Final Senate Race Ratings
The 2014 election is, thankfully, in the books and fading in the rearview mirror. For the truly devoted elections nerds, though, the work's just beginning, slicing and dicing the results to see what happened, and where our strengths and weaknesses are. For starters, let's take a look at how the various candidates did individually, and how those candidates did when compared to the expectations that were set for them.
While Daily Kos Elections experimented this year with a quantitative predictive model (which turned out well, narrowly beating all the other models), we also stuck with our tried-and-true qualitative race ratings that we've used every cycle since 2008, using the same "Likely/Lean/Tossup" framework that anyone who follows along with the Charlie Cooks and Larry Sabatos of the world is familiar with. So here's our chance to look back at how those predictions (the final version of which you can see here) panned out.
Most races, of course, are entirely predictable from the very start; they're in a very red or very blue state or congressional district, with an entrenched incumbent and a little-known, underfunded opponent. So that means that by cycle's end, there are usually only a dozen or so Senate races, and under 100 House races, where there's any doubt whatsoever about the result; as for true tossups, those are only a small fraction of the total.
This exercise doesn't just help us know how we did, but also gives us some targeting information for the 2016 elections (and help us as we start thinking about 2016 ratings). It can help us pinpoint Republicans who were supposed to be safe but barely squeaked by, who might have some previously unknown glass jaw that we might exploit next time. It can also help us find which Democrats are at risk of underperforming again.
We'll look at the individual races over the fold, starting with the Senate:
SENATE:
Senate prognostication isn't hard at all; there's such a critical mass of polls for the key races that you can aggregate them with a high level of confidence. Unlike 2012, though, we got one "wrong:" North Carolina. So did our quantitative model, and everybody else's quantitative model, too ... the large majority of polls had Kay Hagan with a lead of a point or two, and while that lead itself wasn't very convincing, there was such a sheer number of polls that we could feel confident about it.
However, that "wrong"ness is only because we added an extra layer of precision to our ratings this year: the "Tossup/Tilt D" and "Tossup/Tilt R" ratings that Stu Rothenberg has used in the past and we also decided to start using. North Carolina was almost a textbook example of how we defined "Tossup/Tilt D:" a race where the polls almost always pointed in the same direction, but by only a very narrow margin. It's not entirely clear why the North Carolina polls were off, but then, the polls were off in a number of other races, usually underestimating the Republicans. In fact, North Carolina was less off than some other states; it was only a big deal because the race was so close to begin with. (For instance, Hagan led the polls by one or two points but lost by one-and-a-half, while Bruce Braley was usually trailing by about one or two points but then went on to lose by eight. But nobody's flummoxed by the Iowa polling, because it still correctly predicted that Braley would lose.)
We filed five other races in this new category: New Hampshire also was "Tossup/Tilt D," while Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa were "Tossup/Tilt R" (since the polls were all pretty consistently going against Mark Begich, Mark Udall, and Braley in the closing weeks). Those picks all panned out, with Jeanne Shaheen narrowly winning and the other three losing. We also had Louisiana at "Tossup/Tilt R" going into Election Day, though by the time the runoff happened, it had deteriorated all the way down to "Safe R." (Though Mary Landrieu wound up doing fairly well in the runoff, by "Safe R" race standards, losing by "only" about 12 points.) In fact, there was only one race we left in the true "Tossup" category, Kansas, where the polls were pretty evenly divided on who would win. (In the end, Pat Roberts won pretty easily.)
There was only one other race that counts as a surprise, even though we called it correctly. That's Virginia, where Mark Warner won by only one point even though polls had put him up by around nine points before the election. Virginia was a race that nobody paid much attention to, though, after Warner's dominant performance in early polls, and there were almost no public polls in the field in the closing weeks to see the margin narrowing. The candidates' internal polls may have shown the race closing, but they kept the results close to the vest: Warner so that the race didn't start attracting a late influx of Republican money, and Ed Gillespie so that Democratic voters didn't realize that it was a race that they needed to show up for.
One other potential "surprise" is the margin of victory in Arkansas. While nobody expected Mark Pryor to win, by the end, nobody expected Tom Cotton to win by 17 points either. If you needed an exclamation point on the end of the line for Democrats in Arkansas, the fact that Cotton did better against an incumbent Dem than Republican incumbent Lindsey Graham did against his Democratic challenger in South Carolina, was pretty much it.
If you'd like some good news about Democrats, well, remember back when people were concerned about whether Gary Peters in Michigan and Jeff Merkley in Oregon could win? Peters and Merkley both wound up winning by larger margins than did some Democrats in races that never showed up on anybody's radar, like Dick Durbin in Illinois and Tom Udall in New Mexico. That may seem surprising at first glance, since Michigan and Oregon aren't that much bluer than states like Colorado and Iowa where Democrats lost ... but Peters and Merkley were helped along by their imploding Republican opponents. (Or maybe "implode" isn't the right word to describe Terri Lynn Land, since her candidacy never really inflated in the first place.)
State |
D winner |
Margin |
DKE rating |
State |
R winner |
Margin |
DKE rating |
VA |
Warner |
0.8 |
Likely D |
NC |
Tillis |
1.6 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
NH |
Shaheen |
3.3 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
CO |
Gardner |
1.9 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
MN |
Franken |
10.2 |
Safe D |
AK |
Sullivan |
2.1 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
IL |
Durbin |
10.9 |
Safe D |
GA |
Perdue |
7.7 |
Lean R |
NM |
Udall |
11.1 |
Safe D |
IA |
Ernst |
8.3 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
MI |
Peters |
13.3 |
Safe D |
KS |
Roberts |
10.6 |
Tossup |
NJ |
Booker |
13.5 |
Safe D |
LA |
Cassidy |
11.9 |
Safe R |
DE |
Coons |
13.6 |
Safe D |
KY |
McConnell |
15.5 |
Likely R |
OR |
Merkley |
18.9 |
Safe D |
SC |
Graham |
15.5 |
Safe R |
MA |
Markey |
23.9 |
Safe D |
AR |
Cotton |
17.1 |
Lean R |
RI |
Reed |
41.3 |
Safe D |
MT |
Daines |
17.7 |
Safe R |
HI |
Schatz |
42.1 |
Safe D |
SD |
Rounds |
20.9 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
MS |
Cochran |
22.0 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
SC-B |
Scott |
24.0 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
TX |
Cornyn |
27.2 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
WV |
Capito |
27.7 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
TN |
Alexander |
30.0 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
ID |
Risch |
30.7 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
NE |
Sasse |
32.9 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
ME |
Collins |
37.0 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OK-B |
Lankford |
38.9 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OK |
Inhofe |
39.5 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
WY |
Enzi |
54.7 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
AL |
Sessions |
94.5 |
Safe R |
GOVERNORS:
Of the 37 gubernatorial races this year, we had two more predictions go awry here. Again, though, that was because of the addition of the "Tossup/Tilt D" category. One of those races was the Illinois gubernatorial race, where incumbent Pat Quinn seemed to right his leaky ship just in time, leading narrowly in the majority of polls in the final month, even among the frequent polls from the GOP-friendly local pollster We Ask America. Bruce Rauner wound up winning by almost four points, which is only a surprise based on the last month's worth of polls; Rauner had led convincingly in polls for most of the rest of the cycle.
The other race was Maryland, which we also put into "Tossup/Tilt D" at the end, despite the fact that no public polls had shown previously big trouble for Democratic nominee Anthony Brown. We had noticed, with some alarm, that Brown hadn't responded to an internal poll from Republican Larry Hogan that showed Hogan ahead, and that the DGA was suddenly pouring money into the race in the last few weeks, though. Even that seemed an overly prudent move on our part, at the time; Maryland is a blue enough state that, ordinarily, the state's lean would see a Democrat through. It turns out, though, that it wasn't prudent enough; Hogan went on to win what was probably the biggest upset of 2014, winning by three-and-a-half points. It was probably a similar situation as VA-Sen, where a close race flew under the radar until the end, and Democratic voters never really got the message that they needed to turn out.
We did manage to correctly predict one other "Tossup/Tilt D" race in Rhode Island, another one that turned close at the end, but one with an even bluer state than Maryland, which made the difference in getting Democrat Gina Raimondo over the top. We also kept seven races in the true "Tossup" category, some of which (like Alaska and Maine) where we didn't have enough information to predict more precisely, some of which (like Florida and Connecticut) had adequate polls but where the candidates were almost exactly tied in the averages. Of these Tossup races, the Democrats won three and the Republicans won four.
The races in the lower (Lean and Likely) tiers all went as predicted. However, there were two other gubernatorial races that were surprising enough to mention. The bad news is Vermont, where incumbent Peter Shumlin barely won a race that we had rated as Safe D R. (In fact, he hasn't truly "won" yet; he finished under 50 percent, meaning under a quirk of Vermont law, the state legislature ... which is heavily Democratic ... still needs to select him as governor once they meet.) There weren't any warning signs at all here, in the form of internal polls or DGA activity; the result may have been as surprising to the candidates as it was to everyone else. One thing I did notice before the election, that should have set my antennae twitching but didn't, was that Vermonters seemed unusually unhappy with the state's economy according to the YouGov panel, despite very low unemployment by national standards; I just attributed that to potential sample size problems (given Vermont's small size), but it may have been real, and Shumlin took the brunt of it.
The good news is Hawaii, where we had the race only at "Lean D" but Democratic nominee David Ige won more than 12 points, more than Tom Wolf won the "Safe D" Pennsylvania race by. That was quite a turnaround from early polls of the race, where Ige trailed Republican Duke Aiona, harmed by both Dem incumbent Neil Abercrombie's unpopularity and by the spoiler presence of ex-Dem Mufi Hannemann, running as an independent. Hawaii's notoriously difficult to poll, though, and it's blue enough that an adequate number of Democrats usually come home in the end.
State |
D winner |
Margin |
DKE rating |
State |
R winner |
Margin |
DKE rating |
VT |
Shumlin |
1.3 |
Safe D |
FL |
Scott |
1.1 |
Tossup |
AK |
Walker (I) |
2.2 |
Tossup |
MA |
Baker |
1.8 |
Lean R |
CT |
Malloy |
2.6 |
Tossup |
KS |
Brownback |
3.7 |
Tossup |
CO |
Hickenlooper |
3.4 |
Tossup |
MD |
Hogan |
3.8 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
RI |
Raimondo |
4.5 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
IL |
Rauner |
3.9 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
NH |
Hassan |
4.9 |
Lean D |
MI |
Snyder |
4.1 |
Tossup |
MN |
Dayton |
5.6 |
Likely D |
ME |
LePage |
4.8 |
Tossup |
OR |
Kitzhaber |
5.8 |
Likely D |
WI |
Walker |
5.7 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
PA |
Wolf |
9.9 |
Safe D |
GA |
Deal |
7.9 |
Likely R |
HI |
Ige |
12.4 |
Lean D |
AZ |
Ducey |
11.8 |
Lean R |
NY |
Cuomo |
13.3 |
Safe D |
AR |
Ross |
14.0 |
Lean R |
CA |
Brown |
19.9 |
Safe D |
NM |
Martinez |
14.4 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
SC |
Haley |
14.5 |
Likely R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OK |
Fallin |
14.8 |
Likely R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
ID |
Otter |
15.0 |
Likely R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
NE |
Ricketts |
17.9 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
TX |
Abbott |
20.4 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
IA |
Branstad |
21.8 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
AL |
Bentley |
27.3 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
OH |
Kasich |
30.6 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
WY |
Mead |
32.1 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
SD |
Daugaard |
45.0 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
NV |
Sandoval |
46.7 |
Safe R |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
TN |
Haslam |
47.4 |
Safe R |
HOUSE:
Finally, let's look at the House. The House races are much more difficult to call, because in even the top-tier races, there are usually only a few polls to look at, often from the candidates themselves or somebody else with an agenda. Instead, you're left to rely mostly on the outside committees' spending decisions to see where the battle is being fought, along with whatever clues you can garner from fundraising and the tone of campaign messaging. That's why quantitative models rarely try to predict individual races, instead just using the generic ballot to try and predict the number of seats changing hands; the House remains one area where election forecasting remains more art than science.
Of the 435 House races (or of the 63 competitive races on our big board, more importantly), we managed to miss only three, which is the same number as we whiffed in our 2012 predictions. And we were more precise in our predictions this year, thanks to the "Tilt" designation; we left 31 races in "Tossup" in 2012, but only 18 in true "Tossup" this year. Of those 18, the Democrats won 7 and the Republicans 11. (Tossups tend to go whichever way the wind is blowing locally; note that the Democrats won all the Tossups in California and Minnesota, while losing all the Tossups in Illinois, Iowa, and New York.)
One of the whiffs was NV-04, which we had at "Tossup/Tilt D." There wasn't any polling to alert us that Steven Horsford was in trouble in this 54 percent Obama district. There was a big last-minute American Crossroads buy to clue us in, but mostly we were relying on local reporter Jon Ralston and his increasingly dire observations about Democratic turnout (or lack thereof) in early voting. The basic lesson here is: if Ralston says someone from Nevada is in trouble ... that person is in trouble, and assuming that the district is blue enough to get you over the top isn't enough. (The problem here was that this, along with all the statewide downballot and legislative races in Nevada, were "orphan races," with a barely contested gubernatorial race not driving turnout.)
The other two misses were at the "Lean D" level. One was TX-23, a race that saw no polls, and didn't get the intensive level of advertising that top-tier races did. However, this is a mostly Latino district that follows the Mexican border for hundreds of miles, and it's one that sees a lot of drop-off in midterm years (it's one that the Democrats lost in 2010, and picked back up in 2012). That should have been a red flag for us (the same drop-off problem is why we kept CA-36 at Tossup most of the cycle, even though Raul Ruiz seemed to have that race under control), and in the end, Pete Gallego fell short by a few points. Hopefully he'll try again in 2016, though, when turnout is higher.
Finally, we also missed ME-02 at "Lean D," which was the open seat left behind for Mike Michaud's gubernatorial run. Unlike the previous two races, we had seen polls here, some of which in fact had put Republican Bruce Poliquin in the lead. Also, it's not that blue a district (only 53 percent Obama), and more importantly it's an open seat, which are particularly vulnerable in wave years. However, I think we simply kept thinking "it's Maine," without really thinking that ME-01 is the solid blue part of Maine, and without thinking that Paul LePage, who'd seemed doomed earlier in the year, might actually generate some coattails as he gained strength. This seat may turn out to be a two-year rental for the Republicans like NV-04 and TX-23, but if LePage could somehow win re-election, it's possible that the less-blustery Poliquin could manage it too.
There are always surprise close calls among the House races, and this year was no different. The biggest one was probably Louise Slaughter nearly losing in NY-25 against a nobody, despite having won convincingly against a prominent opponent in 2012 in the same district. That's only one small part of the Democratic fail in New York, where the lack of Dem enthusiasm for Andrew Cuomo, especially Upstate, turned a number of House races and dozens of legislative races into de facto "orphan races."
The flipside was Dem incumbent Dan Maffei losing NY-24 by nearly 20 points, despite that being a Tossup; that was by far the biggest deficit of any Tossup race on either side. Similarly, the Dems' attempt to hold the open NY-21 fell short by 22 points, and their race against Tom Reed (who almost lost NY-23 in 2012) lost by 25 points. Finally, the race in NY-19 against Chris Gibson (who, again, almost lost in 2012) was the single biggest deficit of any race that we considered competitive. By Election Day it was clear that Sean Eldridge (the husband of Facebook millionaire and New Republic owner Chris Hughes), who was shopping for a district and carpetbagged into the 19th, didn't have much of a shot, but when you layered the Cuomo effect on top of his already-present disadvantages, he wound up losing by 30 points.
Other Democrats who barely squeaked by in Safe D or Likely D races included Jim Costa in CA-16 (who also nearly lost a similar district in 2010 ... if he runs for re-election, we're going to have to simply always list him at "Likely D" at a minimum, given his tendency to slack and the tendency toward sharp drop-off in midterms in his heavily Latino district), and John Delaney in MD-06, who may have been caught off guard by the sudden turn toward the Republican in the gubernatorial race in Maryland.
There are some Dems who overperformed expectations, though. The Dem who'd been relegated to the "Safe R" category who performed the best was Michael Eggman, who started out as a hyped candidate but never seemed to get much traction against Jeff Denham in CA-10, another Central Valley district that sees a lot of off-year drop-off. Somehow, Eggman held his own, coming within 12 points, a better performance than Amanda Renteria in nearby CA-21, who stayed at "Lean R" but lost by 16.
Seth Moulton in MA-06 went into the election at "Tossup/Tilt D," and we felt that might have been generous to him, since he'd trailed in more than half the polls we'd seen of this race. In the end, though, Moulton beat Richard Tisei (who nearly beat John Tierney in 2012; Moulton beat Dem incumbent Tierney in the Dem primary this year) by 14 points, keeping the House delegation in Massachusetts entirely blue for the 18th straight year. Moulton should have no trouble holding this district (the Bay State's least blue, at "only" 55 percent Obama) in the future.
Finally, let's take a moment to sing the praises of Patrick Murphy. He's the guy who was so intent on beating Allen West in 2012 that he followed West when he fled from FL-22 to FL-18 ... and then still beat West in the much-redder 18th. If you'd expected the young Murphy to be a two-year rental in this 48 percent Obama district, I wouldn't blame you. But Murphy set about fiercely defending his seat. Even though he seemed pretty well in control of this race, we kept it at "Lean D" not just because of the district's presidential lean but because he drew a credible opponent, a former state Rep. who could self-fund. We didn't need to doubt him though; he won by nearly 20 points, better than not just any Likely D race but also better than more than twenty Safe D races. He's one of the more centrist members of the Democratic caucus, but if we had a couple dozen more Patrick Murphys in other light-red districts, we'd have a House majority.
Dist. |
D winner |
Margin |
DKE rating |
Dist. |
R winner |
Margin |
DKE rating |
NY-25 |
Slaughter |
0.4 |
Safe D |
AZ-02 |
McSally (?) |
0.0 |
Tossup |
CA-07 |
Bera |
0.8 |
Tossup |
WA-04 |
Newhouse * |
1.6 |
Lean Newhouse |
FL-02 |
Graham |
0.8 |
Tossup |
TX-23 |
Hurd |
2.1 |
Lean D |
MD-06 |
Delaney |
1.2 |
Likely D |
IA-01 |
Blum |
2.4 |
Tossup |
CA-16 |
Costa |
1.4 |
Safe D |
IL-10 |
Dold |
2.6 |
Tossup |
MN-08 |
Nolan |
1.4 |
Tossup |
NV-04 |
Hardy |
2.7 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
NY-18 |
Maloney |
1.6 |
Lean D |
FL-26 |
Curbelo |
3.0 |
Tossup |
NE-02 |
Ashford |
2.6 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
UT-04 |
Love |
3.2 |
Likely R |
CA-26 |
Brownley |
2.6 |
Tossup |
WV-02 |
Mooney |
3.2 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
CA-52 |
Peters |
3.2 |
Tossup |
NH-01 |
Guinta |
3.6 |
Tossup |
CA-31 |
Aguilar |
3.4 |
Lean D |
ME-02 |
Poliquin |
5.3 |
Lean D |
CA-17 |
Honda * |
3.6 |
No Clear Favorite |
CA-25 |
Knight * |
6.6 |
No Clear Favorite |
CA-24 |
Capps |
3.8 |
Likely D |
MI-01 |
Benishek |
6.8 |
Lean R |
HI-01 |
Takai |
3.8 |
Lean D |
AR-02 |
Hill |
8.3 |
Tossup |
CA-09 |
McNerney |
4.8 |
Safe D |
CO-06 |
Coffman |
9.1 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
AZ-01 |
Kirkpatrick |
5.0 |
Tossup |
GA-12 |
Allen |
9.6 |
Tossup |
IA-02 |
Loebsack |
5.0 |
Lean D |
NY-01 |
Zeldin |
9.6 |
Tossup |
CA-03 |
Garamendi |
5.2 |
Likely D |
AK-AL |
Young |
10.0 |
Likely R |
NY-04 |
Rice |
5.4 |
Likely D |
IA-03 |
Young |
10.6 |
Tossup |
MO-05 |
Cleaver |
6.6 |
Safe D |
IL-12 |
Bost |
10.6 |
Tossup |
CT-05 |
Esty |
7.0 |
Likely D |
WV-03 |
Jenkins |
10.6 |
Tossup/Tilt R |
IL-11 |
Foster |
7.0 |
Likely D |
NJ-03 |
MacArthur |
10.7 |
Lean R |
CT-04 |
Himes |
7.4 |
Safe D |
AR-04 |
Westerman |
11.1 |
Likely R |
CA-36 |
Ruiz |
8.4 |
Lean D |
CA-10 |
Denham |
12.2 |
Safe R |
MN-01 |
Walz |
8.6 |
Safe D |
MI-07 |
Walberg |
12.3 |
Likely R |
MN-07 |
Peterson |
8.6 |
Tossup |
PA-06 |
Costello |
12.4 |
Safe R |
NY-03 |
Israel |
9.0 |
Safe D |
NJ-05 |
Garrett |
12.7 |
Safe R |
WA-10 |
Heck |
9.2 |
Safe D |
MI-08 |
Bishop |
12.9 |
Likely R |
MA-09 |
Keating |
10.0 |
Likely D |
NY-11 |
Grimm |
13.3 |
Lean R |
NH-02 |
Kuster |
10.0 |
Lean D |
NC-13 |
Holding |
14.6 |
Safe R |
WA-01 |
DelBene |
10.0 |
Safe D |
MT-AL |
Zinke |
15.2 |
Safe R |
CO-07 |
Perlmutter |
10.0 |
Safe D |
MI-11 |
Trott |
15.3 |
Likely R |
FL-09 |
Grayson |
10.9 |
Safe D |
MI-06 |
Upton |
15.4 |
Likely R |
IL-17 |
Bustos |
11.0 |
Lean D |
CA-21 |
Valadao |
15.6 |
Lean R |
TX-15 |
Hinojosa |
11.1 |
Safe D |
PA-16 |
Pitts |
15.6 |
Safe R |
AZ-03 |
Grijalva |
11.2 |
Safe D |
VA-02 |
Rigell |
15.8 |
Safe R |
IL-08 |
Duckworth |
11.4 |
Safe D |
WI-06 |
Grothman |
15.9 |
Likely R |
CA-47 |
Lowenthal |
12.0 |
Safe D |
VA-10 |
Comstock |
16.2 |
Lean R |
NY-17 |
Lowey |
12.4 |
Safe D |
ND-AL |
Cramer |
17.1 |
Likely R |
AZ-09 |
Sinema |
12.8 |
Lean D |
MN-02 |
Kline |
17.2 |
Safe R |
IN-07 |
Carson |
12.9 |
Safe D |
NC-06 |
Walker |
17.3 |
Safe R |
CO-02 |
Polis |
13.0 |
Safe D |
IL-13 |
Davis |
17.4 |
Likely R |
WI-03 |
Kind |
13.4 |
Safe D |
MI-04 |
Moolenaar |
17.4 |
Safe R |
PA-17 |
Cartwright |
13.6 |
Safe D |
NC-02 |
Ellmers |
17.7 |
Safe R |
MA-06 |
Moulton |
13.7 |
Tossup/Tilt D |
SC-05 |
Mulvaney |
17.8 |
Safe R |
OR-05 |
Schrader |
14.5 |
Safe D |
MN-06 |
Emmer |
17.9 |
Safe R |
FL-22 |
Frankel |
16.0 |
Safe D |
PA-12 |
Rothfus |
18.6 |
Safe R |
VA-11 |
Connolly |
16.5 |
Safe D |
KS-02 |
Jenkins |
18.7 |
Likely R |
NM-01 |
Lujan Grisham |
17.0 |
Safe D |
MI-03 |
Amash |
18.9 |
Safe R |
CA-53 |
Davis |
17.6 |
Safe D |
CO-05 |
Lamborn |
19.6 |
Safe R |
NJ-01 |
Norcross |
17.8 |
Safe D |
OH-06 |
Johnson |
19.6 |
Safe R |
CA-38 |
Sanchez, Linda |
18.2 |
Safe D |
NY-24 |
Katko |
19.8 |
Tossup |
GA-02 |
Bishop |
18.2 |
Safe D |
CA-04 |
McClintock * |
20.0 |
Likely McClintock |
CA-33 |
Lieu |
18.4 |
Safe D |
KY-06 |
Barr |
20.0 |
Safe R |
CA-27 |
Chu |
18.8 |
Safe D |
CA-49 |
Issa |
20.4 |
Safe R |
MD-03 |
Sarbanes |
18.8 |
Safe D |
KS-03 |
Yoder |
20.4 |
Safe R |
NV-01 |
Titus |
18.9 |
Safe D |
FL-15 |
Ross |
20.6 |
Safe R |
RI-01 |
Cicilline |
19.2 |
Safe D |
IN-02 |
Walorski |
20.6 |
Safe R |
CA-32 |
Napolitano |
19.4 |
Safe D |
NJ-07 |
Lance |
20.6 |
Safe R |
CA-46 |
Sanchez, Loretta |
19.4 |
Safe D |
WA-05 |
McMorris Rodgers |
20.8 |
Safe R |
FL-18 |
Murphy |
19.6 |
Lean D |
PA-03 |
Kelly |
21.0 |
Safe R |
OR-04 |
DeFazio |
20.5 |
Safe D |
NY-21 |
Stefanik |
21.7 |
Likely R |
MD-08 |
Van Hollen |
20.6 |
Safe D |
-- |
24 Safe R races |
-- |
-- |
NJ-06 |
Pallone |
21.1 |
Safe D |
NY-23 |
Reed |
25.2 |
Likely R |
TX-34 |
Vela |
21.2 |
Safe D |
-- |
24 more Safe R races |
-- |
-- |
WA-02 |
Larsen |
21.4 |
Safe D |
NY-19 |
Gibson |
30.0 |
Likely R |