There are 26 comments.

1. Contributor
   Gary McVey

   @GaryMcVey

   6:33 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   A fine piece of work, Don. Pretty clearly once we get into three digits, the fight is over; the only hope of getting rid of AOC (for example) is hoping the Democrats primary her, replacing her with a less obnoxious Dem. That’s not great, but it’s not nothing. 

   There are other variables; the top of the 2020 ticket is one of them. Some districts will not want to strengthen Trump’s hand no matter how much we spend. Some, of course, run the other direction, mildly or moderately pro-Dem on the Congressional level, but susceptible to trying to help the president. 

   Also, they know who we’re targeting and will raise their own expenditure accordingly. 

    

2. Member
   Mark Camp

   @MarkCamp

   6:55 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   Don,

   I’m glad we have people who can do this stuff! It’s amazing to folks like me.

3. Member
   Zafar

   @Zafar

   6:56 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   If you ‘switched hats’ would there be districts which are similarly vulnerable to Democrat flips?

4. Member
   The Cloaked Gaijin

   @TheCloakedGaijin

   8:41 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   123 MO-5 $17.32 73,950 426,982 Emanuel Cleaver, III

   I think the last time that that Kansas City, Missouri, congressional district voted Republican was 1946.

   It’s only a D+7 district now that some suburbs have been attached to it, but it would still be tough.

   Missouri only has 8 congressional districts now.  Between 1903 and 1933, it had twice that number.  That’s one of only 2 Democrat-held congressional districts in the state.

   I guess the Republicans came within just over 10,000 votes in 2014 and 17,500 votes in the Tea Party year of 2010 of winning that district.  Those were non-presidential years, and I think the Democrats are now focusing on those non-presidential year elections more recently.

    

5. Moderator
   OmegaPaladin

   @OmegaPaladin

   9:02 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   Excellent work.  I like the nitty gritty analysis of data – I am a scientist when not being a safety ninja.  I have Danny Davis as my rep, and I’ve supported his challenger every year.  They usually get a small business owner to run, but they are getting harder to come by. 

6. Contributor
   Gary McVey

   @GaryMcVey

   9:14 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   Zafar (View Comment):

   If you ‘switched hats’ would there be districts which are similarly vulnerable to Democrat flips?

   Traditionally Republican suburbs are obvious targets, particularly women. Unlike deeply Democrat districts in urban areas, suburban women are more likely to be married, therefore more likely to be solidly middle class. They were nearly as solidly Republican as their husbands until roughly the turn of this century. They didn’t like Bush or the Iraq war–the “security Moms” we claimed would make Donald Rumsfeld a pin-up star didn’t emerge–but they stayed loyal enough to drive off John Kerry. They weren’t strongly pro-Obama, and their GOP-leaning votes proved it, but were and are generally more amenable to putting money into health care and education budgets than men, and liked Obama as a husband and father, seemingly a good role model for Black America. Trump actually won among married women in 2016, but it was a hold-your-nose vote for many of them. By and large, outside of the South, they don’t like President Trump. They might vote for him anyway in 2020 if the alternative is awful. (And the Dems know how to find awful.)

   This is something that the president’s biggest boosters don’t seem to get. They can win without the support of one single NeverTrump pundit or voter. But if he loses the Reluctant Trump voters, he loses, big time, no matter what Dilbert’s creator tells you. He can’t make them even more reluctant and still win re-election. That’ll be the bellwether in 2020.

7. Member
   namlliT noD

   @DonTillman

   

   Post author

   10:04 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   Gary McVey (View Comment):

   A fine piece of work, Don. Pretty clearly once we get into three digits, the fight is over; the only hope of getting rid of AOC (for example) is hoping the Democrats primary her, replacing her with a less obnoxious Dem. That’s not great, but it’s not nothing.

   Thanks.

   What are the three digits?

   Strategically, you wouldn’t want to replace AOC with a less obnoxious Democrat.  She’s a solid negative for the party in her current position, and she’s only one vote, so it would be better to use the resources elsewhere.

   I think it is possible to flip her seat as she sounds so crazy foolish whenever she opens her mouth.  It would require someone with an exceptionally strong personality to go against her media leverage.

   There are other variables; the top of the 2020 ticket is one of them. Some districts will not want to strengthen Trump’s hand no matter how much we spend. Some, of course, run the other direction, mildly or moderately pro-Dem on the Congressional level, but susceptible to trying to help the president.

   I’d be hesitant to assign emotional sorts of attributes to congressional districts.

   Also, they know who we’re targeting and will raise their own expenditure accordingly.

   Quite possibly, unless the party organization is nonfunctional.

8. Member
   namlliT noD

   @DonTillman

   

   Post author

   10:05 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   Zafar (View Comment):

   If you ‘switched hats’ would there be districts which are similarly vulnerable to Democrat flips?

   Oh yeah, I’m sure.  Part 7 maybe.

9. Member
   Gary Robbins

   @GaryRobbins

   10:11 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

   Great work!  There are 235 Dems, and you have listed them in order of most vulnerable (#1) to the least vulnerable (#235).  

   The so-called “Squad” cannot be beaten by Republicans; the only way to beat them is in the Democratic Primary, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is #107, Rashida Talib is #184, Ayanna Presley is #200, and Ilhan Omar is #225.  However, it would be a very good thing indeed, to have them be defeated by less radical Dems.

10. Contributor
    Gary McVey

    @GaryMcVey

    10:48 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    A fine piece of work, Don. Pretty clearly once we get into three digits, the fight is over; the only hope of getting rid of AOC (for example) is hoping the Democrats primary her, replacing her with a less obnoxious Dem. That’s not great, but it’s not nothing.

    Thanks.

    What are the three digits?

    Above #102, there’s only one target, so it looks like the GOP’s sabremetric crowd agrees.

    Strategically, you wouldn’t want to replace AOC with a less obnoxious Democrat. She’s a solid negative for the party in her current position, and she’s only one vote, so it would be better to use the resources elsewhere.

    Sure, as a partisan, but as a citizen I prefer sane Dems to insane ones. 

    I think it is possible to flip her seat as she sounds so crazy foolish whenever she opens her mouth. It would require someone with an exceptionally strong personality to go against her media leverage.

    It could be done by a more pro-Israel Republican who is also, like the citizens of the district, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights, and anti-gun. Basically, Michael Bloomberg, but there aren’t many of him. 

    There are other variables; the top of the 2020 ticket is one of them. Some districts will not want to strengthen Trump’s hand no matter how much we spend. Some, of course, run the other direction, mildly or moderately pro-Dem on the Congressional level, but susceptible to trying to help the president.

    I’d be hesitant to assign emotional sorts of attributes to congressional districts.

    You’re sticking to the numbers, which is consistent. I’m also looking at shading, which affects which targets are flippable, no matter how much money is spent. 

    Also, they know who we’re targeting and will raise their own expenditure accordingly.

    Quite possibly, unless the party organization is nonfunctional.

    The Democrats have the loyalties of the tech industry and academia; it seems like they’d have pretty good grasp of the numbers. If their party organization is disfunctional, it was functional enough to win in 2018. 

11. Member
    namlliT noD

    @DonTillman

    

    Post author

    11:00 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2019

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Great work! There are 235 Dems, and you have listed them in order of most vulnerable (#1) to the least vulnerable (#235).

    Thanks.

    Yes, that’s it.

    The so-called “Squad” cannot be beaten by Republicans; the only way to beat them is in the Democratic Primary, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is #107, Rashida Talib is #184, Ayanna Presley is #200, and Ilhan Omar is #225. However, it would be a very good thing indeed, to have them be defeated by less radical Dems.

    The impetus behind this was that, while some members congress are constantly in the news, others are completely unknown, and regardless of their stardom, they each have one vote.

    If the goal is getting the required number of Republican votes in the house, it’s best not to think about the congressfolk who happen to be in the news, but rather the ones in the districts with the most winnable elections.  And who are they?  This table provides a good guess.

    Strategically, I think it would be better to leave The Squid in place.  They make the rest of the Dems look bad, and they disrupt the party’s organization.

12. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    5:06 AM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2019

    Just wow

13. Member
    Illiniguy

    @Illiniguy

    

    6:39 AM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2019

    @dontillman This is good stuff. I live in IL-14 and am helping a colleague of mine from the Illinois General Assembly run for that seat. This could be a big help, because my county is critical to winning the primary and the general. I’m also running for re-election to my own seat in the Illinois House, and would like to use a variation on the formula to see how much my opponent (yet to be determined) will have to spend to beat me. It’s things like this that makes Ricochet worth the price of admission.

14. Moderator
    OmegaPaladin

    @OmegaPaladin

    9:45 AM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2019

    Illiniguy (View Comment):

    @dontillman This is good stuff. I live in IL-14 and am helping a colleague of mine from the Illinois General Assembly run for that seat. This could be a big help, because my county is critical to winning the primary and the general. I’m also running for re-election to my own seat in the Illinois House, and would like to use a variation on the formula to see how much my opponent (yet to be determined) will have to spend to beat me. It’s things like this that makes Ricochet worth the price of admission.

    Good luck.  IL is ill , and could use more republican leaders.  We might be able to have something survive the crash.

15. Member
    Hang On

    @HangOn

    4:05 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2019

    I live in district 221. I think i will continue snoozing since I’m not going to move.

16. Member
    CB Toder aka Mama Toad

    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    

    5:17 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2019

    Outstanding. Thank you so much.

    I got a call two weeks ago out of the blue from a guy, name of Tony German, who’s running in NY-19 against Antonio Delgado, a total piece of [CoC]. Tony and I had a nice long chat. It was quite impressive. Papa Toad and I will be going to a fundraiser next month.

    I’m going to send him the link to your essay, noD. I bet he’ll find it pretty interesting!

17. Member
    namlliT noD

    @DonTillman

    

    Post author

    6:27 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2019

    CB Toder aka Mama Toad (View Comment):

    Outstanding. Thank you so much.

    I got a call two weeks ago out of the blue from a guy, name of Tony German, who’s running in NY-19 against Antonio Delgado, a total piece of [CoC]. Tony and I had a nice long chat. It was quite impressive. Papa Toad and I will be going to a fundraiser next month.

    I’m going to send him the link to your essay, noD. I bet he’ll find it pretty interesting!

    You are quite welcome, Mizz Toad.

    Lessee, NY-19…  Oh wow, number 22 on the list.  Lost by only 15,000 votes, and there are about 423,000 people who didn’t vote, and thus potentially available new voters.  That is very winnable.

    And NY-19 is officially targeted by the RNCC so you’ll likely have all sorts of resources available.

    ‘Looks good!

18. Member
    namlliT noD

    @DonTillman

    

    Post author

    12:34 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2019

    Illiniguy (View Comment):

    @dontillman This is good stuff. I live in IL-14 and am helping a colleague of mine from the Illinois General Assembly run for that seat. This could be a big help, because my county is critical to winning the primary and the general. I’m also running for re-election to my own seat in the Illinois House, and would like to use a variation on the formula to see how much my opponent (yet to be determined) will have to spend to beat me. It’s things like this that makes Ricochet worth the price of admission.

    Thanks.

    And IL-14 is number 23 on the list.  Wow.  Missed by only 14,871 votes, and 413,000 nonvoters to woo.  Very winnable.

    And it, too, is officially targeted by the RNCC, so you’ll have resources available.

    The future looks bright.

19. Member
    namlliT noD

    @DonTillman

    

    Post author

    12:44 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2019

    Hang On (View Comment):

    I live in district 221. I think i will continue snoozing since I’m not going to move.

    Hmm, NC-4?

    (By the way, Wikipedia does a pretty good job on congressional districts in general.)

    Whoa, same congressman for 22 years?  Court mandated redistricting because of gerrymandering?

    That’s a tough one, man.

20. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    12:54 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2019

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    I live in district 221. I think i will continue snoozing since I’m not going to move.

    Hmm, NC-4?

    (By the way, Wikipedia does a pretty good job on congressional districts in general.)

    Whoa, congressman for 22 years? Courted mandated redistricting because of gerrymandering?

    That’s a tough one, man.

    Actually I disagree.  The NC Republican Legislature packed as many Democrats in that district as possible.  (Maryland Democrats did the same thing to MD-1, so that there is only one Republican in the Maryland Congressional Delegation, unlike 1994 when there were four Republicans out of 8.)

    For better or worse, the NC Supreme Court has ordered that NC be redistricted.  So NC 4 will not be so lopsided Democratic.  (On the other hand, this means that more NC Republican districts will be vulnerable.)

    For more information about NC-4 see this article in Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_4th_congressional_district

     

21. Member
    Hang On

    @HangOn

    4:36 AM EST ⋅ Dec 2, 2019

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    I live in district 221. I think i will continue snoozing since I’m not going to move.

    Hmm, NC-4?

    (By the way, Wikipedia does a pretty good job on congressional districts in general.)

    Whoa, congressman for 22 years? Courted mandated redistricting because of gerrymandering?

    That’s a tough one, man.

    Actually I disagree. The NC Republican Legislature packed as many Democrats in that district as possible. (Maryland Democrats did the same thing to MD-1, so that there is only one Republican in the Maryland Congressional Delegation, unlike 1994 when there were four Republicans out of 8.)

    For better or worse, the NC Supreme Court has ordered that NC be redistricted. So NC 4 will not be so lopsided Democratic. (On the other hand, this means that more NC Republican districts will be vulnerable.)

    For more information about NC-4 see this article in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_4th_congressional_district

     

    NC 4 is a very logically drawn district. It is RTP with three research universities and Price brings home the bacon. It is compact and not one that is obviously gerrymandered. 

22. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    7:06 AM EST ⋅ Dec 2, 2019

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    I live in district 221. I think i will continue snoozing since I’m not going to move.

    Hmm, NC-4?

    (By the way, Wikipedia does a pretty good job on congressional districts in general.)

    Whoa, congressman for 22 years? Courted mandated redistricting because of gerrymandering?

    That’s a tough one, man.

    Actually I disagree. The NC Republican Legislature packed as many Democrats in that district as possible. (Maryland Democrats did the same thing to MD-1, so that there is only one Republican in the Maryland Congressional Delegation, unlike 1994 when there were four Republicans out of 8.)

    For better or worse, the NC Supreme Court has ordered that NC be redistricted. So NC 4 will not be so lopsided Democratic. (On the other hand, this means that more NC Republican districts will be vulnerable.)

    For more information about NC-4 see this article in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_4th_congressional_district

     

    NC 4 is a very logically drawn district. It is RTP with three research universities and Price brings home the bacon. It is compact and not one that is obviously gerrymandered.

    RTP?

23. Member
    Boss Mongo

    @BossMongo

    4:03 PM EST ⋅ Dec 2, 2019

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    Sure, as a partisan, but as a citizen I prefer sane Dems to insane ones. 

    @garymcvey, then your options are precisely zero.

    They are all insane, if viewed thru the lens of the policies they support and would execute en masse if they could.

24. Member
    Gary Robbins

    @GaryRobbins

    4:48 PM EST ⋅ Dec 2, 2019

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    Sure, as a partisan, but as a citizen I prefer sane Dems to insane ones.

    @garymcvey, then your options are precisely zero.

    They are all insane, if viewed thru the lens of the policies they support and would execute en masse if they could.

    There is a huge difference between an AOC and a Steve Bullock.

    There is a huge difference between a Steve King and a Kevin McCarthy.

     

25. Contributor
    Gary McVey

    @GaryMcVey

    6:52 PM EST ⋅ Dec 2, 2019

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    Sure, as a partisan, but as a citizen I prefer sane Dems to insane ones.

    @garymcvey, then your options are precisely zero.

    They are all insane, if viewed thru the lens of the policies they support and would execute en masse if they could.

    In my district, they might as well be zero, so I keep tossing sand in the gears. There are more and less sane Democrats, so if stuck with my usual choices, I’ll vote for the sane one. If they’re both crazy, I don’t vote for either of them. 

26. Contributor
    Gary McVey

    @GaryMcVey

    6:55 PM EST ⋅ Dec 2, 2019

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    Sure, as a partisan, but as a citizen I prefer sane Dems to insane ones.

    @garymcvey, then your options are precisely zero.

    They are all insane, if viewed thru the lens of the policies they support and would execute en masse if they could.

    There is a huge difference between an AOC and a Steve Bullock.

    There is a huge difference between a Steve King and a Kevin McCarthy.

     

    Absolutely. I’d vote for Jim Webb over Steve King, or Daniel P. Moynihan over Roy Moore any day of the week. Most conservatives wish we had Truman-JFK type opponents, the kind the Democratic Party won’t support anymore.