you have to cover half a state. On the flipside, a Republican could run a half-decent congressional campaign in my district in their spare time as they commute home from work.

[JerryArkansas]

This a dumb take but go off.

[I’m not Stu]

I think a big reason is that safe republican districts tend to be immense in size while safe Democratic districts can cover as little as a few neighborhoods in a big city. It would be quite an endeavor to run a sacrificial lamb campaign if you have to cover half a state. On the flipside, a Republican could run a half-decent congressional campaign in my district in their spare time as they commute home from work.

Interestingly, of Tulsa's House delegation, OK-3 has Democrats running more frequently than OK-1. OK-3 is even safer for the GOP than OK-1.

[UncleSam]

I feel like there are simply more R districts than D districts, so there's fewer places where Rs have to find a sacrificial lamb for if they want to run a candidate someplace.

Frankly there are not many contest able seats that don't get an opposite party opponent - the only one I can think of from 2016 was Ron Kind in Wisconsin, and he is a Democrat. Can you be more specific as to what you don't like / think Ds should so differently?

[Roronoa D. Law]

Democrats are more inelastic than Republicans simple as that. All states with an even or Dem pvi has had a Republican governor except 4 since 2000. How many Republican states have had a Democratic governors.

[Virginiá]

Democrats are more inelastic than Republicans simple as that. All states with an even or Dem pvi has had a Republican governor except 4 since 2000. How many Republican states have had a Democratic governors.

I'm not sure what you're saying - your post is worded a bit ambiguously. There are a fair number of red states that have had Democratic Governors during the Bush era. Wyoming, Kansas, Arizona, etc. Likewise, under Obama (including 2016), Republicans were able to pick up seats in places like Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, etc. It's possible we could see a Democrat win in a deeply red state in 2018, and if Trump were to somehow serve 2 terms, Democrats could probably make even bigger gains.

It's hard for the party that controls the White House to make inroads in opposition-controlled states. Not only that, but it becomes easier for the out-party to make inroads in the White House party's states. Especially if the midterms are waves.

Although, not to say that there are some states that are just naturally harder to crack, wave or no wave.

[I’m not Stu]

Democrats are more inelastic than Republicans simple as that. All states with an even or Dem pvi has had a Republican governor except 4 since 2000. How many Republican states have had a Democratic governors.

Montana, North Carolina, and Louisiana currently have a Democratic governor.

[Virginiá]

Montana, North Carolina, and Louisiana currently have a Democratic governor.

post-Reconstruction, the vast majority of NC's governors (and state govt as a whole, really) has been Democratic, even up to 2012. Plus, unlike numerous other Southern states, it's electorate is much more closely divided between the two parties.

Since a lot of Southern states only recently completed their transition to Republican-controlled states, I'm not sure they are the best examples, unless maybe you're talking about ones that completed that move in the late 90s/early 2000s.