Skip to main content

As people who have been around awhile are aware, I follow House races closely.  This is the first installment of a feature I’ve done in the past.  It is a ranking of the composite ratings of House races by the four major rating organizations—the Cook Report, the Rothenberg Report, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, and Roll Call/Congressional Quarterly—plus Daily Kos' own ratings.  A likely hold is 15 points; a lean hold is 30; a toosup is 45; a lean takeover is 60; a likely takeover is 75; and a safe takeover is 90.  The Rothenberg Report includes in-between categories that get in between scores.  The races are listed in order of most likely to flip to the other party to least.  

As this is a post-redistricting year, the exercise of determining what is a Republican seat and what is a Democratic seat was trickier than most.  My rules for doing so (in order) were: 1. A seat in which an incumbent of one party is running against a non-incumbent is considered to be held by the incumbent's party;  2.  The overall composition of the House is 242-193 GOP.  Therefore, I made sure that 242 seats are considered for this exercise to be held by the GOP and 193 by the Dems; 3. If an open seat had a natural predecessor seat, it is held by the outgoing incumbent's party; 4. If an open seat is new, either because the state gained a new seat in redistricting or because the redistricting process scrambled things enough that there is no natural predecessor seat, I assigned it based on the "PVI", which given the new nature of the districts is simply the Democratic share of the 2-party vote in 2008 adjusted for a 50-50 election; and 5. The two incumbent-vs.-incumbent races, IA-03 and OH-16, were randomly assigned to opposite camps in accordance with rules 2 and 4 above with IA-03 being considered a Dem seat and OH-16 a GOP one.  Obviously, it is debatable which of the two races presents a better chance for a Dem victory.

As discussed more fully below, a historical analysis of these compilations suggests that if these ratings remained exactly where they are now, the Democrats would, on average win a net of 4 seats--win 20 and lose 16.

Here is the bottom line:  I did this exercise all the way up to election day in 2006, 2008, and 2010.  In comparing the final ratings to the results, I made the following observations:  

-100% of the races ranked as likely takeover were won by the challenging party.
-95% of the races ranked as lean takeover (41/43) were won by the challenging party (the exceptions were Don Young’s (R AK AL) win in 2008 and Bob Dold's victory in IL 10 last time).
-63% of the races ranked as any of tossup/lean takeover, tossup, or tossup/lean hold (53/84) were won by the challenging party.  I did not see any significant variance among those classifications.
-24% of the races ranked as lean hold (13/42) were won by the challenging party.
-6% of the races ranked as lean/likely hold, likely hold, or likely/safe hold (6/97) were won by the challenging party.

Applying those probabilities to the below list yields the referenced 4 seat net gain.  That said, there are indicators that the gains could be far greater.  We are six weeks out and in each of the three years the raters' ratings shifted dramatically in favor of the party with the wind at their backs.  For example, using the projections I had based on 2006 and 2008 reslts in 2010 yielded a projected R pickup of 32 at the beginning of October but the same methodology shifted to +47 by Election Day based on ratings shifts.  (Obviously, the GOP ultimately overperformed that projection and as a result, the model forecasts a higher likelihood of turnover this year).

The generic house polls are an indicator to watch.'s composite currently shows Dems up 0.5% (45.1-44.6).  If you remove Rasmussen, however, that number climbs to 2.5% (46-43.5).  Larry Sabato's site recently put up a chart summarizing the generic ballot's relationship to the actual cumulative vote in all House races to the net seats gained:  

I think a more relevant comparison would be to the number of seats one by each party than to the net change from the last time; one of the reasons the net gain for the Ds was relatively low in 2008 was because they went in with a decent sized majority; one of the reason the net gain for the Rs was so high in 2010 was because they went in holding the lowest number of seats either party had had in a generation.  So, using the Sabato numbers for Generic Poll composite and Cumulative House vote as well as the seat split:

2002: Final Generic Polls: R+1.7; Actual Total Vote: R+6.4; Seats: R 230, D 205 (R+5.6% of the seats).
2004: Final Generic Polls: Even; Actual Total Vote: R+2.7; Seats: R 232, D 203 (R+6.7).
2006: Final Generic Polls: D+11.5; Actual Total Vote: D+7.9; Seats: D 233, R 202 (D+7.1).
2008: Final Generic Polls: D+9.0; Actual Total Vote: D+11.0; Seats: D 257, R 178 (D+18.2).
2010: Final Generic Polls: R+9.4; Actual Total Vote: R+6.8; Seats: R 242, D 193 (R+11.3).

What is interesting is that in the two most recent cycles, the Dems outperformed the generic polls in actual vote.  Also, while the party that won the national House vote also won control of the chamber each time, there has been a great deal of fluctuation between the national house vote percentage and the percentage of seats won in 3 of the 5 years.  2004 can be explained in part by the Texas DeLaymander that occurred that year, which added 6 seats to the GOP column and took them away from the Dems took what otherwise would have been a D gain and reversed it.  Not sure about why 2008 and 2010 produced a result of such greater magnitude for the winning party than the national vote would suggest.

In any event, if the Ds open up a decent lead in the generic ballot, the individual ratings will gravitate in their direction--and vice versa.  

In any event, here are the races as they currently stand, separated by party and ranked by vulnerability under the composite ratings:

Republican Seats
Category 1: The Goners (and Likely Goners)
1.  MD-06  PVI: 53.5.  Bartlett* (R) vs. Delaney (D).  Vulnerability Score: 375.  Consensus: Likely D.  
2.  IL-08  PVI: 59.0.  Walsh* (R) vs. Duckworth (D).  Vulnerability Score: 360.
3.  NY-24  PVI: 53.5.  Buerkle* (R) vs. Maffei (D).  Vulnerability Score: 278.  Consensus: Lean D.
4.  AZ-01  PVI: 44.8.  Paton (R) vs. Kirkpatrick (D).  Vulnerability Score: 270.  Consensus: Lean D.
5.  IL-10  PVI: 60.0.  Dold* (R) vs. Schneider (D).  Vulnerability Score: 270.  Consensus: Lean D.    Consensus: Likely D.  

Category 2: The Toughest to Hold

6.  NH-02  PVI: 52.9.  Bass, Charlie* (R) vs. Kuster (D).  Vulnerability Score: 248.  Consensus: Tossup.  
7.  IL-17  PVI: 57.6.  Schilling* (R) vs. Bustos (D).  Vulnerability Score: 248.  Consensus: Tossup.  
8.  FL-26  PVI: 46.4.  Rivera* (R) vs. Garcia (D).  Vulnerability Score: 240.  Consensus: Tossup.  
9.  CA-52  PVI: 52.5.  Bilbray* (R) vs. Peters (D).  Vulnerability Score: 240.  Consensus: Tossup.
10.  IL-11  PVI: 58.6.  Biggert* (R) vs. Foster (D).  Vulnerability Score: 240.  Consensus: Tossup.  
11.  MI-01  PVI: 47.4.  Benishek* (R) vs. McDowell (D).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.  
12.  CA-26  PVI: 54.1.  Strickland (R) vs. Brownley (D).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.
13.  MN-08  PVI: 50.4.  Cravaack* (R) vs. Nolan (D).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.  
14.  OH-16  PVI: 44.3.  Renacci* (R) vs. Sutton* (D).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.  
15.  CA-07  PVI: 48.9.  Lungren* (R) vs. Bera (D).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.  
16.  TX-23  PVI: 46.9.  Canseco* (R) vs. Gallego (D).  Vulnerability Score: 217.  Consensus: Tossup.  
17.  NY-18  PVI: 48.9.  Hayworth* (R) vs. Maloney (D).  Vulnerability Score: 210.  Consensus: Tossup.  
18.  NH-01  PVI: 49.9.  Guinta* (R) vs. Shea-Porter (D).  Vulnerability Score: 195.  Consensus: Tossup.  
19.  CO-06  PVI: 50.9.  Coffman* (R) vs. Miklosi (D).  Vulnerability Score: 195.  Consensus: Tossup.  
20.  NY-19  PVI: 50.4.  Gibson* (R) vs. Schreibman (D).  Vulnerability Score: 195.  Consensus: Tossup.  
21.  NV-03  PVI: 50.9.  Heck* (R) vs. Oceguera (D).  Vulnerability Score: 187.  Consensus: Tossup/Lean R.  
22.  FL-18  PVI: 47.9.  West* (R) vs. Murphy (D).  Vulnerability Score: 187.  Consensus: Tossup/Lean R.  

Category 3: Competitive but a Hold is More Likely than Not
23.  IL-13  PVI: 51.9.  Davis, Rodney (R) vs. Gill (D).  Vulnerability Score: 172.  Consensus: Lean R.  
24.  CA-10  PVI: 47.896391752577316.  Denham* (R) vs. Hernandez (D).  Vulnerability Score: 172.  Consensus: Lean R.
25.  CO-03  PVI: 45.3.  Tipton* (R) vs. Pace (D).  Vulnerability Score: 165.  Consensus: Lean R.  
26.  IA-04  PVI: 45.3.  King, Steve* (R) vs. Vilsack (D).  Vulnerability Score: 157.  Consensus: Lean R.  
27.  NY-11  PVI: 44.8.  Grimm* (R) vs. Murphy (D).  Vulnerability Score: 157.  Consensus: Lean R.  
28.  OH-06  PVI: 42.3.  Johnson, Bill* (R) vs. Wilson (D).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean R.  
29.  PA-08  PVI: 49.9.  Fitzpatrick* (R) vs. Boockvar (D).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean R.  
30.  WI-07  PVI: 50.4.  Duffy* (R) vs. Kreitlow (D).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean R.  
31.  VA-02  PVI: 46.9.  Rigell* (R) vs. Hirschbiel (D).  Vulnerability Score: 135.  Consensus: Lean R.  
32.  NJ-03  PVI: 47.9.  Runyan* (R) vs. Adler (D).  Vulnerability Score: 135.  Consensus: Lean R.  
33.  MI-11  PVI: 47.4.  Bentivolio (R) vs. Taj (D).  Vulnerability Score: 127.  Consensus: Lean R.  
34.  IN-08  PVI: 44.8.  Bucshon* (R) vs. Crooks (D).  Vulnerability Score: 120.  Consensus: Lean R.  
35.  WI-08  PVI: 50.9.  Ribble* (R) vs. Wall (D).  Vulnerability Score: 120.  Consensus: Lean R.  
36.  CA-36  PVI: 47.9.  Bono Mack* (R) vs. Ruiz (D).  Vulnerability Score: 120.  Consensus: Lean R.  

Category 4: The Potential Upsets
37.  FL-16  PVI: 44.8.  Buchanan* (R) vs. Fitzgerald (D).  Vulnerability Score: 105.  Consensus: Likely R.  
38.  FL-02  PVI: 43.8.  Southerland* (R) vs. Lawson (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
39.  FL-10  PVI: 43.8.  Webster* (R) vs. Demings (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
40.  OH-07  PVI: 44.3.  Gibbs* (R) vs. Healy-Abrams (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
41.  MN-06  PVI: 40.2.  Bachmann* (R) vs. Graves (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
42.  MT-AL  PVI: 45.3.  Daines (R) vs. Gillan (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
43.  ND-AL  PVI: 42.3.  Cramer (R) vs. Gulleson (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
44.  PA-06  PVI: 49.9.  Gerlach* (R) vs. Trivedi (D).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely R.  
45.  MN-02  PVI: 47.4.  Kline* (R) vs. Obermueller (D).  Vulnerability Score: 60.  Consensus: Likely R.  
46.  TX-14  PVI: 38.9.  Weber (R) vs. Lampson (D).  Vulnerability Score: 60.  Consensus: Likely R.  
47.  MI-03  PVI: 46.9.  Amash* (R) vs. Pestka (D).  Vulnerability Score: 60.  Consensus: Likely R.  
48.  SD-AL  PVI: 42.3.  Noem* (R) vs. Varilek (D).  Vulnerability Score: 45.  Consensus: Likely R.  

Category 5: The Longshots that Could Yield an Upset or Two in a Wave
49.  CA-21  PVI: 49.4.  Valadao (R) vs. Hernandez (D).  Vulnerability Score: 30.  Consensus: Safe R.  
50.  NY-22  PVI: 46.4.  Hanna* (R) vs. Lamb (D).  Vulnerability Score: 30.  Consensus: Safe R.  
51.  NY-23  PVI: 46.9.  Reed* (R) vs. Shinagawa (D).  Vulnerability Score: 30.  Consensus: Safe R.  
52.  PA-18  PVI: 40.8.  Murphy, Tim* (R) vs. Maggi (D).  Vulnerability Score: 30.  Consensus: Safe R.  
53.  AR-01  PVI: 36.6.  Crawford* (R) vs. Ellington (D).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe R.  
54.  FL-13  PVI: 48.4.  Young, Bill* (R) vs. Ehrlich (D).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe R.  
55.  NE-02  PVI: 46.9.  Terry* (R) vs. Ewing (D).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe R.  
56.  NJ-07  PVI: 43.8.  Lance* (R) vs. Chivukula (D).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe R.  
57.  PA-07  PVI: 47.9.  Meehan* (R) vs. Badey (D).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe R.  
58.  WA-08  PVI: 48.4.  Reichert* (R) vs. Porterfield (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.  
59.  MN-03  PVI: 48.4.  Paulsen* (R) vs. Barnes (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.
60.  WI-01  PVI: 47.9.  Ryan, Paul* (R) vs. Zerban (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.
61.  CA-25  PVI: 46.9.  McKeon* (R) vs. Rogers (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.  
62.  OH-10  PVI: 46.4.  Turner, Mike* (R) vs. Neuhardt (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.  
63.  OH-14  PVI: 46.4.  Joyce (R) vs. Blanchard (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.
64.  VA-05  PVI: 44.8.  Hurt* (R) vs. Douglass (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.  
65.  CA-45  PVI: 43.8.  Campbell* (R) vs. Kang (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.  
66.  NC-09  PVI: 41.8.  Pittenger (R) vs. Roberts (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.
67.  SC-07  PVI: 41.8.  Rice (R) vs. Tinubu (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.
68.  CO-04  PVI: 38.8.  Gardner* (R) vs. Shaffer (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.
69.  MO-04  PVI: 38.8.  Hartzler* (R) vs. Hensley (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.  
70.  TN-04  PVI: 32.7.  DesJarlais* (R) vs. Stewart (D).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe R.

Democratic Seats
Category 1: The Goners (and Likely Goners)  
1.  AR-04  PVI: 34.5.  Jeffress (D) vs. Cotton (R).  Vulnerability Score: 435.  Consensus: Safe R.  
2.  NC-13  PVI: 41.8.  Malone (D) vs. Holding (R).  Vulnerability Score: 435.  Consensus: Safe R.  
3.  NC-11  PVI: 37.2.  Rogers (D) vs. Meadows (R).  Vulnerability Score: 375.  Consensus: Likely R.  
4.  OK-02  PVI: 30.4.  Wallace (D) vs. Mullin (R).  Vulnerability Score: 345.  Consensus: Likely R.  
5.  IN-02  PVI: 46.9.  Mullen (D) vs. Walorski (R).  Vulnerability Score: 345.  Consensus: Likely R.  
6.  NC-08  PVI: 38.8.  Kissell* (D) vs. Hudson (R).  Vulnerability Score: 345.  Consensus: Likely R.  
7.  GA-12  PVI: 40.4.  Barrow* (D) vs. Anderson (R).  Vulnerability Score: 285.  Consensus: Lean R.  

Category 2: The Toughest to Hold
8.  IA-03  PVI: 49.4.  Boswell (D) vs. Latham* (R).  Vulnerability Score: 263.  Consensus: Tossup/Lean R.  
9.  NY-27  PVI: 41.2.  Hochul* (D) vs. Collins (R).  Vulnerability Score: 240.  Consensus: Tossup.  
10.  IL-12  PVI: 51.9.  Enyart (D) vs. Plummer (R).  Vulnerability Score: 233.  Consensus: Tossup.  
11.  UT-04  PVI: 38.6.  Matheson* (D) vs. Love (R).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.  
12.  NC-07  PVI: 38.4.  McIntyre* (D) vs. Rouzer (R).  Vulnerability Score: 225.  Consensus: Tossup.  
13.  MA-06  PVI: 54.5.  Tierney* (D) vs. Tisei (R).  Vulnerability Score: 210.  Consensus: Tossup.  
14.  PA-12  PVI: 41.8.  Critz* (D) vs. Rothfus (R).  Vulnerability Score: 210.  Consensus: Tossup.  
15.  NY-21  PVI: 48.9.  Owens* (D) vs. Doheny (R).  Vulnerability Score: 195.  Consensus: Tossup.  
16.  RI-01  PVI: 64.0.  Cicilline* (D) vs. Doherty (R).  Vulnerability Score: 187.  Consensus: Tossup/Lean D.  

Category 3: Competitive but a Hold is More Likely than Not
17.  AZ-09  PVI: 48.4.  Sinema (D) vs. Parker (R).  Vulnerability Score: 180.  Consensus: Lean D.  
18.  CT-05  PVI: 53.5.  Esty (D) vs. Roraback (R).  Vulnerability Score: 180.  Consensus: Lean D.  
19.  CA-41  PVI: 57.2.  Takano (D) vs. Tavaglione (R).  Vulnerability Score: 172.  Consensus: Lean D.  
20.  NV-04  PVI: 54.1.  Horsford (D) vs. Tarkanian (R).  Vulnerability Score: 165.  Consensus: Lean D.  
21.  CA-09  PVI: 54.1.  McNerney* (D) vs. Gill (R).  Vulnerability Score: 157.  Consensus: Lean D.  
22.  WA-01  PVI: 53.5.  Del Bene (D) vs. Koster (R).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean D.  
23.  CA-24  PVI: 54.1.  Capps* (D) vs. Maldonado (R).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean D.  
24.  FL-22  PVI: 53.3.  Frankel (D) vs. Hasner (R).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean D.  
25.  NY-01  PVI: 47.9.  Bishop, Tim* (D) vs. Altschuler (R).  Vulnerability Score: 150.  Consensus: Lean D.  
26.  IA-02  PVI: 54.5.  Loebsack* (D) vs. Archer (R).  Vulnerability Score: 135.  Consensus: Lean D.  
27.  CA-47  PVI: 56.1.  Lowenthal (D) vs. DeLong (R).  Vulnerability Score: 120.  Consensus: Lean D.  
28.  KY-06  PVI: 41.8.  Chandler* (D) vs. Barr (R).  Vulnerability Score: 120.  Consensus: Lean D.

Category 4: The Potential Upsets
29.  NY-25  PVI: 55.9.  Slaughter* (D) vs. Brooks (R).  Vulnerability Score: 105.  Consensus: Likely D.  
30.  AZ-02  PVI: 45.8.  Barber* (D) vs. McSally (R).  Vulnerability Score: 90.  Consensus: Likely D.  
31.  CO-07  PVI: 54.5.  Perlmutter* (D) vs. Coors (R).  Vulnerability Score: 90.  Consensus: Likely D.  
32.  CA-03  PVI: 53.1.  Garamendi* (D) vs. Vann (R).  Vulnerability Score: 90.  Consensus: Likely D.  
33.  IA-01  PVI: 55.5.  Braley* (D) vs. Lange (R).  Vulnerability Score: 75.  Consensus: Likely D.  
34.  FL-09  PVI: 57.0.  Grayson (D) vs. Long (R).  Vulnerability Score: 60.  Consensus: Likely D.  
35.  WV-03  PVI: 39.2.  Rahall* (D) vs. Snuffer (R).  Vulnerability Score: 60.  Consensus: Likely D.  
36.  WA-06  PVI: 54.5.  Kilmer (D) vs. Driscoll (R).  Vulnerability Score: 45.  Consensus: Likely D.  

Category 5: The Longshots that Could Yield an Upset or Two in a Wave
37.  CA-16  PVI: 55.1.  Costa* (D) vs. Whelan (R).  Vulnerability Score: 30.  Consensus: Safe D.  
38.  ME-02  PVI: 52.5.  Michaud* (D) vs. Raye (R).  Vulnerability Score: 30.  Consensus: Safe D.  
39.  CT-04  PVI: 56.4.  Himes* (D) vs. Obsitnik (R).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe D.  
40.  MN-01  PVI: 48.4.  Walz* (D) vs. Quist (R).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe D.  
41.  NY-17  PVI: 54.9.  Lowey* (D) vs. Carvin (R).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe D.  
42.  WA-10  PVI: 54.5.  Heck (D) vs. Muri (R).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe D.  
43.  NM-01  PVI: 57.0.  Grisham (D) vs. Arnold-Jones (R).  Vulnerability Score: 15.  Consensus: Safe D.  
44.  MN-07  PVI: 44.8.  Peterson* (D) vs. Byberg (R).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe D.  
45.  OR-04  PVI: 52.0.  DeFazio* (D) vs. Robinson (R).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe D.  
46.  HI-01  PVI: 67.8.  Hanabusa* (D) vs. Djou (R).  Vulnerability Score: 5.  Consensus: Safe D.  

Originally posted to Superribbie on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 03:53 PM PDT.

Also republished by Headwaters.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (19+ / 0-)

    I'mma let you finish, Barack, but the teabaggers have done about the most for international peace of all time.--The collective GOP 10/9/09

    by Superribbie on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 03:53:22 PM PDT

  •  I'd been wondering where you were (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, Alma

    So glad to see you back.  I haven't really known which House progressives to support where my donations would do the most good, aside from Raul Grijalva.  Any suggestions?

    For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

    by Dallasdoc on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 03:59:22 PM PDT

    •  Kathy Hochul and John Tierney (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Land of Enchantment, Alma

      could certainly use some love if you're looking for incumbents.

      Generally speaking, I'd look at my categories 2 and 3 of the GOP seats and 2 of the Dem seats.  I think that's where the action will be.

      I'mma let you finish, Barack, but the teabaggers have done about the most for international peace of all time.--The collective GOP 10/9/09

      by Superribbie on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:08:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks so much (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Land of Enchantment, Alma

        I'm looking forward to seeing your reports and how races progress.  Appreciate you following the hardest category to cover.

        For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

        by Dallasdoc on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:14:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, Doc (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I've been skimming through.  Christine Vilsack might be fun, since she's going after that hyper-noxious Steven King.  

      "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther Party (quoted by Paul Ryan without proper attribution)

      by Land of Enchantment on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:53:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't know much about her (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Land of Enchantment

        ... but her last name is hardly a progressive credential.  

        Hope things are going well for you and himself, LoE.

        For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

        by Dallasdoc on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 05:04:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A-OK (0+ / 0-)

          True enough on the DLC-ness.  The appeal is that it's King and he's so monumentally noxious.  But I suppose it does fall short of your criterion.

          I've always followed the House pretty closely in the past.  But I've not put in the effort to get familiar with the post-redistricting terrain.  So I don't really know much, and so am glad to see this report.

          "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther Party (quoted by Paul Ryan without proper attribution)

          by Land of Enchantment on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 06:03:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm happy to see you list Beurkle as a goner. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    She's NY-24. I'm worried about Owens,too, NY-21, I see many Doheny signs around.

    Oh for crying out loud!

    by 4mygirls on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:45:50 PM PDT

  •  Excellent... good to see your work (0+ / 0-)


    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 05:26:40 PM PDT

  •  At the moment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I suspect a good amount of the seats listed as "tossup" (for both sides) will come our way.  The ratings forecasters have been cautious to push competitive seats out of Tossup except for the really obvious ones.  For instance, I think every seat in the top half of GOP's category 2 is leaning our way, some of them strongly so (such as the first five).  Only the bottom half of category 2 would I consider more tossup-ish.

    As for Dem seats, the last few in the tossup category (as well as IL-12) are clearly leaning our way as well.  Even Barrow might hang on, despite him being in the "Likely Gone" category...

    In any case, it's good to see everything all laid out like this.  If both sides split the tossups and such, we probably are headed for only a single digit gain.  But if they drift our way...then it's teens for sure, and possibly over 20.

  •  Watch for the coattail effect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There might be some surprises here and there favoring the Democrats, assuming that Obama wins. In presidential years, down-ticket candidates from the winning candidate’s party tend to get a boost. In midterm elections, candidates from the opposite party get a boost.

    There are some low-information voters who only vote in presidential elections. They choose which presidential candidate they like, then a lot of them tend to vote for other people from the same party. So the winning President has coattails that help his party.

    In midterms, voter turnout goes down (because some people only vote every four years for President).  Usually the turnout is around 53% in presidential years and about 38% in midterm years. The out-of-office party (OOP) voters, the ones who don’t like the current President are more motivated to vote. (I think 2002 was an exception to the rule because the election occurred about a year after 9/11). Some examples:

    1980 Reagan wins – House Republicans +34, Senate Republicans +12
    1982 midterms (Reagan) – H Reps -26, S Reps 0
    1964 LBJ wins – House Democrats +36, Senate Democrats +2
    1966 midterms (LBJ) – H Dems -48, S Dems -3

    There are lots of other examples. Back in 2009 I wrote a diary about it here.

    But the angle said to them, "Do not be Alfred. A sailor has been born to you"

    by Dbug on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:52:32 PM PDT

  •  Two questions (0+ / 0-)

    1) What is your PVI measure?

    2) How do you assign incumbency in new (such as SC-07) or split (such as OH-16) seats?

    Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02, remorseless supporter of Walker's recall. Pocan for Congress and Baldwin for Senate!

    by fearlessfred14 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:40:02 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site