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. Pollster.com'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: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/....
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.