U.S. House battlegrounds, 2016
From Ballotpedia
Jump to:navigation,search
- Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2016
- FEDERAL
- STATE
- LOCAL
- PUBLIC POLICY
- Education policy disputes in the 2016 elections
- Healthcare policy disputes in the 2016 elections
- Environmental policy disputes in the 2016 elections
- Election policy disputes in the 2016 elections
- Energy policy disputes in the 2016 elections
- Budget policy disputes in the 2016 elections
- Public policy in the 2016 elections
Elections were held for all 435 U.S. House seats in 2016. Heading into the election, Republicans held a majority of 246 seats to Democrats' 186, while three seats were vacant pending special elections. Ballotpedia predicted that23 of the 435 House races (5.3 percent) would be competitive in the general election.
Due to the lack of general election competition in the House and the high Republican majority, it was unlikely for Democrats to retake the House in this election cycle. However, it was not an impossibility. AHillary Clinton win and aDonald Trump defeat at the top of the ticket could have helped change the partisan balance in the House. This page highlights the districts in the country that were competitive.
Criteria
The following criteria were examined to determine how close each race was expected to be. No specific number of criteria had to be met to label a district competitive or a battleground, but all of the following were considered in each race.
1. Margin of victory (MOV) in the past two House elections:
- The MOV of the district in the previous two elections was the primary basis for estimating the potential competitiveness of the district in 2016.
- Example:Arizona's 2nd District had very low margins of victory of less than 1 percent in the past two elections.
- Example:Arizona's 2nd District had very low margins of victory of less than 1 percent in the past two elections.
2. Margin of victory in the past two presidential elections (2012 and 2008):
- Presidential elections play a role in all races on the ballot that year. Voter turnout is always higher in presidential election years. A strong presidential candidate can also provide a boon to all candidates from his or her party on the ballot. Since 2016 was a presidential election year, these figures are often more telling than House results from 2014, because midterm elections are different from presidential elections.
- Example: InCalifornia's 25th District, PresidentBarack Obama (D) won by 1 percent in 2008, whileMitt Romney (R) took the district by 1.9 percent in 2012.
- Example: InCalifornia's 25th District, PresidentBarack Obama (D) won by 1 percent in 2008, whileMitt Romney (R) took the district by 1.9 percent in 2012.
3. Open seats:
- Incumbents have high re-election rates. In 2014,94.4 percent of congressional incumbents who sought re-election won. An open seat is traditionally far more vulnerable than one in which the incumbent is seeking re-election, even if the incumbent is unpopular.
- Example:Florida's 13th District was an open seat in 2016. This fact pushed it to be rated as a battleground in 2016.
- Example:Florida's 13th District was an open seat in 2016. This fact pushed it to be rated as a battleground in 2016.
4. Time spent in office:
- The number of terms an incumbent has spent in office has an impact on how vulnerable they may be. Freshmen incumbents tend to be more vulnerable than those who have served multiple terms in the House.
- Example: A number of districts featured incumbents in their first term of office, includingIowa's 1st Congressional District.
- Example: A number of districts featured incumbents in their first term of office, includingIowa's 1st Congressional District.
5. Outside race ratings:
- Race ratings from theCook Political Report were considered when making our initial list of battlegrounds.
- Example:Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District was rated as a Toss-up byCook Political Report.[1]
- Example:Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District was rated as a Toss-up byCook Political Report.[1]
6. Special highlights:
- Special highlights could include anything from a rematch of the 2014 House race, to an incumbent made vulnerable due to an ongoing scandal. Any special circumstances were taken into account here.
- Example:Redistricting in Florida caused a number of seats to be more vulnerable in 2016.
Battlegrounds
The following table displays the results of the election in each battleground district.
This table displays the initial criteria used to determine competitiveness in more specific detail. It gives ranges for each criterion and the competitiveness associated with them. Each district was analyzed using this as a baseline to determine competitiveness.
| Color Key | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Color | Margin of Victory (MOV) | Presidential MOV % | Incumbent term in office | Open seat? | Cook rating | |
| Purple – most competitive | 0.0-4.9 | 0.0-4.9 | 1 | Yes | Toss-up | |
| Orange – very competitive | 5.0-7.9 | 5.0-7.9 | 2-3 | N/A | Lean D/R | |
| Green – competitive | 8.0-10.0 | 8.0-10.0 | 4-5 | N/A | Likely D/R | |
| House winners labeled this color indicate the party of the winner being different from the party of the presidential winner of the state in 2012 | ||||||
The following races are those that were expected to be the closest in 2016.
| Most competitive 2016 House elections | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Incumbent's party | District MOV 2014 | District MOV 2012 | Presidential MOV 2012 | Presidential MOV 2008 | Incumbent term in office | Open seat? | Cook rating | |||
| Arizona's 1st | Democratic | 5.2 | 3.6 | -2.5 | -3.2 | 2 | Yes | Lean D | |||
| California's 7th | Democratic | 0.8 | 3.4 | ✓4.0 | ✓5.0 | 2 | No | Lean D | |||
| California's 25th | Republican | 6.7 | 9.6 | -1.9 | ✓1.0 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| California's 49th | Republican | 20.3 | 16.3 | -6.7 | ✓1.0 | 8 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Colorado's 6th | Republican | 8.9 | 2.0 | ✓5.1 | ✓8.7 | 4 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Florida's 7th | Republican | 31.5 | 17.4 | -4.7 | -0.8 | 11 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Florida's 18th | Democratic | 19.6 | 0.6 | -4.1 | ✓3.1 | 2 | Yes | Toss Up | |||
| Florida's 26th | Republican | 2.9 | 10.6 | ✓6.7 | -0.4 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Illinois' 10th | Republican | 2.6 | 1.3 | ✓16.4 | ✓27.1 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Iowa's 1st | Republican | 2.3 | 15.4 | ✓13.7 | ✓18.1 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Maine's 2nd | Republican | 5.0 | 15.7 | ✓9.0 | ✓12 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Michigan's 1st | Republican | 6.9 | 0.5 | -8.3 | ✓1.3 | 3 | Yes | Lean R | |||
| Minnesota's 2nd | Republican | 17.2 | 8.2 | ✓0.1 | ✓2.9 | 7 | Yes | Toss-up | |||
| Nebraska's 2nd | Democratic | 3.3 | 1.6 | -7.0 | ✓1.0 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Nevada's 3rd | Republican | 24.6 | 7.5 | ✓0.8 | ✓8.9 | 3 | Yes | Toss Up | |||
| Nevada's 4th | Republican | 2.8 | 8.0 | ✓10.7 | ✓15.0 | 1 | No | Lean D | |||
| New Hampshire's 1st | Republican | 3.6 | 3.8 | ✓1.6 | ✓6.4 | 1 | No | Lean D | |||
| New Jersey's 5th | Republican | 12.1 | 12.3 | -3.1 | -2.0 | 7 | No | Toss-up | |||
| New York's 19th | Republican | 28.1 | 5.3 | ✓6.2 | ✓8.0 | 3 | Yes | Toss Up | |||
| New York's 22nd | Republican | 48.1 | 19.9 | -0.4 | 0.0 | 3 | Yes | Toss Up | |||
| Pennsylvania's 8th | Republican | 23.8 | 13.2 | -0.1 | ✓7.5 | 3 | Yes | Toss Up | |||
| Texas' 23rd | Republican | 2.1 | 4.8 | -2.6 | ✓1.0 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
| Virginia's 10th | Republican | 16.1 | 19.7 | -1.1 | ✓2.8 | 1 | No | Toss Up | |||
- Both the 2012 and 2008 presidential MOV have either "✓" or "-" before the number. The "✓" indicates the district went in favor of the winner, in both years this was President Obama. The "-" indicates the district favored the Republican who lost in each election, Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008.
The following races were all expected to be at least somewhat close, but they were not considered among the most competitive races.
| Races to watch | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Incumbent's Party | District MOV 2014 | District MOV 2012 | Presidential MOV 2012 | Presidential MOV 2008 | Incumbent term in office | Open seat? | Cook rating | |||
| California's 10th | Republican | 12.3 | 5.4 | ✓3.6 | ✓3.0 | 3 | No | Toss Up | |||
| California's 24th | Democratic | 3.9 | 10.2 | ✓11 | ✓15 | 9 | Yes | Lean D | |||
| Florida's 13th | Republican | 50.5 | 15.1 | ✓1.5 | ✓3.8 | 22 | Yes | Lean D | |||
| Indiana's 9th | Republican | 28.5 | 10.9 | -16.5 | -6.5 | 2 | Yes | Lean R | |||
| Iowa's 3rd | Republican | 10.5 | 8.6 | ✓4.2 | ✓6.1 | 1 | No | Lean R | |||
| Kansas' 3rd | Republican | 20 | 36.9 | -9.5 | -1.1 | 2 | No | Lean R | |||
| Michigan's 7th | Republican | 12.3 | 10.3 | -3.1 | ✓3.4 | 3 | No | Lean R | |||
| Minnesota's 3rd | Republican | 24.4 | 16.3 | ✓0.8 | ✓3.6 | 3 | No | Lean R | |||
| Minnesota's 8th | Democratic | 1.4 | 8.9 | ✓5.5 | ✓8.6 | 2 | No | Lean D | |||
| New York's 1st | Republican | 8.7 | 4.6 | ✓0.5 | ✓3.0 | 1 | No | Lean R | |||
| New York's 3rd | Democratic | 9.2 | 5.0 | ✓2.6 | ✓8.0 | 2 | Yes | Likely D | |||
| New York's 24th | Republican | 18.8 | 5.3 | ✓15.9 | ✓14.0 | 1 | No | Lean R | |||
| Utah's 4th | Republican | 3.3 | 0.3 | -37 | -15.2 | 1 | No | Lean R | |||
| Wisconsin's 8th | Republican | 30.1 | 12 | -3.7 | ✓8.7 | 3 | Yes | Lean R | |||
- Both the 2012 and 2008 presidential MOV have either "✓" or "-" before the number. The "✓" indicates the district went in favor of the winner, in both years this was President Obama. The "-" indicates the district favored the Republican who lost in each election, Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008.
Presidential impact
Presidential elections have a significant impact on congressional elections, the most obvious of which is increased voter interest and participation. In the last two decades, presidential elections led to a roughly 15 to 20 percentage points higher turnout rate than in the corresponding midterm elections.[2] The following chart shows the disparity between voter turnout in presidential elections and midterm elections.
In the past decade, presidential elections benefited the Democratic Party, while midterms helped the Republican Party. The Democratic Party gained an average of 16 House seats in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, and the Republican Party picked up an average of 38.5 seats in the 2010 and 2014 midterms.
| Past partisan breakdowns | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Democrats | Republicans | Net change | |
| 2014 | 188 | 247 | +13 R | |
| 2012 | 201 | 234 | +8 D | |
| 2010 | 193 | 242 | +64 R | |
| 2008 | 257 | 178 | +24 D | |
| 2006 | 233 | 202 | +22 D | |
Can Democrats reclaim the House?
Despite the large Republican majority in the House, the following articles explored how thepresidential campaign could affect the 2016 House elections. This section highlights what was said by pundits on the possibility of Democrats gaining control of Congress.
- John Sides (The Washington Post) - October 18, 2016: "This model currently predicts that the Democrats will control 204 seats after the 2016 election. That is 16 more than they had after the 2014 election. The margin of error associated with that is plus or minus 8 seats. That forecast implies a very small chance — less than 1 percent — that the Democrats could win the 218 or more seats needed for a majority."[3]
- Sean Trende (RealClear Politics) - October 8, 2016: "What’s more interesting is the House. When Trump first secured the nomination in March, analysts speculated that he could flip the chamber to Democrats. That speculation subsided over the spring and summer, as Trump’s vote share held and Democratic recruiting efforts sputtered. As of today, RealClearPolitics has Republicans favored to lose about 15 House seats – a significant loss, but not enough to flip control."[4]
- Jeff Stein (Vox) - October 8, 2016: "But one political analyst I interviewed earlier this campaign thinks an epic Trump collapse might be enough to overcome that built-in advantage. Geoffrey Skelley, of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, argues that a Clinton victory of 6 points or more might be enough to put the House back in play."[5]
- Nate Cohn (The New York Times) - August 23, 2016: "It would not be surprising if the Republican House majority lasted for at least a decade. The structural advantages underpinning it are that strong. The odds of a Clinton presidency are strong, too — and a Democratic White House would probably strengthen the Republican hold on the House, given the tendency for the president’s party to struggle down-ballot. If Democrats are going to retake the House anytime soon, November would probably be their best shot, and as of now it’s not happening."[6]
- David Wasserman (The Cook Political Report) - June 20, 2016: "At the moment, the likeliest outcome seems like a Democratic gain of five to 20 seats (the Cook Political Report rates 22 GOP-held seats as Toss Up, Lean Democratic or Likely Democratic, compared with four Democratic seats in Toss Up, Lean Republican and Likely Republican). In other words, the first few GOP targets are very winnable for Democrats, but the last few needed for a majority would require a wave."[7]
Battlegrounds timeline
Battleground races shifted a number of times as candidates jumped into races and polling data became available. Ballotpedia's team carefully monitored for factors that significantly changed the outlook of races. The changes are detailed below.
Heading into the election, Ballotpedia had 23 races designated as battlegrounds and 14 other races rated as competitive.
| Ballotpedia's Battleground Ratings -- U.S. House | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Safe D | Competitive D | Battleground D | Battleground R | Competitive R | Safe R | Total D | Total R | Total races | |
| October 20, 2016 | 180 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 10 | 218 | 188 | 247 | 435 | |
| September 28, 2016 | 182 | 1 | 5 | 19 | 7 | 221 | 188 | 247 | 435 | |
| July 11, 2016 | 182 | 1 | 5 | 20 | 6 | 221 | 188 | 247 | 435 | |
| May 4, 2016 | 180 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 8 | 221 | 188 | 247 | 435 | |
| January 15, 2016 | 179 | 3 | 6 | 18 | 8 | 221 | 188 | 247 | 435 | |
October 2016
In October, increased satellite spending in races and polling data resulted in a significant update to our battleground ratings as the election cycle began coming to a close.
- Races upgraded to battleground status: These races were deemed competitive enough to become battleground districts.
- Races downgraded to races to watch from battlegrounds: These races were deemed not competitive enough to remain battleground districts.
- Races added to races to watch: These races were previously seen as noncompetitive but were added to the list of races to watch.
- Races removed from the list of races to watch: These races were downgraded from being races to watch to safe for the party that held the seat going into the election.
September 2016
- Arizona's 2nd District was downgraded from a battleground to a race to watch. Despite being the closest race in the country in 2014, incumbentMartha McSally (R) had a significant advantage in the race in 2016. McSally held a significant lead over challengerMatt Heinz (D) in fundraising, and Heinz received little outside help. Polling in September also showed the incumbent leading by nearly 20 points.
July 2016
In July, we completed our first major overhaul of battleground races since the original classification in January. As a result, there were several changes in battleground ratings.
- Races upgraded to battleground status: These races were deemed competitive enough to become battleground districts.
- Races added to races to watch: These races were previously seen as noncompetitive but were added to the list of races to watch.
- Races removed from the list of races to watch: These races were downgraded from being races to watch to safe for the party that held the seat going into the election.
May 2016
Florida's 13th District was removed from the list of battleground races. Ballotpedia previously predicted that the seat would flip from Republican to Democratic control, but the race was not expected to be competitive. Court-ordered redistricting made the seat likely to be more Democratic than it had been previously.
Outside race ratings
The following table compares Ballotpedia's battleground ratings with the most recent race ratings fromThe Cook Political Report,Sabato's Crystal Ball, andThe Rothenberg and Gonzales Political Report.
| U.S. House race ratings comparison | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ballotpedia | Cook[8] | Sabato[9] | Rothenberg[10] |
| Alaska's At-Large | Safe R | Lean R | Likely R | Safe R |
| Arizona's 1st | Battleground | Lean D | Lean D | Lean D |
| Arizona's 2nd | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | Safe R |
| California's 7th | Battleground | Lean D | Lean D | Lean D |
| California's 10th | Competitive R | Toss-up | Toss-up | Lean R |
| California's 21st | Safe R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
| California's 24th | Competitive D | Lean D | Lean D | D Favored |
| California's 25th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | R Favored |
| California's 49th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up/Tilt R |
| Colorado's 3rd | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | Safe R |
| Colorado's 6th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up/Tilt R |
| Florida's 2nd[11] | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R |
| Florida's 7th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up/Tilt D |
| Florida's 10th[11] | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D | Safe D |
| Florida's 13th | Competitive D | Lean D | Lean D | Lean D |
| Florida's 18th | Battleground | Lean R | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| Florida's 26th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| Florida's 27th | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R |
| Illinois' 10th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| Illinois' 12th | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | Safe R |
| Indiana's 2nd | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | Safe R |
| Indiana's 9th | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
| Iowa's 1st | Battleground | Toss-up | Lean D | Pure Toss-up |
| Iowa's 3rd | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | Toss-up/Tilt R |
| Kansas' 3rd | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | Lean R |
| Maine's 2nd | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| Maryland's 6th | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D | Safe D |
| Michigan's 1st | Battleground | Lean R | Toss-up | Toss-up/Tilt R |
| Michigan's 7th | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
| Michigan's 8th | Safe R | Lean R | Likely R | Safe R |
| Minnesota's 2nd | Battleground | Toss-up | Lean D | Toss-up/Tilt D |
| Minnesota's 3rd | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
| Minnesota's 8th | Competitive D | Toss-up | Lean D | Lean D |
| Montana's At-Large | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | R Favored |
| Nebraska's 2nd | Battleground | Toss-up | Lean D | Toss-up/Tilt D |
| Nevada's 3rd | Battleground | Toss-up | Lean D | Pure Toss-up |
| Nevada's 4th | Battleground | Lean D | Lean D | Toss-up/Tilt D |
| New Hampshire's 1st | Battleground | Lean D | Lean D | Toss-up/Tilt D |
| New Jersey's 3rd | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R |
| New Jersey's 5th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up/Tilt D |
| New York's 1st | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | Lean R |
| New York's 3rd | Competitive D | Likely D | Likely D | Lean D |
| New York's 19th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| New York's 21st | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | Safe R |
| New York's 22nd | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| New York's 23rd | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R | Safe R |
| New York's 24th | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
| New York's 25th | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D | Safe D |
| Pennsylvania's 6th | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R |
| Pennsylvania's 8th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| Pennsylvania's 16th | Safe R | Lean R | Lean R | Safe R |
| Texas' 23rd | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Pure Toss-up |
| Utah's 4th | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
| Virginia's 4th[11] | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D | Safe D |
| Virginia's 5th | Safe R | Likely R | Lean R | R Favored |
| Virginia's 10th | Battleground | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up/Tilt R |
| Wisconsin's 8th | Competitive R | Lean R | Lean R | R Favored |
Democratic and Republican targets
NRCC
TheNational Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) focused on building and maintaining a Republican majority in theU.S. House of Representatives.[12]
NRCC targets
The following Democratic incumbents were announced as targets by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) heading into the 2016 election.[13]
Patriot Program
The NRCC's Patriot Program was established to help raise money and assist vulnerable Republican incumbents seeking re-election. NRCC ChairmanGreg Walden said of those in the program:
| “ | Our new Patriots have just shown that they know what it takes to run aggressive, organized, and winning campaigns. They have hit the ground running here in Washington and are tirelessly working hard to help grow the economy and fight for the hard working families and small businesses in their districts. I am proud to call them colleagues and am looking forward to helping ensure that they are able to win re-election and continue to serve beyond 2016.[15][16][17] | ” |
Young Guns
The Young Guns program "supports and mentors challenger and open-seat candidates in races across the country." NRCC Chairman Greg Walden said of the initial candidates of the program:
| “ | These 32 candidates all provide a stark contrast to their liberal opponents, whose support of bigger government, more spending and President Obama’s job-destroying agenda have steered our country down a dangerous path. With working families still struggling in this weak economy and our national security under increasing threats, we must elect more Republicans to Congress who will work to strengthen our nation. I am confident that these candidates will continue to work hard for their communities and build strong campaigns as we head into the election year."[18][19][20][17] | ” |
DCCC
TheDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) supported campaigns of Democratic candidates for theU.S. House.[12]
DCCC Frontline
The DCCC's Frontline program was established to assist Democratic incumbents who represented vulnerable districts. Chairman Ben Ray Lujan said of the program:
| “ | Each one of these members knows what it takes to win tough elections: working hard, standing up for your district, and not taking anything for granted. We are adding them to our Frontline Program, led by Representative Dan Kildee, to maximize their resources and ensure they are able to keep fighting to strengthen middle class economics. You don’t add by subtracting, so the success of our Members is integral to our plan to stay on offense in 2016.[21][17] | ” |
The DCCC announced 14 members of the 2016 Frontline Program on February 12, 2015. The following table displays the 2016 members of the Frontline Program.[22]
| Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Frontline Program 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Incumbent | Open seat?[14] | Result | ||
| Arizona's 1st District | Ann Kirkpatrick | Yes |  | ||
| Arizona's 9th District | Kyrsten Sinema | No | | ||
| California's 7th District | Ami Bera | No | | ||
| California's 26th District | Julia Brownley | No | | ||
| California's 31st District | Pete Aguilar | No | | ||
| California's 36th District | Raul Ruiz | No | | ||
| California's 52nd District | Scott Peters | No | | ||
| Florida's 2nd District | Gwen Graham | No |  d | ||
| Florida's 18th District | Patrick Murphy | Yes | d | ||
| Illinois' 17th District | Cheri Bustos | No | | ||
| Minnesota's 8th District | Rick Nolan | No | | ||
| Nebraska's 2nd District | Brad Ashford | No | d | ||
| New Hampshire's 2nd District | Ann McLane Kuster | No | | ||
| New York's 18th District | Sean Maloney | No | | ||
Red to Blue
The DCCC's Red to Blue program existed to highlight Democratic challengers in competitive House races. Chairman Ben Ray Lujan said of the program:
| “ | House Democrats are on offense and will pick up seats in November, and these talented and diverse candidates are the foundation of our success. From their campaign teams, to their field game, to their engagement of supporters and voters in their districts, these candidates are ready to take the fight to House Republicans. The American people deserve a House of Representatives that fights for progress and prosperity, not obstruction.[23][17] | ” |
Emerging Races is the second tier of the Red to Blue program. According to the DCCC, it includes the districts "where campaigns are on track and working hard to put seats in play."[24]
| Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Emerging Races 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Candidate | Open seat?[14] | ||
| Alaska's At-Large District | Steve Lindbeck | No | ||
| Arizona's 2nd District | Matt Heinz | No | ||
| California's 21st District | Emilio Huerta | No | ||
| Illinois' 12th District | C.J. Baricevic | No | ||
| Indiana's 2nd District | Lynn Coleman | No | ||
| Michigan's 6th District | Paul Clements | No | ||
| South Carolina's 5th District | Fran Person | No | ||
2014 Results
Ballotpedia conducted its first battleground study in 2014. We correctly predicted that there would be 26 battleground races (races with a margin of victory of 5 percent or less). However, we only correctly identified eight of the 26 battlegrounds(30.8%). We also incorrectly labeled 18 districts as battlegrounds when they ultimately did not end up being competitive enough for that distinction.
What went wrong?
- We primarily used margin of victory data from the 2012 congressional elections and the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections to determine our battleground ratings in 2014. In doing so, we failed to appreciate the difference between presidential and midterm election cycles and did not correctly predict how well Republican congressional candidates would fare in districts that were not competitive in 2012. This caused us to miss a number of races that actually turned out to be competitive. In 2016, we examined both the previous midterm of 2014 and presidential elections of 2012 and 2008 in order to make more educated predictions regarding congressional races.
- We were not flexible enough in applying our initial criteria used to create our list of battleground races. We required a district to rigidly meet all of our criteria or have an extenuating circumstance in order to be labeled as competitive. In 2016, we used many of the same criteria to make our initial predictions, but did not require any specific number of criteria to be met to be classified as a battleground. Instead, we simply used the criteria as a baseline and used our own judgment to determine which races to classify as battlegrounds.
- We stuck with our initial predictions and did not adapt enough to changing political conditions in each race. After we established our initial list of battleground races, we did not review and update our predictions frequently enough. In doing so, we missed districts that initially appeared noncompetitive but became competitive due to an especially strong performance from a challenger or a weak performance from an incumbent. In 2016, we revised our list of battleground districts monthly as the year progressed. As a result, several major updates were made to the battleground districts throughout the course of the election cycle.
See also
- United States Congress elections, 2016
- United States House of Representatives elections, 2016
- Presidential election, 2016
- United States House of Representatives
Footnotes
- ↑The Cook Political Report, "2016 House Race Ratings for November 2, 2016," November 2, 2016
- ↑United States Election Project, "Voter Turnout," accessed September 6, 2015
- ↑The Washington Post, "Will Donald Trump cost Republicans the House? It’s very unlikely," October 18, 2016
- ↑RealClear Politics, "The House May Be in Play," October 8, 2016
- ↑Vox, "A Trump collapse could give Democrats back the House. Here’s the math," October 8, 2016
- ↑The New York Times, "What Are the Chances That Democrats Retake the House?" August 23, 2016
- ↑Five Thirty Eight, "The GOP’s House Majority Is Safe … Right?" June 20, 2016
- ↑The Cook Political Report, "2016 House Race Ratings," accessed November 6, 2016
- ↑Sabato's Crystal Ball, "2016 House," accessed November 6, 2016
- ↑The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, "House Ratings," accessed November 6, 2016
- ↑11.011.111.2Due to court-ordered redistricting, Florida's 2nd and 10th Congressional Districts and Virginia's 4th Congressional District are expected to flip partisan control. However, Ballotpedia predicts that these races will not be competitive.
- ↑12.012.1NRCC "About," accessed September 8, 2015Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ab" defined multiple times with different content - ↑NRCC, "NRCC Announces 2016 Top Democrat Targets," February 18, 2015
- ↑14.014.114.214.314.4An open seat refers to a race in which the incumbent is not seeking re-election.
- ↑Roll Call, "Exclusive: NRCC Announces 12 Members in Patriot Program," February 13, 2015
- ↑NRCC, "Patriot Program," accessed September 28, 2016
- ↑17.017.117.217.3Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑NRCC, "32 Congressional Candidates Announced “On the Radar” as Part of NRCC’s Young Guns Program," November 19, 2015
- ↑NRCC, "Young Guns," accessed September 28, 2016
- ↑NRCC, "On the Radar," accessed September 28, 2016
- ↑DCCC, "Frontline Democrats 2015-2016," February 12, 2015
- ↑Roll Call, "Exclusive: DCCC Announces 14 Incumbents in Frontline Program," February 12, 2015
- ↑DCCC, "Red to Blue," accessed September 28, 2016
- ↑Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedred2blue
For information about public policy issues in the 2016 elections, see:Public policy in the 2016 elections!
| |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
