House Democrats Seeking Control Eye 17 Split-Ticket Seats

[xchrom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/house-democrats-seeking-control-eye-17-split-ticket-seats.html

Democrats would move a step closer to a majority of U.S. House seats if they win a special election today in South Carolina. Getting the rest of the way will be much tougher.

Democrats need to take a net 17 seats to gain control of the chamber. In the 2012 election, there were 17 districts that voted to re-elect President Barack Obama and then switched parties to back a House Republican, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Those seats are now Democratic targets, yet capturing them will mean winning more than twice the eight seats they netted in the 2012 election. It also means defeating incumbents who have weathered the Democratic wave elections of the past.

The small number of districts “means there’s basically no margin for error for House Democrats” in 2014, said David Wasserman, House editor for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington. Even if Democrats run the table, they must also hold all their vulnerable seats.

[FBaggins]

1. We need to focus on the Senate

The party that holds the White House isn't likely to make large gains in a 2nd-term off-year election. At best, they usually try to limit their losses.

But there are way too many D seats in the Senate that are in potential trouble. I'd rather focus on trying to keep the Senate than waste resources trying in vain to pick up the House.

[ProSense]

2. Except if

"We need to focus on the Senate.

The party that holds the White House isn't likely to make large gains in a 2nd-term off-year election."

...it's 1998. Focus on both.

[FBaggins]

7. Those five seats were the high-water mark for modern elections

I think you just proved my point.

[demwing]

3. It's only "trying in vain"

if trying has no value.

We don't have to win (well, we do, but for purposes of this definition we do not), we just have to advance.

[ProSense]

6. Yup, Democrats

"We don't have to win (well, we do, but for purposes of this definition we do not), we just have to advance."

...should focus on as many seats as possible. Every gain will help, up to the one that could put Democrats back in the majority.

[MineralMan]

4. There are also several other winnable Congressional seats.

For example, MN CD-4 is currently held by the batshit crazy lady. She won by only 1% in 2012, and the same opponent will run against her again in 2014. Bachmann is under investigation for campaign funds abuse, and her opponent has already begun his campaign for her seat. That's not one of the seats being discussed. There's another MN race that has the potential for a pickup, but it's less likely.

Each state needs to look closely at every district to see if there's a winnable race that can be heavily worked. Since my own MN district is a lock for the Democratic incumbent, I'll be doing what I can in CD-4.

[FBaggins]

8. Do you mean the 6th?

We already hold the 4th and it's safe as houses.

If so... it will be a challenge without the President on the ticket. That's an R+8 district.

She's going to have to go even nuttier this time around.

[MineralMan]

9. Sorry. You're right. I'm in the 4th district, and should

have gotten that right. Oh, well...too early in the morning, I guess.

[FBaggins]

10. No problem

If you work hard enough to get rid of her... you deserve any number of errors here taht you like.

[tabbycat31]

5. I think there's a few districts that can be won in a non presidential year

The Democrats need to look at the Blue Dog casualties of 2010 and look at those districts. If they find the right candidate (perhaps bring the Blue Dog out of retirement) and find out what lost them those seats.

I'd also look at districts where the margin of victory is less than 10.