RightDataUSA

Looking for demographics, elections & analysis?
You've come to the RIGHT place!

Demographics


Census data for states, counties, cities and more



Elections


Current and historical election results

Election Results

Politicians


Office holders, biographies, voting records

Candidates and Office Holders

Latest Demographics and Elections Commentary

6/29/2025: How Conservative is Your House Rep? A Comparison of CPAC Ratings and RightDataUSA.com Ratings [RightDataUSA]


Photo credit: CPAC.org

There is more to a congressman than his voting record -- there is his role in sponsoring or facilitating legislation; his role in various committees and subcommittees; providing services for his constituents, and other duties. Only the voting record provides a significant amount of quantifiable data about where he stands on the important issues of the day. Congress takes numerous votes over the course of a year. Many votes are not even officially tabulated -- these are "voice votes" -- but others ("roll-call votes") require an explicit enumeration of the Yeas and Nays.

In 2024 there were 516 roll-call votes conducted in the U.S. House of Representatives. Many of these were on topics that are frivolous, or they pertain to issues on which the correct position is so obvious as to be almost unanimously supported by our elected representatives. Some of these frivolous or obvious votes included:


Billie Jean King Congressional Gold Medal Act for the purpose of "recognition of her courageous and groundbreaking leadership" in being a non-heterosexual female who participated in professional athletics (paving the way for today's WNBA, though we are aware of no evidence that Ms. King was a hardcore racist against Whites). Also, at the age of 29, she once beat a 55-year old man in a highly publicized tennis match.

Enhanced Presidential Security Act, which was passed in September after a few assassination attempts were made against one particular 2024 presidential candidate. Even the most Trump-hating Democrats didn't want to be on the record against this bill (it passed 405-0).

A mandate for alarmist labeling on packages of pre-moistened baby wipes, a clear-cut issue of major importance which 56 Republican meanies still voted against.


The majority of House votes each year are far from frivolous, and there are hundreds of them. Therefore it is not possible for voters to keep detailed balance sheets in their heads regarding how each congressman voted.

Various special interest organizations such as the AFL-CIO, ACLU, League of Conservation Voters, pro-abortionist groups and numerous others (not all of them are on the left) try to help their followers know which politicians they should like and which they should hate, by producing narrowly-focused ratings of congressmen every year. These groups select a tiny subset of votes which are of interest to them, and they grade members of Congress based on the percentage of the time the member's vote aligned with the wishes of the group doing the rating.

There are two groups which produce more broadly-based ratings -- Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) on the left, and CPAC (formerly known as the American Conservative Union) on the right. Neither of these organizations exactly provide up-to-the-minute data; the ADA has published one set of yearly ratings since 2021, and here in June of 2025 CPAC has finally released its ratings for 2024.

Like all other ratings organizations, both of these groups identify certain important ("key") votes and compute the percentage of the time that each congressman voted their way. CPAC selected 23 key votes which took place in the House in 2024, and has issued ratings based on those votes.


Photo credit: c-span.org

At RightDataUSA.com, we have a complete record of CPAC/ACU key votes and their results going all the way back to 1970, which is when the ACU began issuing ratings. We have also created our own ratings, based on likely ACU criteria, for the years 1961-1969 for those who are interested in ancient history.

More pertinently, we generate our own House ratings during each year, while those two higher-profile organizations do not release their data until well into the following year (if at all, in the case of the ADA). Our source for data is voteview.com, which is typically updated every few weeks and contains information on every roll-call vote taken in Congress. Aside from identifying what we consider to be key votes, we use this data to calculate Party Unity scores along with the percentage of the time each representative actually showed up for work (their Voting Percentage). An example is shown here, for Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY)

Explanations of the various columns are provided underneath the data table. The numbers in the last two columns represent the percentage of the time which Stefanik voted liberal (according to the ADA) or conservative (according to CPAC). These numbers, for recent years, are linked to their corresponding data sets. For example, click on the number "71" in the "Conserv." column for the year 2024, and you will be taken to a page which lists all 23 CPAC key votes -- one of which was so important to them that it is double-counted -- and how Stefanik voted on those 23 issues. Her rating of "71" means that CPAC believes she voted the conservative position 71% of the time in 2024.

As noted in the explanations, the liberal and conservative figures for a year do not necessarily add to 100% because ADA and CPAC use different sets of key votes for their evaluations.

Click through to this page to see details regarding all CPAC key votes for 2024. The subject of the first one was the Biden administration exempting electric vehicle chargers from "Buy American" requirements. Stefanik voted the right way on this issue. To see how the entire House voted, click on the Result ("Passed 209-198"):

Vote Data for SJRES38 (118th Congress) Subject: Waiver of Buy American Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers

That page is sorted by Yeas/Nays by default, but can also be sorted alphabetically, or by party or state. A green check next to a member's name indicates that he voted the right way; a red X means that member voted the wrong way. There are pages such as this on RightDataUSA.com for every single key House vote since 1961, but probably few users have discovered them up to now.



While updating the pages of all 2024 House members to reflect the recently-released CPAC figures, we noticed that in many cases their ratings deviated from our own ratings by a substantial amount. The table below displays data for each congressman -- the CPAC rating, the RightDataUSA.com rating and the aggregate rating (a combination of CPAC ratings and ours).

Right at the top of the chart is one good example of this divergence: Alaska representative Mary Peltola, a Democrat who was defeated for re-election last November, was assigned a 53% conservative rating by us for 2024 but only 22% by CPAC. Peltola, as a Democrat from a supposedly solid "red" state, was forced to masquerade as a moderate in order to have any chance of returning to the House for a second term; she came close but lost by 2.4%.

How conservative was she, really? Note that even 22% is a very high conservative rating for a Democrat these days and 53% is stratospheric. In the event of a major difference between our rating and CPAC's rating, the truth typically lies somewhere in between. Peltola's aggregate rating was 40% for 2024.

District 2024 Rep. Our
Rating
CPAC
Rating
Aggregate
AK-00 Mary Peltola (D) 53% 22% 40%
AL-01 Jerry Carl (R) 92% 74% 85%
AL-02 Barry Moore (R) 100% 96% 98%
AL-03 Mike Rogers (R) 82% 67% 76%
AL-04 Robert Aderholt (R) 85% 70% 79%
AL-05 Dale Strong (R) 87% 75% 83%
AL-06 Gary Palmer (R) 97% 96% 97%
AL-07 Terri Sewell (D) 0% 0% 0%
AR-01 Rick Crawford (R) 87% 70% 81%
AR-02 French Hill (R) 85% 71% 79%
AR-03 Steve Womack (R) 85% 63% 76%
AR-04 Bruce Westerman (R) 95% 83% 90%
AZ-01 David Schweikert (R) 95% 83% 90%
AZ-02 Eli Crane (R) 92% 96% 94%
AZ-03 Ruben Gallego (D) 27% 5% 19%
AZ-04 Greg Stanton (D) 13% 4% 10%
AZ-05 Andy Biggs (R) 95% 96% 95%
AZ-06 Juan Ciscomani (R) 87% 54% 74%
AZ-07 Raul Grijalva (D) 0% 0% 0%
AZ-08 Debbie Lesko (R) 95% 88% 92%
AZ-09 Paul Gosar (R) 97% 100% 98%
CA-01 Doug LaMalfa (R) 94% 91% 93%
CA-02 Jared Huffman (D) 8% 0% 5%
CA-03 Kevin Kiley (R) 87% 54% 75%
CA-04 Mike Thompson (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-05 Tom McClintock (R) 87% 92% 89%
CA-06 Ami Bera (D) 0% 4% 2%
CA-07 Doris Matsui (D) 5% 0% 3%
CA-08 John Garamendi (D) 0% 0% 0%
CA-09 Josh Harder (D) 20% 5% 14%
CA-10 Mark DeSaulnier (D) 8% 0% 5%
CA-11 Nancy Pelosi (D) 0% 0% 0%
CA-12 Barbara Lee (D) 10% 0% 6%
CA-13 John Duarte (R) 82% 68% 77%
CA-14 Eric Swalwell (D) 8% 0% 5%
CA-15 Kevin Mullin (D) 5% 0% 3%
CA-16 Anna Eshoo (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-17 Ro Khanna (D) 11% 0% 7%
CA-18 Zoe Lofgren (D) 11% 0% 6%
CA-19 Jimmy Panetta (D) 13% 4% 10%
CA-20 Vince Fong (R) 100% 67% 87%
CA-21 Jim Costa (D) 8% 13% 10%
CA-22 David Valadao (R) 84% 55% 73%
CA-23 Jay Obernolte (R) 84% 70% 78%
CA-24 Salud Carbajal (D) 0% 0% 0%
CA-25 Raul Ruiz (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-26 Julia Brownley (D) 0% 0% 0%
CA-27 Mike Garcia (R) 83% 64% 75%
CA-28 Judy Chu (D) 5% 0% 3%
CA-29 Tony Cardenas (D) 8% 0% 5%
CA-30 Adam Schiff (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-31 Grace Napolitano (D) 5% 0% 3%
CA-32 Brad Sherman (D) 5% 0% 3%
CA-33 Pete Aguilar (D) 0% 0% 0%
CA-34 Jimmy Gomez (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-35 Norma Torres (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-36 Ted Lieu (D) 6% 0% 4%
CA-37 Sydney Kamlager (D) 8% 0% 5%
CA-38 Linda Sanchez (D) 0% 0% 0%
CA-39 Mark Takano (D) 8% 4% 6%
CA-40 Young Kim (R) 85% 57% 74%
CA-41 Ken Calvert (R) 85% 58% 75%
CA-42 Robert Garcia (D) 8% 0% 5%
CA-43 Maxine Waters (D) 5% 0% 3%
CA-44 Nanette Barragan (D) 3% 0% 2%
CA-45 Michelle Steel (R) 87% 71% 81%
CA-46 Lou Correa (D) 5% 4% 5%
CA-47 Katie Porter (D) 9% 0% 6%
CA-48 Darrell Issa (R) 92% 67% 82%
CA-49 Mike Levin (D) 13% 4% 10%
CA-50 Scott Peters (D) 3% 4% 3%
CA-51 Sara Jacobs (D) 11% 0% 7%
CA-52 Juan Vargas (D) 8% 0% 5%
CO-01 Diana DeGette (D) 5% 0% 3%
CO-02 Joe Neguse (D) 0% 0% 0%
CO-03 Lauren Boebert (R) 95% 95% 95%
CO-04 Greg Lopez (R) 93% 100% 95%
CO-04 Ken Buck (R) 71% 86% 79%
CO-05 Doug Lamborn (R) 78% 75% 77%
CO-06 Jason Crow (D) 0% 0% 0%
CO-07 Brittany Pettersen (D) 3% 0% 2%
CO-08 Yadira Caraveo (D) 33% 25% 30%
CT-01 John Larson (D) 3% 0% 2%
CT-02 Joe Courtney (D) 5% 8% 6%
CT-03 Rosa DeLauro (D) 0% 0% 0%
CT-04 Jim Himes (D) 3% 4% 3%
CT-05 Jahana Hayes (D) 10% 4% 8%
DE-00 Lisa Blunt Rochester (D) 0% 0% 0%
FL-01 Matt Gaetz (R) 97% 95% 96%
FL-02 Neal Dunn (R) 88% 74% 82%
FL-03 Kat Cammack (R) 95% 83% 90%
FL-04 Aaron Bean (R) 95% 96% 95%
FL-05 John Rutherford (R) 85% 75% 81%
FL-06 Michael Waltz (R) 89% 90% 89%
FL-07 Cory Mills (R) 92% 91% 92%
FL-08 Bill Posey (R) 95% 100% 97%
FL-09 Darren Soto (D) 13% 0% 8%
FL-10 Maxwell Frost (D) 10% 4% 8%
FL-11 Daniel Webster (R) 95% 79% 89%
FL-12 Gus Bilirakis (R) 97% 95% 97%
FL-13 Anna Paulina Luna (R) 97% 95% 96%
FL-14 Kathy Castor (D) 8% 4% 6%
FL-15 Laurel Lee (R) 89% 88% 89%
FL-16 Vern Buchanan (R) 85% 65% 77%
FL-17 Greg Steube (R) 97% 100% 98%
FL-18 Scott Franklin (R) 89% 75% 84%
FL-19 Byron Donalds (R) 97% 91% 95%
FL-20 Sheila McCormick (D) 5% 0% 3%
FL-21 Brian Mast (R) 97% 83% 92%
FL-22 Lois Frankel (D) 6% 0% 4%
FL-23 Jared Moskowitz (D) 20% 4% 14%
FL-24 Frederica Wilson (D) 0% 0% 0%
FL-25 Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D) 3% 0% 2%
FL-26 Mario Diaz-Balart (R) 83% 52% 72%
FL-27 Maria Salazar (R) 84% 59% 75%
FL-28 Carlos Gimenez (R) 84% 71% 79%
GA-01 Buddy Carter (R) 87% 65% 79%
GA-02 Sanford Bishop (D) 5% 8% 6%
GA-03 Drew Ferguson (R) 85% 77% 82%
GA-04 Hank Johnson (D) 0% 0% 0%
GA-05 Nikema Williams (D) 8% 0% 5%
GA-06 Rich McCormick (R) 92% 88% 90%
GA-07 Lucy McBath (D) 5% 0% 3%
GA-08 Austin Scott (R) 85% 79% 83%
GA-09 Andrew Clyde (R) 95% 100% 97%
GA-10 Mike Collins (R) 97% 96% 97%
GA-11 Barry Loudermilk (R) 95% 96% 95%
GA-12 Rick Allen (R) 95% 88% 92%
GA-13 David Scott (D) 15% 0% 10%
GA-14 Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) 97% 96% 97%
HI-01 Ed Case (D) 5% 8% 6%
HI-02 Jill Tokuda (D) 5% 0% 3%
IA-01 Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) 84% 68% 78%
IA-02 Ashley Hinson (R) 85% 59% 75%
IA-03 Zach Nunn (R) 85% 57% 75%
IA-04 Randy Feenstra (R) 90% 75% 84%
ID-01 Russ Fulcher (R) 95% 92% 94%
ID-02 Mike Simpson (R) 91% 50% 75%
IL-01 Jonathan Jackson (D) 13% 0% 8%
IL-02 Robin Kelly (D) 0% 0% 0%
IL-03 Delia Ramirez (D) 10% 0% 6%
IL-04 Chuy Garcia (D) 8% 0% 5%
IL-05 Mike Quigley (D) 6% 0% 3%
IL-06 Sean Casten (D) 0% 0% 0%
IL-07 Danny Davis (D) 6% 0% 3%
IL-08 Raja Krishnamoorthi (D) 0% 0% 0%
IL-09 Jan Schakowsky (D) 10% 0% 6%
IL-10 Brad Schneider (D) 3% 0% 2%
IL-11 Bill Foster (D) 3% 4% 3%
IL-12 Mike Bost (R) 97% 83% 92%
IL-13 Nikki Budzinski (D) 15% 4% 11%
IL-14 Lauren Underwood (D) 0% 0% 0%
IL-15 Mary Miller (R) 97% 96% 97%
IL-16 Darin LaHood (R) 87% 83% 85%
IL-17 Eric Sorensen (D) 26% 5% 18%
IN-01 Frank Mrvan (D) 15% 4% 11%
IN-02 Rudy Yakym (R) 95% 79% 89%
IN-03 Jim Banks (R) 95% 96% 95%
IN-04 Jim Baird (R) 97% 79% 90%
IN-05 Victoria Spartz (R) 94% 96% 95%
IN-06 Greg Pence (R) 89% 67% 80%
IN-07 Andre Carson (D) 0% 0% 0%
IN-08 Larry Bucshon (R) 87% 65% 79%
IN-09 Erin Houchin (R) 90% 79% 86%
KS-01 Tracey Mann (R) 95% 83% 90%
KS-02 Jake LaTurner (R) 86% 74% 81%
KS-03 Sharice Davids (D) 15% 4% 11%
KS-04 Ron Estes (R) 92% 83% 89%
KY-01 James Comer (R) 95% 90% 93%
KY-02 Brett Guthrie (R) 87% 75% 83%
KY-03 Morgan McGarvey (D) 8% 0% 5%
KY-04 Thomas Massie (R) 90% 95% 92%
KY-05 Harold Rogers (R) 84% 56% 75%
KY-06 Andy Barr (R) 84% 79% 82%
LA-01 Steve Scalise (R) 84% 74% 81%
LA-02 Troy Carter (D) 3% 0% 2%
LA-03 Clay Higgins (R) 100% 100% 100%
LA-04 Mike Johnson (R) 89% 81% 87%
LA-05 Julia Letlow (R) 92% 74% 85%
LA-06 Garret Graves (R) 92% 71% 84%
MA-01 Richard Neal (D) 3% 0% 2%
MA-02 James McGovern (D) 10% 0% 6%
MA-03 Lori Trahan (D) 3% 0% 2%
MA-04 Jake Auchincloss (D) 5% 0% 3%
MA-05 Katherine Clark (D) 3% 0% 2%
MA-06 Seth Moulton (D) 5% 0% 3%
MA-07 Ayanna Pressley (D) 11% 0% 7%
MA-08 Stephen Lynch (D) 8% 5% 7%
MA-09 William Keating (D) 0% 4% 2%
MD-01 Andy Harris (R) 95% 92% 94%
MD-02 Dutch Ruppersberger (D) 0% 0% 0%
MD-03 John Sarbanes (D) 3% 0% 2%
MD-04 Glenn Ivey (D) 3% 0% 2%
MD-05 Steny Hoyer (D) 0% 0% 0%
MD-06 David Trone (D) 0% 0% 0%
MD-07 Kweisi Mfume (D) 5% 0% 3%
MD-08 Jamie Raskin (D) 3% 0% 2%
ME-01 Chellie Pingree (D) 8% 0% 5%
ME-02 Jared Golden (D) 61% 36% 52%
MI-01 Jack Bergman (R) 95% 67% 84%
MI-02 John Moolenaar (R) 92% 67% 83%
MI-03 Hillary Scholten (D) 13% 4% 10%
MI-04 Bill Huizenga (R) 92% 68% 84%
MI-05 Tim Walberg (R) 92% 83% 89%
MI-06 Debbie Dingell (D) 10% 0% 6%
MI-07 Elissa Slotkin (D) 18% 4% 13%
MI-08 Dan Kildee (D) 8% 5% 7%
MI-09 Lisa McClain (R) 89% 88% 88%
MI-10 John James (R) 86% 57% 75%
MI-11 Haley Stevens (D) 3% 0% 2%
MI-12 Rashida Tlaib (D) 8% 0% 5%
MI-13 Shri Thanedar (D) 8% 0% 5%
MN-01 Brad Finstad (R) 97% 83% 92%
MN-02 Angie Craig (D) 31% 4% 21%
MN-03 Dean Phillips (D) 9% 0% 6%
MN-04 Betty McCollum (D) 0% 0% 0%
MN-05 Ilhan Omar (D) 10% 0% 7%
MN-06 Tom Emmer (R) 87% 83% 86%
MN-07 Michelle Fischbach (R) 97% 83% 92%
MN-08 Pete Stauber (R) 92% 77% 87%
MO-01 Cori Bush (D) 11% 0% 7%
MO-02 Ann Wagner (R) 86% 57% 75%
MO-03 Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) 93% 68% 83%
MO-04 Mark Alford (R) 97% 88% 94%
MO-05 Emanuel Cleaver (D) 0% 0% 0%
MO-06 Sam Graves (R) 86% 76% 82%
MO-07 Eric Burlison (R) 95% 96% 95%
MO-08 Jason Smith (R) 95% 88% 92%
MS-01 Trent Kelly (R) 90% 75% 84%
MS-02 Bennie Thompson (D) 0% 0% 0%
MS-03 Michael Guest (R) 92% 79% 87%
MS-04 Mike Ezell (R) 90% 78% 85%
MT-01 Ryan Zinke (R) 92% 83% 88%
MT-02 Matt Rosendale (R) 92% 96% 94%
NC-01 Don Davis (D) 56% 21% 43%
NC-02 Deborah Ross (D) 5% 0% 3%
NC-03 Greg Murphy (R) 81% 76% 79%
NC-04 Valerie Foushee (D) 8% 0% 5%
NC-05 Virginia Foxx (R) 90% 75% 84%
NC-06 Kathy Manning (D) 10% 4% 8%
NC-07 David Rouzer (R) 85% 83% 84%
NC-08 Dan Bishop (R) 100% 100% 100%
NC-09 Richard Hudson (R) 94% 71% 86%
NC-10 Patrick McHenry (R) 81% 75% 79%
NC-11 Chuck Edwards (R) 92% 63% 80%
NC-12 Alma Adams (D) 5% 0% 3%
NC-13 Wiley Nickel (D) 15% 4% 11%
NC-14 Jeff Jackson (D) 14% 4% 10%
ND-00 Kelly Armstrong (R) 97% 79% 90%
NE-01 Mike Flood (R) 85% 71% 79%
NE-02 Don Bacon (R) 82% 52% 70%
NE-03 Adrian Smith (R) 86% 79% 84%
NH-01 Chris Pappas (D) 18% 5% 13%
NH-02 Ann Kuster (D) 3% 5% 3%
NJ-01 Donald Norcross (D) 9% 0% 5%
NJ-02 Jeff Van Drew (R) 97% 79% 90%
NJ-03 Andy Kim (D) 0% 0% 0%
NJ-04 Chris Smith (R) 90% 58% 78%
NJ-05 Josh Gottheimer (D) 16% 4% 11%
NJ-06 Frank Pallone (D) 16% 0% 10%
NJ-07 Tom Kean, Jr. (R) 85% 50% 71%
NJ-08 Rob Menendez (D) 3% 0% 2%
NJ-09 Bill Pascrell (D) 0% 7% 3%
NJ-10 LaMonica McIver (D) 0% 0% 0%
NJ-10 Donald Payne, Jr. (D) 0% 0% 0%
NJ-11 Mikie Sherrill (D) 6% 5% 5%
NJ-12 Bonnie Coleman (D) 9% 0% 6%
NM-01 Melanie Stansbury (D) 5% 0% 3%
NM-02 Gabriel Vasquez (D) 8% 8% 8%
NM-03 Teresa Fernandez (D) 5% 0% 3%
NV-01 Dina Titus (D) 8% 4% 7%
NV-02 Mark Amodei (R) 92% 57% 79%
NV-03 Susie Lee (D) 24% 5% 16%
NV-04 Steven Horsford (D) 26% 4% 18%
NY-01 Nick LaLota (R) 84% 50% 70%
NY-02 Andrew Garbarino (R) 85% 50% 71%
NY-03 Thomas Suozzi (D) 17% 0% 12%
NY-04 Anthony D'Esposito (R) 86% 54% 74%
NY-05 Gregory Meeks (D) 3% 0% 2%
NY-06 Grace Meng (D) 11% 0% 7%
NY-07 Nydia Velazquez (D) 11% 0% 7%
NY-08 Hakeem Jeffries (D) 3% 0% 2%
NY-09 Yvette Clarke (D) 5% 0% 3%
NY-10 Daniel Goldman (D) 3% 0% 2%
NY-11 Nicole Malliotakis (R) 86% 79% 84%
NY-12 Jerrold Nadler (D) 10% 0% 6%
NY-13 Adriano Espaillat (D) 11% 0% 6%
NY-14 Alexandria Octavio-Cortez (D) 11% 0% 6%
NY-15 Ritchie Torres (D) 11% 0% 6%
NY-16 Jamaal Bowman (D) 13% 0% 9%
NY-17 Mike Lawler (R) 84% 50% 70%
NY-18 Pat Ryan (D) 18% 4% 13%
NY-19 Marc Molinaro (R) 87% 59% 77%
NY-20 Paul Tonko (D) 5% 0% 3%
NY-21 Elise Stefanik (R) 87% 71% 81%
NY-22 Brandon Williams (R) 92% 58% 79%
NY-23 Nick Langworthy (R) 94% 81% 89%
NY-24 Claudia Tenney (R) 89% 96% 92%
NY-25 Joe Morelle (D) 0% 4% 2%
NY-26 Timothy Kennedy (D) 4% 0% 3%
NY-26 Brian Higgins (D) 0% 0% 0%
OH-01 Greg Landsman (D) 22% 4% 15%
OH-02 Brad Wenstrup (R) 85% 75% 81%
OH-03 Joyce Beatty (D) 5% 0% 3%
OH-04 Jim Jordan (R) 97% 96% 97%
OH-05 Bob Latta (R) 87% 75% 83%
OH-06 Bill Johnson (R) 100% 100% 100%
OH-06 Michael Rulli (R) 100% 80% 92%
OH-07 Max Miller (R) 87% 71% 81%
OH-08 Warren Davidson (R) 97% 96% 97%
OH-09 Marcy Kaptur (D) 18% 13% 16%
OH-10 Mike Turner (R) 79% 60% 72%
OH-11 Shontel Brown (D) 5% 0% 3%
OH-12 Troy Balderson (R) 89% 79% 85%
OH-13 Emilia Sykes (D) 11% 4% 8%
OH-14 David Joyce (R) 84% 50% 70%
OH-15 Mike Carey (R) 87% 75% 83%
OK-01 Kevin Hern (R) 97% 91% 95%
OK-02 Josh Brecheen (R) 95% 96% 95%
OK-03 Frank Lucas (R) 85% 63% 76%
OK-04 Tom Cole (R) 84% 59% 75%
OK-05 Stephanie Bice (R) 85% 63% 76%
OR-01 Suzanne Bonamici (D) 10% 0% 6%
OR-02 Cliff Bentz (R) 92% 71% 84%
OR-03 Earl Blumenauer (D) 9% 0% 5%
OR-04 Val Hoyle (D) 10% 4% 8%
OR-05 Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R) 82% 50% 69%
OR-06 Andrea Salinas (D) 16% 0% 10%
PA-01 Brian Fitzpatrick (R) 72% 38% 59%
PA-02 Brendan Boyle (D) 11% 8% 10%
PA-03 Dwight Evans (D) 11% 0% 7%
PA-04 Madeleine Dean (D) 3% 0% 2%
PA-05 Mary Gay Scanlon (D) 8% 0% 5%
PA-06 Chrissy Houlahan (D) 5% 8% 6%
PA-07 Susan Wild (D) 15% 4% 11%
PA-08 Matt Cartwright (D) 21% 9% 16%
PA-09 Dan Meuser (R) 92% 83% 88%
PA-10 Scott Perry (R) 97% 100% 98%
PA-11 Lloyd Smucker (R) 85% 75% 81%
PA-12 Summer Lee (D) 10% 0% 6%
PA-13 John Joyce (R) 95% 88% 92%
PA-14 Guy Reschenthaler (R) 87% 83% 86%
PA-15 Glenn Thompson (R) 87% 71% 81%
PA-16 Mike Kelly (R) 84% 71% 79%
PA-17 Chris DeLuzio (D) 13% 4% 10%
RI-01 Gabe Amo (D) 3% 0% 2%
RI-02 Seth Magaziner (D) 3% 0% 2%
SC-01 Nancy Mace (R) 95% 83% 90%
SC-02 Joe Wilson (R) 86% 75% 82%
SC-03 Jeff Duncan (R) 94% 90% 93%
SC-04 William Timmons (R) 97% 96% 97%
SC-05 Ralph Norman (R) 95% 100% 97%
SC-06 James Clyburn (D) 3% 0% 2%
SC-07 Russell Fry (R) 97% 96% 97%
SD-00 Dusty Johnson (R) 90% 74% 84%
TN-01 Diana Harshbarger (R) 97% 88% 94%
TN-02 Tim Burchett (R) 92% 92% 92%
TN-03 Chuck Fleischmann (R) 90% 67% 81%
TN-04 Scott DesJarlais (R) 100% 90% 96%
TN-05 Andy Ogles (R) 97% 96% 97%
TN-06 John Rose (R) 97% 86% 93%
TN-07 Mark E. Green (R) 95% 91% 93%
TN-08 David Kustoff (R) 89% 79% 85%
TN-09 Steve Cohen (D) 0% 4% 2%
TX-01 Nathaniel Moran (R) 87% 83% 86%
TX-02 Dan Crenshaw (R) 83% 65% 77%
TX-03 Keith Self (R) 95% 96% 95%
TX-04 Pat Fallon (R) 97% 83% 92%
TX-05 Lance Gooden (R) 97% 92% 95%
TX-06 Jake Ellzey (R) 85% 63% 76%
TX-07 Lizzie Fletcher (D) 0% 4% 2%
TX-08 Morgan Luttrell (R) 92% 79% 87%
TX-09 Al Green (D) 6% 0% 3%
TX-10 Michael McCaul (R) 86% 67% 79%
TX-11 August Pfluger (R) 90% 75% 84%
TX-12 Kay Granger (R) 85% 69% 79%
TX-13 Ronny Jackson (R) 95% 95% 95%
TX-14 Randy Weber (R) 97% 96% 97%
TX-15 Monica De La Cruz (R) 89% 74% 83%
TX-16 Veronica Escobar (D) 5% 0% 3%
TX-17 Pete Sessions (R) 86% 74% 81%
TX-18 Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) 20% 0% 12%
TX-18 Erica Lee Carter (D) 0% 0% 0%
TX-19 Jodey Arrington (R) 97% 91% 95%
TX-20 Joaquin Castro (D) 5% 0% 4%
TX-21 Chip Roy (R) 95% 100% 97%
TX-22 Troy Nehls (R) 97% 95% 96%
TX-23 Tony Gonzales (R) 85% 71% 79%
TX-24 Beth Van Duyne (R) 90% 96% 92%
TX-25 Roger Williams (R) 100% 95% 98%
TX-26 Michael Burgess (R) 86% 82% 85%
TX-27 Michael Cloud (R) 95% 95% 95%
TX-28 Henry Cuellar (D) 55% 33% 47%
TX-29 Sylvia Garcia (D) 5% 0% 3%
TX-30 Jasmine Crockett (D) 5% 0% 3%
TX-31 John Carter (R) 86% 61% 77%
TX-32 Colin Allred (D) 16% 8% 13%
TX-33 Mark Veasey (D) 5% 9% 6%
TX-34 Vicente Gonzalez (D) 43% 23% 36%
TX-35 Greg Casar (D) 10% 0% 6%
TX-36 Brian Babin (R) 92% 88% 90%
TX-37 Lloyd Doggett (D) 5% 0% 3%
TX-38 Wesley Hunt (R) 92% 95% 93%
UT-01 Blake Moore (R) 82% 58% 73%
UT-02 Celeste Maloy (R) 97% 71% 87%
UT-03 John Curtis (R) 92% 83% 89%
UT-04 Burgess Owens (R) 97% 75% 89%
VA-01 Rob Wittman (R) 89% 75% 84%
VA-02 Jen Kiggans (R) 85% 58% 75%
VA-03 Bobby Scott (D) 8% 0% 5%
VA-04 Jennifer McClellan (D) 3% 0% 2%
VA-05 Bob Good (R) 95% 100% 97%
VA-06 Ben Cline (R) 97% 96% 97%
VA-07 Abigail Spanbarger (D) 5% 4% 5%
VA-08 Don Beyer (D) 0% 0% 0%
VA-09 Morgan Griffith (R) 94% 91% 93%
VA-10 Jennifer Wexton (D) 3% 0% 2%
VA-11 Gerry Connolly (D) 0% 0% 0%
VT-00 Becca Balint (D) 8% 0% 5%
WA-01 Suzan DelBene (D) 8% 0% 5%
WA-02 Rick Larsen (D) 8% 4% 6%
WA-03 Marie Perez (D) 68% 39% 57%
WA-04 Dan Newhouse (R) 87% 61% 77%
WA-05 Cathy McMorris (R) 88% 90% 89%
WA-06 Derek Kilmer (D) 3% 0% 2%
WA-07 Pramila Jayapal (D) 12% 0% 7%
WA-08 Kim Schrier (D) 18% 4% 13%
WA-09 Adam Smith (D) 3% 0% 2%
WA-10 Marilyn Strickland (D) 0% 0% 0%
WI-01 Brian Steil (R) 92% 79% 87%
WI-02 Mark Pocan (D) 11% 0% 7%
WI-03 Derrick Van Orden (R) 92% 79% 87%
WI-04 Gwen Moore (D) 9% 0% 5%
WI-05 Scott Fitzgerald (R) 95% 83% 90%
WI-06 Glen Grothman (R) 92% 79% 87%
WI-07 Tom Tiffany (R) 92% 96% 93%
WI-08 Tony Wied (R) 100% 100% 100%
WI-08 Mike Gallagher (R) 57% 63% 59%
WV-01 Carol Miller (R) 87% 88% 87%
WV-02 Alex Mooney (R) 97% 100% 98%
WY-00 Harriet Hageman (R) 97% 96% 97%


For 2024:

The average GOP representative received a rating of 79% from CPAC and 91% from RightDataUSA.com. The average Democrat representative received a rating of 2% from CPAC and 9% from RightDataUSA.com. The average House member received a rating of 41% from CPAC and 50% from RightDataUSA.com.

Why are the two sets of 2024 House ratings so different in many instances? Our evaluations skew to the right as compared to those of CPAC. Of the 441 representatives who participated in House votes in 2024, we assigned a higher conservative rating than CPAC to 353 of them; we assigned a lower rating to only 51 (37 received identical ratings from both sources).

Even though RightDataUSA.com and CPAC are approaching this subject from the same conservative perspective, there was surprisingly little agreement on what constituted a key vote in 2024. Between the 23 votes CPAC selected and the 39 we selected, there were only two which overlapped. Furthermore, there was a considerable differentiation in the type of key vote which was selected.

Each key vote can be assigned to one of the following categories:
  • Economic
  • Social
  • Foreign

Many key votes could easily be assigned to multiple categories (e.g. practically every vote has some economic component to it), however we limited all votes to a single classification. As one example, all key votes dealing with border control and/or illegal immigration are classified as Social rather than Foreign because it is much more of a social issue than one of foreign policy; but illegal immigration, like so many other vote topics, has a compelling economic impact as well.

CPAC's 23 key votes break down as:
  • 62.5% Economic
  • 29.2% Social
  • 8.3% Foreign

Our 39 key votes were distributed as:
  • 20.5% Economic
  • 59.0% Social
  • 20.5% Foreign

Once CPAC ratings are available for a particular year, we allow them to supersede our own ratings and therefore we display the CPAC data and remove ours (we may update the site to show both datasets shortly). Here is a listing of the 39 key House votes we selected for 2024:
  1. Denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders policies
  2. Impeaching Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security
  3. Extension of continuing appropriations for 2024
  4. Laken Riley Act
  5. Denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies
  6. Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act
  7. Denouncing the Biden administration's anti-American energy policies
  8. Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act
  9. Prohibiting warrantless searches of U.S. personal communications in the FISA database
  10. Renewing FISA (the FBI's tool often used against conservatives) for 5 years
  11. Expanding prohibited disclosures of stored electronic communications
  12. Rescinding Biden's waiver of Iran sanctions
  13. End the Border Catastrophe Act
  14. "Emergency" spending on Ukraine
  15. Alaska's Right to Produce Act (also selected by CPAC as a key vote)
  16. Reinstating Migrant Protection Protocols
  17. Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act
  18. Equal Representation Act (also selected by CPAC as a key vote)
  19. DC CRIMES Act
  20. Security assistance for Israel
  21. Banning non-citizens from voting in DC elections
  22. Sanctions against the International Criminal Court
  23. Defense Department funding of sex change operations
  24. Defense Department funding of abortions
  25. Eliminating DEI in the Defense Department
  26. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote
  27. Finding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt
  28. Condemning "border czar" Kamala Harris for dereliction of duty
  29. Obedience to the World Health Organization
  30. Chinese spying and other issues pertaining to Communist China
  31. No Foreign Election Interference
  32. Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act
  33. FY 2025 continuing resolution
  34. End Woke Higher Education
  35. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities
  36. Accountability for key officials in the Biden-Harris administration
  37. Leaking the Ethics Committee report on Rep. Matt Gaetz
  38. Midnight Rules Relief Act
  39. American Relief Act

Is there any doubt that these votes were on issues which should be of great importance to conservatives? Why did CPAC omit 37 of these 39 votes? Are economic issues -- which they strongly lean towards -- really that much more important than other issues? Was there a desire by CPAC to choose a set of votes which would yield ratings that match their subjective evaluations of certain representatives? Or are we at RightDataUSA.com overemphasizing social issues and neglecting economics?

It should be apparent that the dual sets of votes were selected independently of each other -- during 2024 we had no idea which votes CPAC was considering and (unless they actually visit this site) they had no idea which votes we deemed to be critical.



In 2025 the pattern is similar. There are no CPAC ratings to compare to yet, and there probably won't be any until well into 2026. However our 2025 ratings of House members bear a strong resemblance to the ones we generated during 2024, in the sense of being noticeably to the right of what some folks might consider to be accurate.

So far in 2025 we have selected 20 House votes as being key ones. Republicans are for the most part so thoroughly united that nearly all of them score at about 90% -- and it would be closer to 100% if we reversed our position (which corresponds to CPAC's position) on the abominations known as Continuing Resolutions (CRs). These resolutions are a cowardly way for Congress to avoid passing an actual budget, thus allowing government spending, the burden on taxpayers and the national debt to continue to spiral out of control because -- so the politicians claim -- the only alternative is the dreaded Government Shutdown. All Republican politicians live in mortal fear of that, since the Democrat Propaganda Machine known as "the media" will ensure that blame is placed solely on one side of the aisle in the event of a so-called shutdown.

CPAC always opposes CRs, and so do we. The pair of CRs among our key votes in 2025 are the only ones in which Republicans as a group get a failing grade because they voted in favor; opposition Democrats therefore get a passing grade for opposing CRs, however ludicrous it may be that a majority of Democrats are assigned to the "right" side on anything.



If Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate (which they do) and if they are so united (which nearly all of them are) then why are those majorities not accomplishing more?

Clearly it's because those majorities are so extremely narrow.

The GOP has some ornery contrarians (like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie), grandstanding war-mongering pricks (like Lindsey Graham) and outright Democrats posing as Republicans (like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski). When only one or two votes are needed to thwart legislation, these people and others who occasionally behave like them rise to the occasion and become the liberal media's Queen For A Day. Other times, principled conservatives may refuse to be whipped into line on a particular piece of legislation because they will not concede that it is 15% good while being "only" 85% terrible, and the rebels may temporarily receive Strange New Respect from the media as a reward (a reward full of ulterior motives) for derailing something the media objects to.



Summary: It's a good idea to be able to evaluate congressmen to determine whether their performance in Congress is in line with the voters of their districts. Several organizations attempt do that, although most such organizations are ones which obsess over a single issue; therefore their ratings appeal only to voters who share that same obsession. A few organizations, including RightDataUSA.com, evaluate members of Congress over a wider range of issues that is based on a larger sample of votes. However, even groups who are on the same side of the political aisle can disagree about the level of liberalism or conservatism that is expressed via a sample of a congressman's votes. Here we have presented our ratings alongside those from CPAC, and readers can decide for themselves which ones to accept.

As we get closer to the 2026 midterms, these evaluations will take on greater significance and we will update our ratings as we did here in 2024. Urban Democrat congressmen must always guard their left flanks in primary elections lest a younger and more aggressive and hate-filled ultra-liberal challenge them. In other districts, Democrats are well aware that "moderation" (fraudulent though it is) is a sensible thing. In both types of districts, the degree to which incumbents are concerned with their re-election chances will be reflected in their votes.

On the Republican side, the GOP establishment is never interested in having more aggressive conservatives in Congress, and will help squishy incumbents with financing and by creating "paper conservatives" when necessary, to flood the primary ballot and split the right-wing vote. Even with all that GOPe assistance, supposedly vulnerable left-wing Republican incumbents normally run to the left as elections approach, and that will be apparent in their vote ratings too.

To make an educated choice, particularly in a primary election, smart voters will want to know everything they can about the person they are voting for -- or against.

Tags:

U.S. House Ratings CPAC


4/15/2025: U.S. House District Analysis -- What Are "PVIs"? [RightDataUSA]

Not all House districts are created equally, in partisan terms. Some are designed to elect Democrats, some are designed to elect Republicans, and a comparatively small handful could go either way. When U.S. House elections roll around, as a couple of special ones did in Florida earlier this month, there is a desire to quantify districts so that people can anticipate the outcomes. Does Candidate A have any chance at all against Candidate B? How close should the race be? Could there plausibly be an upset?

Analysts often describe the direction (and degree) to which a House district leans by referring to something called a PVI, which stands for Partisan Voting Index. Here is a rare example of an unbiased and almost factual statement (which references PVIs) from a typically biased article published by a thoroughly left-wing source:

    "The Cook Political Report's partisan voting index (PVI) classifies both [Florida special election] districts as Republican-favored, with FL-1 as R+22 and FL-6 as R+7."

On April 1, Republican Jimmy Patronis won the special election in FL-1 by a margin of 14.6%; Republican Randy Fine won the special election in FL-6 by 14.0%.

[The left-wing article had the FL-6 number wrong; it should have been R+14 and not R+7. You'd think they would want to be especially accurate here, in order to make their party's "moral victory" not appear to be such a small one.]



So what is all this "R+" stuff?

It's nomenclature created by political analyst Charlie Cook, for the purpose of evaluating House districts; Cook claims to have published the first such data in the late 1990s. His evaluations, which are known as PVIs, are considered to be the gold standard for district ratings. When you see how they are created, you may find yourself wondering why they hold such a lofty status.

From Cook's website: "The Cook Partisan Voter Index measures how partisan a district or a state is compared to the nation as a whole. A Cook PVI score of D+2, for example, means that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican."

These ratings are not merely measures of past performance; they are also imbued with predictive value and are used to answer questions about future elections in House districts, questions such as the ones in the opening paragraph of this commentary.

A slightly more detailed explanation of the calculation comes from Wikipedia: "The [PVI] looks at how every congressional district voted in the past two presidential elections combined and compares it to the national average. The Cook PVI is displayed as a letter, a plus sign, and a number, with the letter indicating the party that outperformed in the district and the number showing how many percentage points above the national average it received."

We emphasized part of that last sentence because the vast majority of people who throw around PVIs are clueless about the actual meaning of the numbers, and misinterpret them entirely. This misinterpretation is not of tremendous import as long as the numbers are merely being compared to each other, which after all is their primary purpose. In the above example FL-1 is obviously a more Republican-leaning district than FL-6. Even those who are mathematically-challenged are capable of understanding that 22 is a larger number than 7 (or even 14), though they have no idea -- or the wrong idea -- of what the "22" means or how that number was calculated.


Florida congressional district 1

Let us illustrate. Both Republicans on April 1st won easily in their respective Florida special elections, however given the lean of their districts they appear to have underachieved. This enabled the media and other Democrats to claim hollow "moral" victories in the wake of Democrat defeats, because the GOP candidates did not obliterate their liberal rivals by as much as they were supposed to.

Nevermind that at least one feverish poll in late March -- this one by the rabidly liberal "St. Pete Polls" -- was gleefully anticipating a possible actual Democrat victory in FL-6 and not merely a moral one. Sounds more like the Democrat was really the true underachiever in that case, seeing as how he ended up losing by almost 15 points; but only if you believe polls which are published in the liberal media for no purpose other than gaslighting -- energizing Democrat voters and attempting to suppress Republican turnout. The gaslighting in Florida, along with astronomical Democrat funding by wealthy out-of-state contributors, certainly did have an effect on these outcomes.

How do we know how much the two Republicans were "supposed to" win by? The PVI of the districts tells us.

Using FL-1 as an example, its rating of R+22 does not mean "a Republican typically wins this district by 22 points". What R+22 does mean is "a Republican in this district typically does 22 points better than average". Those are hardly equivalent statements.

In any 2-way race the average is 50%. If the Republican does 22 points better than average, he gets 72% of the vote. Which means the Democrat gets 28%. The Republican therefore does not win by a margin of only 22% in a typical 2-way race in an R+22 district; he wins by 44%. Winning by only 14%, as Patronis did in FL-1, was indeed a substantial underachievement. Sub-par Republican performance is a regular occurrence in special elections and, as we have pointed out many times, does not necessarily portend anything for the future. Neither FL-1 nor FL-6 are suddenly lurching leftward, and even the Democrats know it.


Florida congressional district 6

Randy Fine won FL-6 (PVI of R+14) by exactly 14 points, which sounds like a precisely typical result there. But R+14 does not mean the Republican should win by 14%; it means the Republican should win by 28%. So yeah, another "moral defeat" (LOL) for the GOP. Once again, this outcome is not a harbinger of future performance. In November of 2026 the GOP will win that district every bit as easily as it usually does, and Democrats will not be pissing $10 million of billionaires' money down the drain as they did a few weeks ago, no matter how easily they can afford to do so.



The Cook Political Report (CPR) has lately decided to charge a fee for up-to-date district ratings, which is a shame (for those who actually fork over cash) because their ratings are based on very limited data, and that data contains an overwhelming bias in the logical sense as opposed to the partisan sense. Anyone who has the time, the ability, and the underlying data can calculate PVIs that are not only free of charge, but which are more accurate if based on a wider range of relevant data.

The Cook Political Report's current bias can be summarized as "All Republican candidates are Donald Trump". Does that sound like a good assumption to make? Democrat campaign coordinators and their media allies surely agree with Cook, but sensible folks would dispute his assertion.

The CPR looks at two -- just two -- points of data for every congressional district in the country, and then anoints the districts with their sacred ratings based on that meager amount of data. The two data points are these, currently:
  • 2020 presidential election result in the district
  • 2024 presidential election result in the district

Astute observers will notice that the one and only Republican in this sample is Donald J. Trump. Thus, Cook is determining district ratings based solely on how much that district voted for or against President Trump. Does an affinity or a hatred for Trump all by itself determine exactly how other Republican candidates -- the ones in U.S. House races -- will fare in their specific districts? What kind of idiot would assume that it does?

Below we provide the RightDataUSA.com PVI ratings, without any fee, for every U.S. House district in the country. Our ratings are likely to be similar but hardly identical to the "official" Cook PVIs (we don't know and we aren't paying to find out), because our ratings are based not only on the last two presidential elections but also on many other recent statewide elections. In the table, the "2024 Result" is the percentage which the victorious House candidate received in the November, 2024 election.


Map of 2026 battleground districts, created using mapchart.net

First, a note about the most competitive districts: Battleground districts are highlighted in the map above and in the table of all House districts which appears further down this page. It is unusual for a House member to win election in a district which tilts 6 points or more towards the opposite party although it does occasionally happen, so we define a "battleground" district as one in the range from D+5 through R+5. When upsets occur in House elections, they normally take place in these marginal districts, and therefore aren't truly "upsets".

Twelve House districts flipped (switched from one party to the other) in the 2024 House elections, not counting those flips which were solely caused by 2024 redistricting. We omit the court-ordered gerrymandered Democrat victories in AL-2 and LA-6. We also exclude the three North Carolina districts in which Democrats were replaced by Republicans after the N.C. Supreme Court discarded a couple of Democrat gerrymanders and allowed the state legislature to handle the drawing of the district map in accordance with state law. The previous Democrat-controlled court had appropriated that task for itself in 2020 and 2022. Here are our ratings for the other 12 flippers:

  • AK-at large (went from D to R): R+5
  • CA-13 (R to D): even
  • CA-27 (R to D): D+2
  • CA-45 (R to D): even
  • CO-08 (D to R): D+1
  • MI-07 (D to R): D+2
  • NY-04 (R to D): D+5
  • NY-19 (R to D): D+1
  • NY-22 (R to D): D+4
  • OR-05 (R to D): D+2
  • PA-07 (D to R): D+1
  • PA-08 (D to R): even

In three cases above (CO-08, MI-07 and PA-07) the district is currently held by the "wrong" party -- the one which voters normally do not favor in statewide elections. You can bet that these three, plus other similar districts, are the ones which the national parties will have at the very top of their target lists in 2026. Those other similar districts are:
  • AZ-01 (Schweikert): D+1
  • AZ-06 (Ciscomani): D+2
  • CA-21 (Valadao): D+1
  • ME-02 (Golden): R+3
  • MI-10 (James): D+1
  • NE-02 (Bacon): D+2
  • NH-01 (Pappas): R+2
  • NH-02 (Goodlander): R+1
  • NY-17 (Lawler): D+4
  • OH-09 (Kaptur): R+1
  • PA-01 (Fitzpatrick): D+3

Based on the above lists, there is much more low-hanging fruit for Democrats to pick off in 2026 than there is for Republicans. Not to mention the two Republicans in already-marginal districts (Brian Steil, Derrick Van Orden) who are destined for extinction by the upcoming court-ordered Democrat gerrymander in Wisconsin. These are not the only districts which have a chance of flipping in 2026. In order to maintain control of the House, Republicans will need to hold on to a significant majority of their most vulnerable seats and perhaps achieve a small number of pickups of Democrat-held seats. They narrowly succeeded in 2024, but it will be more difficult in '26.

District Our PVI 2024 Winner 2024 Result
AK-00 R+5 Nick Begich III (R) 51.2%
AL-01 R+28 Barry Moore (R) 78.4%
AL-02 D+3 Shomari Figures (D) 54.6%
AL-03 R+23 Mike Rogers (R) 97.9%
AL-04 R+33 Robert Aderholt (R) 98.8%
AL-05 R+16 Dale Strong (R) 95.4%
AL-06 R+22 Gary Palmer (R) 70.3%
AL-07 D+12 Terri Sewell (D) 63.7%
AR-01 R+20 Rick Crawford (R) 72.9%
AR-02 R+8 French Hill (R) 58.9%
AR-03 R+14 Steve Womack (R) 63.8%
AR-04 R+18 Bruce Westerman (R) 72.9%
AZ-01 D+2 David Schweikert (R) 51.9%
AZ-02 R+4 Eli Crane (R) 54.5%
AZ-03 D+25 Yassamin Ansari (D) 70.9%
AZ-04 D+6 Greg Stanton (D) 52.7%
AZ-05 R+7 Andy Biggs (R) 60.4%
AZ-06 D+2 Juan Ciscomani (R) 50.0%
AZ-07 D+16 Raul Grijalva (D) 63.4%
AZ-08 R+6 Abe Hamadeh (R) 56.5%
AZ-09 R+13 Paul Gosar (R) 65.3%
CA-01 R+13 Doug LaMalfa (R) 65.3%
CA-02 D+22 Jared Huffman (D) 71.9%
CA-03 R+4 Kevin Kiley (R) 55.5%
CA-04 D+15 Mike Thompson (D) 66.5%
CA-05 R+10 Tom McClintock (R) 61.8%
CA-06 D+6 Ami Bera (D) 57.6%
CA-07 D+15 Doris Matsui (D) 66.8%
CA-08 D+24 John Garamendi (D) 74.0%
CA-09 D+1 Josh Harder (D) 51.8%
CA-10 D+16 Mark DeSaulnier (D) 66.5%
CA-11 D+36 Nancy Pelosi (D) 81.0%
CA-12 D+40 Lateefah Simon (D) 65.4%
CA-13 even Adam Gray (D) 50.0%
CA-14 D+19 Eric Swalwell (D) 67.8%
CA-15 D+26 Kevin Mullin (D) 73.1%
CA-16 D+23 Sam Liccardo (D) 58.2%
CA-17 D+21 Ro Khanna (D) 67.7%
CA-18 D+18 Zoe Lofgren (D) 64.6%
CA-19 D+17 Jimmy Panetta (D) 69.3%
CA-20 R+17 Vince Fong (R) 65.1%
CA-21 D+4 Jim Costa (D) 52.6%
CA-22 D+1 David Valadao (R) 53.4%
CA-23 R+9 Jay Obernolte (R) 60.1%
CA-24 D+11 Salud Carbajal (D) 62.7%
CA-25 D+4 Raul Ruiz (D) 56.3%
CA-26 D+5 Julia Brownley (D) 56.1%
CA-27 D+2 George Whitesides (D) 51.3%
CA-28 D+14 Judy Chu (D) 64.9%
CA-29 D+24 Luz Rivas (D) 69.8%
CA-30 D+25 Laura Friedman (D) 68.4%
CA-31 D+11 Gil Cisneros (D) 59.7%
CA-32 D+18 Brad Sherman (D) 66.2%
CA-33 D+8 Pete Aguilar (D) 58.8%
CA-34 D+32 Jimmy Gomez (D) 55.6%
CA-35 D+9 Norma Torres (D) 58.4%
CA-36 D+19 Ted Lieu (D) 68.7%
CA-37 D+35 Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D) 78.3%
CA-38 D+11 Linda Sanchez (D) 59.8%
CA-39 D+8 Mark Takano (D) 56.7%
CA-40 R+4 Young Kim (R) 55.3%
CA-41 R+4 Ken Calvert (R) 51.7%
CA-42 D+19 Robert Garcia (D) 68.1%
CA-43 D+29 Maxine Waters (D) 75.1%
CA-44 D+21 Nanette Barragan (D) 71.4%
CA-45 even Derek Tran (D) 50.1%
CA-46 D+12 Lou Correa (D) 63.4%
CA-47 D+2 Dave Min (D) 51.4%
CA-48 R+10 Darrell Issa (R) 59.3%
CA-49 D+2 Mike Levin (D) 52.2%
CA-50 D+13 Scott Peters (D) 64.3%
CA-51 D+11 Sara Jacobs (D) 60.7%
CA-52 D+15 Juan Vargas (D) 66.3%
CO-01 D+30 Diana DeGette (D) 76.6%
CO-02 D+19 Joe Neguse (D) 68.4%
CO-03 R+3 Jeff Hurd (R) 50.8%
CO-04 R+10 Lauren Boebert (R) 53.6%
CO-05 R+6 Jeff Crank (R) 54.7%
CO-06 D+10 Jason Crow (D) 59.0%
CO-07 D+7 Brittany Pettersen (D) 55.3%
CO-08 D+1 Gabe Evans (R) 49.0%
CT-01 D+11 John Larson (D) 63.1%
CT-02 D+3 Joe Courtney (D) 58.0%
CT-03 D+7 Rosa DeLauro (D) 58.9%
CT-04 D+11 Jim Himes (D) 61.1%
CT-05 D+2 Jahana Hayes (D) 53.4%
DE-00 D+9 Sarah McBride (D) 57.9%
FL-01 R+21 Matt Gaetz (R) 66.0%
FL-02 R+8 Neal Dunn (R) 61.6%
FL-03 R+10 Kat Cammack (R) 61.6%
FL-04 R+7 Aaron Bean (R) 57.3%
FL-05 R+12 John Rutherford (R) 63.1%
FL-06 R+14 Michael Waltz (R) 66.5%
FL-07 R+6 Cory Mills (R) 56.5%
FL-08 R+12 Mike Haridopolos (R) 62.2%
FL-09 D+5 Darren Soto (D) 55.1%
FL-10 D+12 Maxwell Frost (D) 62.4%
FL-11 R+9 Daniel Webster (R) 60.4%
FL-12 R+16 Gus Bilirakis (R) 71.0%
FL-13 R+6 Anna Paulina Luna (R) 54.8%
FL-14 D+5 Kathy Castor (D) 56.9%
FL-15 R+5 Laurel Lee (R) 56.2%
FL-16 R+8 Vern Buchanan (R) 59.5%
FL-17 R+11 Greg Steube (R) 63.9%
FL-18 R+15 Scott Franklin (R) 65.3%
FL-19 R+16 Byron Donalds (R) 66.3%
FL-20 D+24 Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D) 100.0%
FL-21 R+8 Brian Mast (R) 61.8%
FL-22 D+6 Lois Frankel (D) 55.0%
FL-23 D+4 Jared Moskowitz (D) 52.4%
FL-24 D+23 Frederica Wilson (D) 68.2%
FL-25 D+8 Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) 54.5%
FL-26 R+13 Mario Diaz-Balart (R) 70.9%
FL-27 R+3 Maria Salazar (R) 60.4%
FL-28 R+7 Carlos Gimenez (R) 64.6%
GA-01 R+8 Buddy Carter (R) 62.0%
GA-02 D+5 Sanford Bishop (D) 56.3%
GA-03 R+16 Brian Jack (R) 66.3%
GA-04 D+29 Hank Johnson (D) 75.6%
GA-05 D+36 Nikema Williams (D) 85.7%
GA-06 D+25 Lucy McBath (D) 74.7%
GA-07 R+12 Rich McCormick (R) 64.9%
GA-08 R+15 Austin Scott (R) 68.9%
GA-09 R+18 Andrew Clyde (R) 69.0%
GA-10 R+11 Mike Collins (R) 63.1%
GA-11 R+12 Barry Loudermilk (R) 67.3%
GA-12 R+7 Rick Allen (R) 60.3%
GA-13 D+22 David Scott (D) 71.8%
GA-14 R+19 Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) 64.4%
HI-01 D+17 Ed Case (D) 71.8%
HI-02 D+16 Jill Tokuda (D) 66.5%
IA-01 R+2 Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) 50.0%
IA-02 R+3 Ashley Hinson (R) 57.1%
IA-03 even Zach Nunn (R) 51.8%
IA-04 R+14 Randy Feenstra (R) 67.0%
ID-01 R+19 Russ Fulcher (R) 71.0%
ID-02 R+11 Mike Simpson (R) 61.4%
IL-01 D+19 Jonathan Jackson (D) 65.8%
IL-02 D+18 Robin Kelly (D) 67.5%
IL-03 D+19 Delia Ramirez (D) 67.3%
IL-04 D+20 Jesus "Chuy" Garcia (D) 67.5%
IL-05 D+20 Mike Quigley (D) 69.0%
IL-06 D+5 Sean Casten (D) 54.2%
IL-07 D+35 Danny Davis (D) 83.3%
IL-08 D+6 Raja Krishnamoorthi (D) 57.1%
IL-09 D+21 Jan Schakowsky (D) 68.4%
IL-10 D+12 Brad Schneider (D) 59.9%
IL-11 D+6 Bill Foster (D) 55.6%
IL-12 R+21 Mike Bost (R) 74.2%
IL-13 D+6 Nikki Budzinski (D) 58.1%
IL-14 D+5 Lauren Underwood (D) 55.1%
IL-15 R+19 Mary Miller (R) 99.5%
IL-16 R+12 Darin LaHood (R) 99.9%
IL-17 D+3 Eric Sorensen (D) 54.4%
IN-01 D+4 Frank Mrvan (D) 53.4%
IN-02 R+12 Rudy Yakym (R) 62.7%
IN-03 R+16 Marlin Stutzman (R) 65.0%
IN-04 R+15 Jim Baird (R) 64.8%
IN-05 R+10 Victoria Spartz (R) 56.6%
IN-06 R+16 Jefferson Shreve (R) 63.9%
IN-07 D+19 Andre Carson (D) 68.3%
IN-08 R+16 Mark Messmer (R) 68.0%
IN-09 R+14 Erin Houchin (R) 64.5%
KS-01 R+12 Tracey Mann (R) 69.1%
KS-02 R+6 Derek Schmidt (R) 57.1%
KS-03 D+4 Sharice Davids (D) 53.4%
KS-04 R+9 Ron Estes (R) 65.0%
KY-01 R+19 James Comer (R) 74.7%
KY-02 R+14 Brett Guthrie (R) 73.1%
KY-03 D+13 Morgan McGarvey (D) 61.9%
KY-04 R+13 Thomas Massie (R) 99.6%
KY-05 R+24 Harold Rogers (R) 100.0%
KY-06 R+2 Andy Barr (R) 63.4%
LA-01 R+19 Steve Scalise (R) 66.8%
LA-02 D+16 Troy Carter (D) 60.3%
LA-03 R+23 Clay Higgins (R) 70.6%
LA-04 R+25 Mike Johnson (R) 85.8%
LA-05 R+17 Julia Letlow (R) 62.9%
LA-06 D+8 Cleo Fields (D) 50.8%
MA-01 D+8 Richard Neal (D) 62.4%
MA-02 D+13 James McGovern (D) 68.6%
MA-03 D+11 Lori Trahan (D) 97.5%
MA-04 D+11 Jake Auchincloss (D) 97.4%
MA-05 D+23 Katherine Clark (D) 98.2%
MA-06 D+11 Seth Moulton (D) 97.8%
MA-07 D+34 Ayanna Pressley (D) 97.1%
MA-08 D+14 Stephen Lynch (D) 70.4%
MA-09 D+6 William Keating (D) 56.4%
MD-01 R+9 Andy Harris (R) 59.4%
MD-02 D+9 Johnny Olszewski (D) 58.2%
MD-03 D+10 Sarah Elfreth (D) 59.3%
MD-04 D+39 Glenn Ivey (D) 88.4%
MD-05 D+16 Steny Hoyer (D) 67.8%
MD-06 D+2 April Delaney (D) 53.0%
MD-07 D+31 Kweisi Mfume (D) 80.3%
MD-08 D+29 Jamie Raskin (D) 76.8%
ME-01 D+10 Chellie Pingree (D) 58.7%
ME-02 R+3 Jared Golden (D) 50.3%
MI-01 R+8 Jack Bergman (R) 59.2%
MI-02 R+13 John Moolenaar (R) 65.1%
MI-03 D+4 Hillary Scholten (D) 53.7%
MI-04 R+3 Bill Huizenga (R) 55.1%
MI-05 R+11 Tim Walberg (R) 65.7%
MI-06 D+14 Debbie Dingell (D) 62.0%
MI-07 D+2 Tom Barrett (R) 50.3%
MI-08 D+2 Kristen McDonald-Rivet (D) 51.3%
MI-09 R+13 Lisa McClain (R) 66.8%
MI-10 D+1 John James (R) 51.1%
MI-11 D+11 Haley Stevens (D) 58.2%
MI-12 D+23 Rashida Tlaib (D) 69.7%
MI-13 D+24 Shri Thanedar (D) 68.6%
MN-01 R+4 Brad Finstad (R) 58.5%
MN-02 D+3 Angie Craig (DFL) 55.5%
MN-03 D+10 Kelly Morrison (DFL) 58.4%
MN-04 D+18 Betty McCollum (DFL) 67.3%
MN-05 D+31 Ilhan Omar (DFL) 74.4%
MN-06 R+9 Tom Emmer (R) 62.4%
MN-07 R+16 Michelle Fischbach (R) 70.4%
MN-08 R+5 Pete Stauber (R) 58.0%
MO-01 D+28 Wesley Bell (D) 75.9%
MO-02 R+5 Ann Wagner (R) 54.5%
MO-03 R+14 Bob Onder (R) 61.3%
MO-04 R+20 Mark Alford (R) 71.1%
MO-05 D+12 Emanuel Cleaver (D) 60.2%
MO-06 R+19 Sam Graves (R) 70.7%
MO-07 R+21 Eric Burlison (R) 71.6%
MO-08 R+26 Jason Smith (R) 76.2%
MS-01 R+15 Trent Kelly (R) 69.8%
MS-02 D+13 Bennie Thompson (D) 62.0%
MS-03 R+11 Michael Guest (R) 100.0%
MS-04 R+18 Mike Ezell (R) 73.9%
MT-01 R+3 Ryan Zinke (R) 52.3%
MT-02 R+12 Troy Downing (R) 66.0%
NC-01 D+1 Don Davis (D) 49.5%
NC-02 D+19 Deborah Ross (D) 66.3%
NC-03 R+8 Greg Murphy (R) 77.4%
NC-04 D+24 Valerie Foushee (D) 71.8%
NC-05 R+6 Virginia Foxx (R) 59.5%
NC-06 R+6 Addison McDowell (R) 69.2%
NC-07 R+4 David Rouzer (R) 58.6%
NC-08 R+7 Mark Harris (R) 59.6%
NC-09 R+5 Richard Hudson (R) 56.3%
NC-10 R+7 Pat Harrigan (R) 57.5%
NC-11 R+3 Chuck Edwards (R) 56.8%
NC-12 D+25 Alma Adams (D) 74.0%
NC-13 R+6 Brad Knott (R) 58.6%
NC-14 R+6 Tim Moore (R) 58.1%
ND-00 R+18 Julie Fedorchak (R) 69.2%
NE-01 R+5 Mike Flood (R) 60.1%
NE-02 D+2 Don Bacon (R) 50.9%
NE-03 R+25 Adrian Smith (R) 80.4%
NH-01 R+2 Chris Pappas (D) 54.0%
NH-02 R+1 Maggie Goodlander (D) 52.9%
NJ-01 D+11 Donald Norcross (D) 57.7%
NJ-02 R+5 Jeff Van Drew (R) 58.3%
NJ-03 D+5 Herb Conaway (D) 53.2%
NJ-04 R+13 Chris Smith (R) 67.4%
NJ-05 D+3 Josh Gottheimer (D) 54.6%
NJ-06 D+7 Frank Pallone (D) 56.1%
NJ-07 R+2 Tom Kean, Jr. (R) 51.9%
NJ-08 D+23 Rob Menendez (D) 59.2%
NJ-09 D+8 Nellie Pou (D) 50.8%
NJ-10 D+30 LaMonica McIver (D) 74.4%
NJ-11 D+5 Mikie Sherrill (D) 56.5%
NJ-12 D+14 Bonnie Watson Coleman (D) 61.1%
NM-01 D+6 Melanie Stansbury (D) 56.4%
NM-02 D+1 Gabriel Vasquez (D) 52.1%
NM-03 D+5 Teresa Fernandez (D) 56.3%
NV-01 D+4 Dina Titus (D) 52.0%
NV-02 R+5 Mark Amodei (R) 55.0%
NV-03 D+2 Susie Lee (D) 51.4%
NV-04 D+3 Steven Horsford (D) 52.7%
NY-01 R+3 Nick LaLota (R) 55.2%
NY-02 R+4 Andrew Garbarino (R) 59.7%
NY-03 D+3 Thomas Suozzi (D) 51.7%
NY-04 D+5 Laura Gillen (D) 51.1%
NY-05 D+28 Gregory Meeks (D) 72.7%
NY-06 D+13 Grace Meng (D) 60.5%
NY-07 D+31 Nydia Velazquez (D) 77.9%
NY-08 D+28 Hakeem Jeffries (D) 75.1%
NY-09 D+27 Yvette Clarke (D) 73.5%
NY-10 D+35 Daniel Goldman (D) 81.0%
NY-11 R+6 Nicole Malliotakis (R) 63.8%
NY-12 D+33 Jerrold Nadler (D) 80.3%
NY-13 D+37 Adriano Espaillat (D) 83.0%
NY-14 D+26 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) 68.9%
NY-15 D+34 Ritchie Torres (D) 76.2%
NY-16 D+20 George Latimer (D) 71.3%
NY-17 D+4 Mike Lawler (R) 52.1%
NY-18 D+3 Pat Ryan (D) 57.1%
NY-19 D+1 Josh Riley (D) 51.1%
NY-20 D+6 Paul Tonko (D) 61.1%
NY-21 R+10 Elise Stefanik (R) 62.0%
NY-22 D+4 John Mannion (D) 54.5%
NY-23 R+11 Nick Langworthy (R) 65.8%
NY-24 R+12 Claudia Tenney (R) 65.6%
NY-25 D+7 Joseph Morelle (D) 60.8%
NY-26 D+11 Timothy Kennedy (D) 65.1%
OH-01 D+2 Greg Landsman (D) 54.6%
OH-02 R+21 David Taylor (R) 73.6%
OH-03 D+20 Joyce Beatty (D) 70.7%
OH-04 R+17 Jim Jordan (R) 68.5%
OH-05 R+12 Bob Latta (R) 67.5%
OH-06 R+13 Michael Rulli (R) 66.7%
OH-07 R+4 Max Miller (R) 51.1%
OH-08 R+12 Warren Davidson (R) 62.8%
OH-09 R+1 Marcy Kaptur (D) 48.3%
OH-10 R+3 Mike Turner (R) 57.6%
OH-11 D+28 Shontel Brown (D) 78.3%
OH-12 R+15 Troy Balderson (R) 68.5%
OH-13 D+1 Emilia Sykes (D) 51.1%
OH-14 R+6 David Joyce (R) 63.4%
OH-15 R+4 Mike Carey (R) 56.5%
OK-01 R+8 Kevin Hern (R) 60.4%
OK-02 R+22 Josh Brecheen (R) 74.2%
OK-03 R+18 Frank Lucas (R) 100.0%
OK-04 R+12 Tom Cole (R) 65.2%
OK-05 R+6 Stephanie Bice (R) 60.7%
OR-01 D+17 Suzanne Bonamici (D) 68.6%
OR-02 R+14 Cliff Bentz (R) 63.9%
OR-03 D+22 Maxine Dexter (D) 67.7%
OR-04 D+5 Val Hoyle (D) 51.7%
OR-05 D+2 Janelle Bynum (D) 47.7%
OR-06 D+4 Andrea Salinas (D) 53.3%
PA-01 D+3 Brian Fitzpatrick (R) 56.4%
PA-02 D+22 Brendan Boyle (D) 71.5%
PA-03 D+40 Dwight Evans (D) 100.0%
PA-04 D+11 Madeleine Dean (D) 59.1%
PA-05 D+16 Mary Gay Scanlon (D) 65.3%
PA-06 D+7 Chrissy Houlahan (D) 56.2%
PA-07 D+1 Ryan Mackenzie (R) 50.5%
PA-08 even Rob Bresnahan (R) 50.8%
PA-09 R+16 Dan Meuser (R) 70.5%
PA-10 even Scott Perry (R) 50.6%
PA-11 R+9 Lloyd Smucker (R) 62.9%
PA-12 D+13 Summer Lee (D) 56.4%
PA-13 R+20 John Joyce (R) 74.2%
PA-14 R+12 Guy Reschenthaler (R) 66.6%
PA-15 R+16 Glenn Thompson (R) 71.5%
PA-16 R+8 Mike Kelly (R) 63.7%
PA-17 D+6 Chris Deluzio (D) 53.9%
RI-01 D+15 Gabe Amo (D) 63.0%
RI-02 D+7 Seth Magaziner (D) 58.2%
SC-01 R+6 Nancy Mace (R) 58.2%
SC-02 R+7 Joe Wilson (R) 59.5%
SC-03 R+20 Sheri Biggs (R) 71.7%
SC-04 R+11 William Timmons (R) 59.7%
SC-05 R+10 Ralph Norman (R) 63.5%
SC-06 D+15 James Clyburn (D) 59.5%
SC-07 R+11 Russell Fry (R) 64.9%
SD-00 R+13 Dusty Johnson (R) 72.0%
TN-01 R+28 Diana Harshbarger (R) 78.1%
TN-02 R+15 Tim Burchett (R) 69.3%
TN-03 R+16 Chuck Fleischmann (R) 67.5%
TN-04 R+19 Scott DesJarlais (R) 70.0%
TN-05 R+7 Andy Ogles (R) 56.9%
TN-06 R+14 John Rose (R) 68.0%
TN-07 R+8 Mark E. Green (R) 59.5%
TN-08 R+20 David Kustoff (R) 72.3%
TN-09 D+22 Steve Cohen (D) 71.3%
TX-01 R+25 Nathaniel Moran (R) 100.0%
TX-02 R+13 Dan Crenshaw (R) 65.7%
TX-03 R+9 Keith Self (R) 62.5%
TX-04 R+15 Pat Fallon (R) 68.4%
TX-05 R+12 Lance Gooden (R) 64.1%
TX-06 R+14 Jake Ellzey (R) 65.7%
TX-07 D+14 Lizzie Fletcher (D) 61.3%
TX-08 R+15 Morgan Luttrell (R) 68.2%
TX-09 D+26 Al Green (D) 100.0%
TX-10 R+11 Michael McCaul (R) 63.6%
TX-11 R+22 August Pfluger (R) 100.0%
TX-12 R+10 Craig Goldman (R) 63.5%
TX-13 R+23 Ronny Jackson (R) 100.0%
TX-14 R+15 Randy Weber (R) 68.7%
TX-15 R+1 Monica De La Cruz (R) 57.1%
TX-16 D+16 Veronica Escobar (D) 59.5%
TX-17 R+13 Pete Sessions (R) 66.3%
TX-18 D+24 Sylvester Turner (D) 69.4%
TX-19 R+24 Jodey Arrington (R) 80.7%
TX-20 D+16 Joaquin Castro (D) 100.0%
TX-21 R+12 Chip Roy (R) 61.9%
TX-22 R+10 Troy Nehls (R) 62.1%
TX-23 R+4 Tony Gonzales (R) 62.3%
TX-24 R+8 Beth Van Duyne (R) 60.3%
TX-25 R+17 Roger Williams (R) 99.4%
TX-26 R+11 Brandon Gill (R) 62.1%
TX-27 R+13 Michael Cloud (R) 66.0%
TX-28 D+4 Henry Cuellar (D) 52.8%
TX-29 D+19 Sylvia Garcia (D) 65.3%
TX-30 D+27 Jasmine Crockett (D) 84.9%
TX-31 R+11 John Carter (R) 64.4%
TX-32 D+14 Julie Johnson (D) 60.5%
TX-33 D+24 Marc Veasey (D) 68.8%
TX-34 D+8 Vicente Gonzalez (D) 51.3%
TX-35 D+22 Greg Casar (D) 67.4%
TX-36 R+17 Brian Babin (R) 69.4%
TX-37 D+25 Lloyd Doggett (D) 74.2%
TX-38 R+11 Wesley Hunt (R) 62.7%
UT-01 R+12 Blake Moore (R) 63.1%
UT-02 R+10 Celeste Maloy (R) 58.0%
UT-03 R+12 Mike Kennedy (R) 66.4%
UT-04 R+15 Burgess Owens (R) 63.4%
VA-01 R+5 Rob Wittman (R) 56.3%
VA-02 R+1 Jen Kiggans (R) 50.7%
VA-03 D+17 Bobby Scott (D) 70.0%
VA-04 D+16 Jennifer McClellan (D) 67.3%
VA-05 R+6 John McGuire (R) 57.3%
VA-06 R+12 Ben Cline (R) 63.1%
VA-07 D+1 Eugene Vindman (D) 51.2%
VA-08 D+25 Don Beyer (D) 71.5%
VA-09 R+21 Morgan Griffith (R) 72.5%
VA-10 D+5 Suhas Subramanyam (D) 52.1%
VA-11 D+17 Gerry Connolly (D) 66.7%
VT-00 D+13 Becca Balint (D) 62.3%
WA-01 D+13 Suzan DelBene (D) 63.0%
WA-02 D+10 Rick Larsen (D) 63.8%
WA-03 R+3 Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) 51.7%
WA-04 R+11 Dan Newhouse (R) 52.0%
WA-05 R+7 Michael Baumgartner (R) 60.6%
WA-06 D+8 Emily Randall (D) 56.7%
WA-07 D+36 Pramila Jayapal (D) 83.9%
WA-08 D+1 Kim Schrier (D) 54.0%
WA-09 D+21 Adam Smith (D) 65.4%
WA-10 D+7 Marilyn Strickland (D) 58.5%
WI-01 R+1 Bryan Steil (R) 54.0%
WI-02 D+22 Mark Pocan (D) 70.1%
WI-03 R+2 Derrick Van Orden (R) 51.3%
WI-04 D+27 Gwen Moore (D) 74.8%
WI-05 R+12 Scott Fitzgerald (R) 64.4%
WI-06 R+8 Glenn Grothman (R) 61.2%
WI-07 R+10 Tom Tiffany (R) 63.6%
WI-08 R+8 Tony Wied (R) 57.3%
WV-01 R+19 Carol Miller (R) 66.4%
WV-02 R+18 Riley Moore (R) 70.8%
WY-00 R+24 Harriet Hageman (R) 70.6%


Update: Either we caught them on a good day or they've decided to drop the paywall for some reason, but the 2025 Cook PVI ratings are currently available even for non-subscribers! We still believe that more data means greater precision, but now readers can compare the two sets of ratings and decide for themselves.

Tags:

PVI Charlie Cook U.S. House Ratings More Data = More Accuracy


1/11/2025: 2024 Special Elections: Not So "Special" for Democrats After All [RightDataUSA]

Prior to November in 2024 there was considerable wailing and pearl-clutching on the right (and gloating on the left) over the underperformance -- if not worse -- of Republican candidates in special elections at the congressional and state levels.


Photo credit: abc7ny.com

It's true that Democrats did win the most important special election of them all. That took place in February in New York's 3rd congressional district, where ex-incumbent Thomas Suozzi (D) easily defeated newcomer Masi Melesa Pilip (R) in that D-leaning district. The election was held in order to select a replacement for freshman Republican George Santos, who was expelled from Congress in December, 2023. The impetus to oust Santos came not so much from Democrats, but mainly from Santos' own party and particularly his fellow Republican freshmen in the New York delegation. Those frightened frosh were fearful of Santos dragging them down with him in November, so they pre-emptively removed him and thought they had solved their problem.

They hadn't. As we noted even before the February special election outcome, those NY freshmen congressmen were greatly endangered regardless of the disposition of the Santos situation. Most of the other Five Freshmen -- Nick LaLota (CD-1 and the only real non-fluke), Anthony D'Esposito (CD-4), Mike Lawler (CD-17), Marc Molinaro (CD-19), Brandon Williams (CD-22) -- had won in fluke outcomes in 2022 and it was always likely that their numbers would be thinned considerably in November, 2024.


Photo credit: desposito.house.gov

They sure were, exactly as we predicted. In CD-22 Williams was victimized by a Democrat gerrymander which removed good areas of his marginal district and replaced them with bad ones; it didn't require a major change to the lines, just a little push further to the left was sufficient. In September, anti-Santos ringleader D'Esposito was accused by the liberal media of having an affair and then putting the woman on his payroll, but he was a dead man walking even before that. Molinaro went down in flames in CD-19 as well.



In another special election for Congress which took place in June, liberals cackled about Republican Michael Rulli's supposedly weak showing in Ohio's 6th congressional district, where he defeated a relatively penniless Democrat by "only" 9 points in a district which is typically much more GOP-leaning than that. We wrote about that outcome here and noted presciently that Rulli would have no trouble at all in the November rematch. He won by over 30 points. Special elections are often influenced heavily by organizational and motivational factors, and Republicans normally lack both of those in low-turnout elections which are little publicized on the right.

Moving down to the state legislative level, in September, 2023 readers were scolded by some trembling GOP establishment blogger who calls himself "Bonchie" that Republicans had failed to learn from the numerous defeats of conservative candidates in 2022 and were still fielding bad (i.e. "conservative") candidates in special elections instead of nice, squishy, electable moderates.

He specifically referenced New Hampshire where a conservative GOP nominee lost a 2023 special election in a microscopic state House (not congressional) district that was fraudulently described by the blogger as being solidly Republican. That Republican candidate, minister James Guzofski, did himself no favor by inviting the liberal media to portray him as a kook when he declared something like "Jesus told me that Donald Trump really won in 2020!", and the minister came out on the wrong end of a narrow decision in 2023. "Bonchie" concluded from this infinitesimal sample size that certain disaster awaited the GOP in the 2024 elections everywhere if they didn't heed his warning and run screaming to the left.

Guzofski ran again in November, 2024 against the same Democrat who had defeated him in that 2023 special election where less than 3,000 people bothered to vote. This time Guzofski wasn't such a bad candidate after all -- over 50% of the voters chose him and Republicans swept all 3 state House seats in that New Hampshire district.

In Florida a marginal state House district in the deteriorating Orlando area was vacated by an incumbent Republican, and the special election in January, 2024 went as expected: Democrat Tom Keen won by 2.6 points in a district which favors his party by about 2 points. As liberals were going bonkers about this "major upset" the massive GOP margin in the FL state House was merely reduced from 85-35 to 84-36. Hardly an occasion for panic, except for those who are easily rattled.

What happened the next time a real election rolled around? Keen lost by nearly 4 points to Republican Erika Booth in this Democrat-leaning district, and once again those who had previously declared that the world was coming to an end were proven to be Chicken Littles.

Another example: In a state House district which lies just north of Oklahoma City, liberals were outwardly cheerful despite yet another defeat because it was by a much closer margin than expected. Republican Erick Harris prevailed by only 5.3% in a February special election in a district that Democrats hadn't even contested since 2018. Nervous Nellies on the right got the vapors again. Democrats weren't fooled by the fluke outcome although they took the opportunity for some big talk. In November the Rats failed to come up with any nominee at all, and Harris trounced a Libertarian to easily hold the R+14 seat. The Rats never had a chance in this district, but acted as if they did and some idiots believed them.



The lesson which should be learned here is -- most of the time, anyway -- there is nothing to be learned from low-turnout special elections, especially when they take place in puny little state House districts; and even more so when the balance of power won't be affected one iota no matter what the outcome is (like in Florida and Oklahoma).

Occasionally special elections DO portend a future wave, as in 1993-94 when Republicans won U.S. House elections in places where they had never previously prevailed (like in OK-6 and KY-2) and came surprisingly close to winning in WI-1 which Democrats had held for a quarter-century at the time. Democrat Peter Barca almost lost in 1993 and did lose in 1994; the Rats have never won there again, nor have they ever won again in those Oklahoma and Kentucky districts.

There will be 3 special elections to Congress coming up in the first few months of 2025: FL-1 (Matt Gaetz), FL-6 (Michael Waltz) and NY-21 (Elise Stefanik). These vacancies have occurred because the incumbents were nominated for positions in the second Trump administration, though Gaetz has since withdrawn. Each of these 3 districts are solidly Republican, and Democrats will not be winning any of them. But the liberal media will still be watching closely. When a Republican prevails easily, you'll never hear about it -- however if a Democrat does 0.1% better than expected it will be used as anti-Trump propaganda and described as a preview of a definite Republican bloodbath in the 2026 midterms.

A bloodbath may in fact happen and the 2026 midterms may be similar to those of 2018, but that has nothing to do with these 3 elections. In all likelihood, what special elections in 2025 and 2026 will tell us about the future is. . . . nothing.

Tags:

2024 House Special (?) elections


11/6/2024: Congrats to President Trump! He Still Needs a House [RightDataUSA]

November 5th was a wonderful night to be an American, and we get to begin enjoying the election results today!

As we had been stating all along, the "landslide" which delusionals on both sides were certain was going to happen (Virginia to Trump! Iowa to Harris! Cao wins VA Senate! Allred defeats Cruz! LOL!) was never going to materialize. But Donald Trump was able to get back to where he was on election night of 2016, and he will be the 47th President of the United States. The Senate has gone almost exactly as expected as well, with GOP pickups in West Virginia and Montana as well as a big tossup win in Ohio. Republicans may even get a bonus Senate seat or two in Pennsylvania and Nevada once all the votes are counted, although those are likely to turn out to be mirages. [Update: PA is being declared a win for McCormick though Democrat election-deniers refuse to concede; Nevada did what it always does to Republicans, though at least Trump won there.]

But the extremely important U.S. House is still up for grabs.

As we predicted, a Trump win in 2024 could easily be accompanied by Republicans losing control of the U.S. House of Representatives. We forecast a net loss for the GOP of 2 to 8 seats and that is very likely what is going to happen -- though we won't know for sure for possibly as long as a month. Democrats need a net gain of four seats in order to seize control of the House from the Republicans. Surely they are planning for that coup by working on articles of impeachment for President Trump already.

The reason for the delay is Ballot Harvesting Month in the state of California. This is where party operatives (mostly Democrats) try to locate people who did not vote, and get them to fill out a ballot for the candidates of their choice. The party's choice, that is.

This will not affect the outcome of the races for President or Senator in California, but it will massively affect approximately half a dozen House races or perhaps even a larger number.

As this is being written on the morning after the glorious election, there are another two dozen or more House districts where insufficient votes have been counted or which are still too close to call despite nearly all votes having already been tabulated. We will enumerate these below.

Here are the districts which have been called as of Wednesday morning, and which have flipped from Republican to Democrat:

  • AL-2
  • LA-6
  • NY-22

Here are the districts which have been called and which have flipped from Democrat to Republican:
  • MI-7
  • NC-6
  • NC-13
  • NC-14

These initial districts flipped almost solely due to the effects of redistricting. In Alabama and Louisiana, racist court rulings mandated the ouster of White Republicans from the House and the substitution of black Democrats. In New York, Democrats belatedly gerrymandered the state earlier in 2024, but NY-22 was likely to be lost even without that factor. In North Carolina, an illegal Democrat gerrymander which had been in place in 2020 and 2022 was finally removed and replaced by a legitimate district map. The Michigan district was an open seat which was formerly held by Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who left to run for the Senate (and probably win, but that's not been called yet).

Here are the other potential pickups for Republicans:
  • CA-47 (open seat) Scott Baugh gave it a good shot in this D+3 district. No GOP pickups in CA this year but only minimal losses.
  • ME-2 (Golden) Golden pulls it out again, unfortunately. He is the most "moderate" Rat in the House, though.
  • WA-3 (Perez) Southwest WA rejects a good conservative for the second time in a row; Perez holds on.
  • CO-8 (Caraveo) One of the top GOP House targets finally comes through almost a week after election night.
  • OH-9 (Kaptur) Got the Ohio Senate seat, but the GOP really blew it in OH at the House level, where +2 was quite possible.
  • AK-at large (Peltola) See what happens when the GOP gets smart for a change and limits intra-party warfare?
  • NV-3 (Lee) Another close-but-no-cigar, as so often happens in Nevada.
  • PA-7 (Wild) For the first time since these PA districts were gerrymandered into existence...
  • PA-8 (Cartwright) ...the GOP takes them! They had been 0-for-2 for three straight elections.
  • MD-6 (open seat) Would have been a big upset, but the Rat was so repugnant that it almost happened.
  • CA-9 (Harder) The GOP didn't really try hard here, but came close anyway.

Here are the other potential losses for Republicans:
  • NY-4 (D'Esposito) D'Espo has bitten the dust; the GOP needs all possible seats, but good riddance to this scumbag.
  • NY-19 (Molinaro) Molinaro went down too in the bloodbath in NY; GOP frosh lost 3 of 5 (4 of 6 if you count Santos).
  • CA-13 (Duarte) A victim of California's Ballot Harvesting Month.
  • CA-22 (Valadao) An unexpectedly early and positive result!
  • CA-27 (Garcia) It was never reasonable to think that ALL vulnerable Republican incumbents in CA were going to win, as we have noted since 2022.
  • CA-41 (Calvert) But this one did; good for Calvert for defeating a particularly slimy and hateful Democrat.
  • CA-45 (Steel) Another victim of California's Ballot Harvesting Month.
  • NE-2 (Bacon) Bacon has won (!). He's no bargain, but he's better than the alternative.
  • PA-10 (Perry) Perry (barely) survives as GOP sweeps the winnable eastern PA districts!
  • OR-5 (Chavez-DeRemer) Another lost seat. The 2022 (R) win here was an obvious fluke right from the start.
  • CO-3 (open seat) The Rat spent more ($15 mill) than any House challenger in the COUNTRY. And still lost. Ha ha.
  • IA-1 (Miller-Meeks) By a razor-thin margin, MMM has been declared the winner.
  • AZ-1 (Schweikert) A good conservative holds on to his seat.
  • AZ-6 (Ciscomani) This moderate-to-somewhat-conservative freshman wins a second term.
  • MI-10 (James) James won.

Republicans need to find some pickups and limit their losses in order to maintain House control. We will update this commentary as more districts are called. At the moment, Decision Desk (DD) is predicting a net loss of only 3 seats for the Republicans which, if true (and their forecast is just a guess at this point) means that Republicans will maintain control by the narrowest possible margin: 218-217.

At one point on 11/6 DD saw a possible R+2 outcome in the House; they are predicting R-1 as of the evening of 11/8 and have been sticking to that number ever since. R-1 means they keep control, 220-215.

Update 11/9: DD shows 11 House races uncalled and the GOP needs only to win 2 to maintain control; DD believes they will win 4 of the 11. Evans (R) is now ahead of Caraveo (D) in CO-8; Ciscomani (R) is clinging to life in AZ-6 and Begich (R) is ahead but still short of the necessary 50% in AK. All other undecided seats are in CA and Republicans lead in some of those too.

Update 11/10: Golden may not win in ME-2 after all -- with all ballots counted he has fallen below 50% and therefore the race will be decided by Rigged Choice Voting just like it was in 2018 when that scheme was first used in Maine. Golden is still likely to win, but apparently not 100% certain at this point.

Update 11/11: Most media called it on Sunday but now everybody says that Republicans have picked up CO-8. AZ-6 is still too close to call and they're all asleep in Alaska, where vote totals haven't moved in a long time. Republican incumbents will probably lose no more than 2 seats in CA (we hope) and there will be no pickups there, but in the end the House should stay (R).

Update 11/12: It's over (as far as who will run the House) -- Republicans hold CA-41 and AZ-6 but lose CA-27. A net of minus-1 there may not sound impressive, and it's not, but it is sufficient to reach the 218 threshold; they are at 219 with possibly 2 more wins yet to come (AK and CA-13). If those wins materialize we'll wind up exactly where we started, with Republicans having a 221-214 advantage. That outcome may also sound unimpressive, but given the number of marginal districts which had to be defended, merely breaking even isn't bad at all and a slightly better outcome than realists like us projected for them.

So far Trump has named 2 incumbent GOP House members to his administration, which will necessitate special elections in FL-6 (Waltz) and NY-21 (Stefanik). Those special elections should be easy wins for the Republicans.

Final update: In mid-December the GOP lost the last 2 House elections to be called, both of them in California, and both in districts where Republican incumbents had been leading for over a month. Democrats were able to "harvest" enough ballots to put their candidates over the top just before time expired. The final count then is 220-215, a net loss of 1 seat for the GOP -- slightly better than we expected (-2 or a little worse) but far worse than the conventional "wisdom" which desperately envisioned House gains to go along with a presidential win.

Tags:

2024 House? We'll find out in December


11/2/2024: Election 2024: The Final Hours [RightDataUSA]


Photo credit: CNN

With just a few more hours until the 2024 election campaign season mercifully concludes, we are on track for one of the closest elections in U.S. presidential history if the polls can be believed. But some folks are not so sure about that, and are thinking in terms of "waves" and "landslides" that will deliver not just the White House but also the U.S. House and Senate. For example (just from the past few days):


But also:

These polar-opposite worldviews are hardly unexpected; the fragile snowflakes on both sides (there are far more on the left, but no shortage on the right either) need to be constantly reassured that things are going their way, no matter what "lies" they may hear which say otherwise. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and believe everything we tell you, they say. Well, somebody is lying, and somebody is going to be crushingly disappointed on November 6th or whenever the vote-counting finally ceases.


Photo credit: Palm Beach Post

Early Voting

We've heard a great deal about how well the GOP is allegedly doing in Early Voting, even in heavily Democrat states like New Jersey, and it's being claimed that Early Voting is going to be the critical determinant as to which side wins once all the votes are in.

The only available facts about Early Voting pertain to the number of ballots requested and returned, which are normally broken down by party registration in those states which actually register voters by party. Until election day when the ballots are counted, there is no way to know who the early voters actually voted for in any race. Therefore it is nothing more than assumptions at this point regarding any of the following:


Assumption #1: "Republicans vote for Trump, Democrats vote for Harris, and we have no clue about independents but we'll pretend that we do." A related happy assumption is that there will be less defections among Republicans than Democrats; i.e. more Democrats are crossing party lines to vote for Trump/Vance, than Republicans who are voting for Cackles and Tampon Timmy. This could turn out to be an unfortunately specious assumption, though not a particularly impactful one.


Assumption #2: Independents are "breaking for the challenger (Trump, in this case) as they normally do". That's probably just an old wives' tale to begin with, and yet another possibly incorrect assumption. All states have a significant number of so-called independent voters, and in numerous states there are more such voters than either Republicans or Democrats. Most people are likely unaware of this fact. So even if Trump, for example, holds 94% of Republicans but Harris only takes 92% of Democrats, that minor difference is absolutely swamped by how the indies vote.

A good illustration of the above comes from 2016 exit polling. Hillary did infinitesimally better (89%) among Democrats than Trump did among Republicans (88%). Both candidates lost 8% of their party to the other side and the remaining 3-4% voted for neither Trump nor Hillary. For every White lower/middle-class Democrat blue collar worker who was attracted by Trump's populist messaging, one liberal suburban soccer-mommy "lifelong" Republican ran sobbing hysterically over to the left and so it was a wash.

Indies made the difference in 2016. Trump did better with them than Hillary, 46% to 42%, though it wasn't sufficient to win the overall popular vote. But it was sufficient to help put him over the top in the closest states. That was 2016; Trump lost indies by 13 points in 2020 (54%-41%), while both he and Biden retained 94% of their own party's votes. Polls in 2024 are all over the place as they flail around trying to figure out how this critical segment of the electorate is going to vote; their sub-sample sizes are normally much too small to draw any conclusions from.


Assumption #3A: Increased GOP turnout in Early Voting will not "cannibalize" their turnout on election day. They'll still have enough voters who are willing to "crawl over broken glass" to get to the polls, and therefore the extra turnout we're seeing prior to November 5th is mostly a bonus!

Assumption #3B: On the other hand, relatively decreased Democrat turnout in Early Voting will persist through election day because many Democrats are too lazy to get up off their fat asses and stand in line; if they don't vote early, they likely won't vote at all!


The amount of bullshit those twin assumptions contain for 2024 remains to be seen. Perhaps, by coincidence, all of these assumptions will finally be correct and those who pretended they "knew" it all along will get to say "we told you so!". That would be great.

In the past, when Democrats thoroughly dominated Early Voting, we were assured that the Republican surge on election day would counterbalance the early Democrat advantage, and then some. But it never came close to doing so, even though Republican voters were often instructed to wait -- and specifically avoid voting early -- because of the fear of turnout cannibalization on the big day, and something about Democrats knowing exactly how much fraud they would need to commit.

Put it all together and you can see that there's a substantial disconnect from:

"GOP is doing a little better in early voting (we up, they down!)"

to:

"WE GONNA WIN RED WAYVE BAY-BEE!!!"

The main value these early voting stats have is propaganda value. In prior years the media and other Democrats could crow about what a huge advantage their party had and how it portended eventual victory; this year Republicans are crowing about how they have narrowed the gap a little bit or, in some cases, more than a little bit. What does it matter? Basically, it doesn't. A vote is a vote, no matter when it is cast. Even, when Democrats get their way, ones which come in well after election day.



In a nation as closely divided as this one, it appears that the potential for a "wave" that would sweep over the presidency, the Senate and the House is minimal. But it's not impossible. We'll say this much: if there is any kind of wave, it's probably going to be the kind we don't want to see. Republicans routinely underestimate the amount of hatred Democrats are capable of, and hatred is an excellent motivation for voting.


Photo credit: Twitchy.com

The 2024 Presidential Election:

As most observers have known all along, it's going to come down to the seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It's entirely possible that all seven will be decided by less than 5 points, possibly much less, and right now nobody knows for a fact exactly which way they are going to go. Maybe that's why they're called "swing" states.

Crackheads on the left are dizzily contemplating Harris winning. . . Texas! And Florida! And Ohio! And IOWA!

Their hopium-snorting counterparts on the right figure Trump has a damn good shot in. . . New Jersey! And Minnesota! And New Mexico! And VIRGINIA!

For another few hours they can still dream before the Methadone of reality kicks in. It will be just peachy if Trump can merely replicate what he did in 2016, by squeaking out razor-thin victories in enough of the swing states to get to 270. The Real Clear Politics recent polling averages show the following:

[As of 7:00 AM ET on 11/5]

  • Trump up 2.8% in Arizona (11 EV)
  • Trump up 1.3% in Georgia (16 EV) -- but Democrats are already working on the steal.
  • Trump DOWN 0.5% in Michigan (15 EV)
  • Trump up 0.6% in Nevada (6 EV)
  • Trump up 1.2% in North Carolina (16 EV)
  • Trump up 0.4% in Pennsylvania (19 EV)
  • Trump DOWN 0.4% in Wisconsin (10 EV)

If this series of miniscule margins that generally favor Donald Trump -- ALL of which are within the margin of sampling error -- carry over to the actual vote counts, then Trump will prevail in the Electoral College by the count of 287 to 251 assuming all other states go as expected. Which means that the "Keystone" to the election is the state of Pennsylvania -- as we noted long ago and wrote about in considerable detail; it is tremendously likely that whoever wins PA wins the election.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind about all of these pollsters who are showing exceedingly close races in several states at the presidential level, and in other races as well:
  • Blowout fantasies notwithstanding, the pollsters aren't wrong about how close things are.

    Or are they?

    Nate Silver thinks they're not only wrong, they are outright lying. He doesn't say for whose benefit they are lying (it's for their own benefit, actually, so as to keep themselves relevant). So who does he think is clearly ahead?

    He says: Trump 55%, Cackles 45%. That's not an expected popular vote percentage (obviously), it's the probability of victory as Silver sees it. However just a few days earlier (October 23), Nate claimed "the election remains a 50-50 coin flip". Now he's angry at pollsters who say the same thing. Have things changed so dramatically since then? Has Trump really surged that much in two weeks?


    Real Clear Politics polling average as of 11/2: Trump vs. Harris (click image to enlarge)

    Trump has apparently improved his position, and it's not like a 55% chance of victory makes his election a mortal lock anyway. Presidential contests in the swing states really are likely to be nailbiters, regardless of whether Nate Silver objects or not. If the actual margins aren't quite as small as the pollsters are claiming and, for example, Harris wins and obtains a significantly greater number of votes than was expected, the pollsters will shed some crocodile tears regarding their lack of credibility. While at the same time gleefully accepting the outcome.

    Even better for them: when 2028 rolls around these pollsters can be accused of having overstated Republican percentages in the recent past, instead of simply being shills for the Democrats. That would undoubtedly be a first in U.S. polling history, at least since the days of "Dewey Beats Truman!". It would remove a vital "crutch" ("ALL POLLZ ARE BI-USSSED TO THE LEFT!!1!) from amateur polling experts on the right. Let's pray it doesn't happen that way.


  • By declaring so many tossups, the pollsters can't really be blamed if the result is slightly the opposite of what they predicted. Exactly how many decimal places are polls supposed to be accurate to?

    For example, the final Pennsylvania poll from left-leaning (to put it mildly) Quinnipiac College asserts that Donald Trump will win by 1% there (47% to 46%) with a margin of error of 2.1%. If/when it turns out that Heels-Up Harris wins PA by a small amount then Quinnipiac can hardly be roasted for inaccurate forecasting; a swing of, say, 2% between their poll and the final outcome is not remarkable and only the perpetually-outraged would say otherwise. Besides, if the phrase "President Harris" ever becomes "a thing", there will be a hell of a lot more to be outraged about than some minor polling variance.



Photo credit: National Review

The Senate:

The Democrats currently hold a 51-49 advantage, including the four so-called "independents" who march along with the Rats. If there is one certainty in the Senate this year, it is the Republicans picking up the West Virginia seat from the retiring Joe Manchin. Recent polling is somewhat sparse, but GOP challenger Tim Sheehy is supposed to be up by about 6 points against ultra-liberal Democrat incumbent Jon Tester in Montana and, along with everyone else who is already counting that chicken as having hatched, we'll agree that in 2024 Tester finally goes down in flames after a Senate career that was much longer than it should have been.

With those two seats in hand, it would be Republicans with the 51-49 advantage next year.

Next on the potential flip list is Ohio, a supposedly crimson "red" state (like Montana) which (also like Montana) has been electing a far-left Democrat to the Senate for far too long. This race is a tossup. Incumbent Sherrod Brown has won three times in the past, by 12 points in 2006, 6 points in 2012, and 7 points in 2018 (crimson red, my ass). But that was then and this is now. Brown is in a dogfight for the first time, with polls favoring him over Bernie Moreno by perhaps a single point. Brown's margin is slender, but he is ahead in almost 100% of the polls even including Trafalgar (R).



The potential bad news comes from Florida, Texas and even rock-solid crimson, burgundy, maroon Nebraska, where an "independent" phony-moderate candidate is supposedly within striking distance of squishy Republican incumbent Deb Fischer according to the far-left New York Times and the liberal candidate's own polls; all other polls forecast a normal Nebraska outcome. The Democrats did not even field a candidate here -- aside from the one who is calling himself an independent.

Republicans are likely to hold all three of those seats. The Rats are flooding Florida and Texas with $$$ but it would still be quite an upset if Ted Cruz or Rick Scott were to lose; some now classify the TX race as a tossup. The saving grace for these two Republicans could be the laughably poor quality of their liberal Democrat opponents. But the usual Democrat formula of (money + lies + hate) = victory certainly could work.

There's one important ingredient we left out of that equation, which helps Democrats greatly when money + lies + hate isn't quite sufficient. That ingredient is normally not added until after the votes are cast.


Photo credit: The Hill

It's not necessarily about voters actually supporting the dim-bulb Democrats in FL & TX; it's more about voting against the Republicans. Neither Scott nor Cruz are popular with anything more than the tiniest majority of the electorate in their states. Trump is going to win Florida and Texas and even though casual observers will be surprised to hear that a coattail effect might be required for Scott and Cruz, that very well may be the case. We'll say they both pull it out in the end.

Nebraska could be different (though it probably won't be), and that would be the biggest upset of them all. Trump will win Nebraska by an even larger percentage than Texas and Florida, but Fischer is claimed to be running so far behind Trump that she might lose her grip on his coat; she should hardly need such assistance in the first place. Trump is not universally popular in the Cornhusker state -- he is going to lose CD-2 (Omaha) again, and the electoral vote which goes with it; and the liberal GOP House incumbent in CD-2 (Don Bacon) is looking likely to be defeated by the slimy Democrat insect who's opposing him. Trump's support in Nebraska is enormous in the rural western two-thirds of the state, but is tenuous in the Lincoln area and underwater in Omaha.

And now for the potential good news:

In the House, Republican control is in serious jeopardy because of the number of toss-up districts they must defend, because of where the toss-up districts are located, and because of the dynamics of those districts including their partisan composition and the astronomical amount of "possibly" illegally-laundered "ActBlue" money Democrats are spending.

No, that's not the good news.

The good news is that in the Senate the situation is the opposite of the House in one important aspect: it is the Democrats who must do the defending in the marginal states. Those states are:


There are also lunatic fringe pipe dreams regarding Republican pickups in Maryland and Virginia. However the GOP has zero chance in Maryland and at most a 10% chance in the Virginia Senate race. But those other six states are going to be close, to one degree or another. Ohio and Wisconsin are the most likely pickups; Arizona (one outlier poll aside) and Nevada are the least likely. Pennsylvania and Michigan currently look improbable too.

In any event, this is all gravy for the Republicans. They have nothing to lose in these states and everything to gain.

The probability, however, is that they will gain nothing, or at most one. But it would take only a very slight shift to the right, and suddenly it could be another +2! Or more! All Senate polls are close in these marginal states and, on average, they all show the Republican losing.

Final score: The most likely outcome is a net gain of 2 or perhaps 3 seats for the GOP, which means the breakdown will be 51-49 or 52-48 in the Republicans' favor starting in 2025. It may be assumed that any "wave", however low the probability is that one occurs, can only push things further in the Republican direction. But don't completely discount the possibility of an unpleasant surprise in Texas or Florida. Worst case scenario: the Senate stays 51-49 Democrat, and that is not terribly likely.


Photo credit: Fox News

As far as the likely outcome: as we have noted on numerous occasions, having only 51 or 52 seats is not satisfactory to give the GOP anything but nominal control. There are at least two Republican senators -- Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) -- who are for all intents and purposes Democrats. They can continue to sabotage GOP efforts from within as the leadership would prefer; they can drop the charade and become Democrats; or they can go the "independent" route. Regardless, GOP "control" of the Senate will be largely illusory in every way aside from perhaps mathematics.


Current U.S. House breakdown by district
(Map created using mapchart.net)

The House:

As we wrote a couple of weeks ago, there are 40 (out of 435) House seats that can be truly considered as toss-ups this year, with perhaps another 25 lying near toss-up territory. The other 370 seats are just about 100% safe for whichever party currently holds them.

The current split in the House is, effectively, 221 Republicans and 214 Democrats; 218 is the magic number needed to have control, which means that a net loss of merely 4 House seats and it's "Say hello to Hakeem Homeboy" as the new Speaker of the House. And that means, assuming Trump wins the presidency, "Impeachment begins on day one!". It may sound incongruous that Trump could be elected while at the same time the GOP loses its grip on the House; that is not an unlikely parlay at all. When Trump "lost" in 2020, Republicans actually gained 13 House seats that November; it was as if Trump had coattails. . . but no coat for himself. This year could be the opposite, with a Trump win and GOP House losses.

Negative factors in the House:

  • Republicans have far more marginal seats to defend than Democrats do.

  • Republican candidates, on average, have less (sometimes much less) funding than their Democrat opponents.

  • The most marginal seats are almost entirely (34 out of 40) in "blue" states which Trump is definitely going to lose, or in swing states which could go either way. Only six of the 40 are in states which Trump is going to win.

Democrats could get the +4 they need in New York and California alone. Republican freshmen (and some incumbents) won numerous close -- fluke -- elections in 2022 and a large portion of those outcomes are highly likely to be reversed. One already has been reversed (NY-3, Santos) in a special election.

There are as many as five vulnerable GOP freshmen in New York. Two of the five (Brandon Williams, Anthony D'Esposito) appear to be near-certain losses. Two others (Marc Molinaro, Mike Lawler) are tossups at best.

Numerous Republicans are on the hot seat in the Land of Fruits and Nuts. Endangered incumbents include John Duarte, David Valadao, Mike Garcia, Michelle Steele and Ken Calvert. It will be no surprise if at least two or three of those lose. Don't bother staying up late on election night to find out. California gives itself 30 days to count votes in order to facilitate "ballot harvesting" after election day. Thirty days apparently wasn't enough time for California Democrats in 2022; don't expect the same results in 2024. Unless an endangered California incumbent is solidly ahead prior to Ballot Harvesting Month, then he/she doesn't have much of a prayer of remaining in Congress.

Republicans will pick up 3 seats in North Carolina due to the removal of the 2020/2022 illegal Democrat gerrymander. Republicans will lose 2 seats (one in Alabama, one in Louisiana) due to the impact of racist court rulings which have demanded that a White Republican be replaced by a black Democrat in both instances.

Elsewhere, the list of likely ("likely" = "maybe a 50.1% chance" so don't get too excited) GOP pickups is a short one:

The list of likely GOP losses is longer, even without including the five endangered Californians:
  • NY-22, Brandon Williams was always in danger and the 2024 Democrat gerrymander in New York sealed his fate.
  • NY-04, say goodbye to Anthony D'Esposito, who will have the distinction of costing the GOP two seats in 2024 (his own, and the adjacent one formerly held by George Santos).
  • NE-2, liberal Republican Don Bacon, as mentioned above in the Senate commentary.
  • OR-5, freshman Lori Chavez-DeRemer won in a fluke in 2022 but is likely toast now.
  • PA-10, conservative Scott Perry won't be missed by the GOPe after being defeated by an ultra-liberal media bimbo.
  • IA-1, moderate Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks is being overwhelmed by a flood of Democrat cash. Republicans could lose two of their four seats in Iowa, even though Trump should win the state easily. Probably the House loss will be just one seat (this one) at most.
  • AZ-6, freshman Juan Ciscomani is too conservative for the GOPe and too liberal to suit actual conservatives. He could lose to a well-funded femiNazi, similar to the one Miller-Meeks is facing in Iowa.

Neither of these lists is exhaustive. For a wider range of possible House flips, read our report from a couple weeks ago. If there is any kind of movement off-center, one list or the other will expand.

Based on all of the above expectations, the final outcome in the House is going to be exceedingly close. Republicans will need at least a small swing to the right in many districts in order to simply retain what they already possess; that swing is hardly a certainty. The likeliest outcome is that the GOP suffers a net loss of 2 to 8 seats.

The results from 2022 in California and New York are what gave the Republicans the House during this past term; the results from those states in 2024 will be the ones which are primarily responsible for giving Democrats control beginning in 2025, if the House does in fact flip.



State legislatures:

Nearly all states are having legislative elections this year. Those elections are well under the radar as compared to the U.S. House, Senate and presidency, but they are hardly unimportant. In most places, partisan control of a state House or state Senate is not in much doubt. However there are a handful of states -- many of the same ones which are tossups at other levels too -- in which control of a state legislative body could easily flip from one party to the other. The ones that are most flippable include:

Alaska: Both the House and especially the Senate are close, but it almost doesn't matter because even when the GOP has the numbers (as they always do) the liberal-RINO wing of the party conspires with liberal Democrats to form a "coalition" which ensures that conservative legislators are on the outside, and powerless. The House currently consists of 21 R, 13 D and 6 independents; the Senate has 11 R and 9 D -- with 8 Republicans and all 9 Democrats working together to seize control and exclude three conservative Republicans.

Arizona: The Rats need ONE House seat (there are 31 R and 29 D) and ONE Senate seat (16 R, 14 D) to move from minority status into a tie. Obviously that means they need +2 to take full control of the state government.

Michigan: Dems flipped both houses in 2022. Michigan Republicans are in an identical position to Arizona Democrats: +1 to tie, +2 to win. The House is 56 D, 54 R; the Senate is 20 D, 18 R. Neither Arizona nor Michigan are exactly known for election integrity lately, so temper your expectations accordingly.

Minnesota: Republicans need a net gain of 1 seat in the Senate (34 D, 33 R) to win back what they lost control of in 2022. It will take a small wave (R+4) to get the House.

New Hampshire: In a state where practically every neighborhood has its own representative (there are 400 seats in the House of this tiny state) things often fluctuate wildly. If they fluctuate just slightly to the left, Rats will get the House. The current breakdown is 201 R, 196 D, 3 I. Republicans have nominal control of the state Senate (14 R, 10 D).

Pennsylvania: Could cause the fragile types to ingest a ton of copium next week if Cackles wins, Casey is re-elected, Perry loses, etc. Then add the Democrats going +3 and taking the state Senate (current breakdown: 28 R, 22 D) and by doing so seizing 100% control of PA government. The GOP is fighting hard and may avert disaster, at least in the state Senate. The Rats currently lead 102-101 in the state House and on a good election night the Republicans will take it back. On a bad night they won't.

Wisconsin: The GOP has large majorities in both houses of the legislature.... today. In 2025, they won't. A Democrat gerrymander has been put in place for 2024 and when the votes are counted the Wisconsin House and Senate are going to look a lot like Pennsylvania's or Michigan's -- tossups all the way around. The Wisconsin GOP needs a good election night at all levels. Currently the splits are 22 R, 11 D in the Senate and 64 R, 35 D in the House. Enjoy it while you still can, Wisconsin Republicans.

Tags:

2024 House Senate Presidency Hope we're wrong about the House


10/17/2024: 2024 Election Analysis: Will Republicans Hold the House? [RightDataUSA]


Current U.S. House breakdown by district
(Map created using mapchart.net)

1. Competitiveness

As happens every two years, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives (one for each congressional district) are up for re-election. Some folks equate this to 435 flips of a coin, and believe that -- with some luck -- Republicans could win 250 seats, maybe 300, maybe more!!!! That rosy outlook reflects considerable ignorance as to how these districts are constructed.

The fact is that somewhere around 360 of those 435 districts are not competitive at all and have only the most miniscule chance of changing hands; they are almost 100% safe for whichever party currently holds them. That leaves approximately 75 districts which are truly competitive to any extent -- or which should be hotly contested, but sometimes aren't. These 75 are the ones where control of the House will be determined in a few weeks, and of those 75 it's really only about 40 which are truly "toss-ups" this year.

We use objective criteria to determine which districts are the "swing" districts; in addition to recent past results, we consider:

  • Partisan composition of the district
  • Suitability of the candidates to the district
  • Potential effects of other races (like the one for President) on downballot elections like these
  • How hard the parties are trying to win, which is easily measured in terms of $$$$

That last one is a biggie, but the others are also important.



Regarding the suitability of the candidates:

Democrats always try to run the most liberal candidates possible in House races, but in a marginal district they must (with the help of their army of media allies) attempt to disguise their nominee as a "moderate" because they understand that most voters in a marginal district would find an in-your-face liberal nutbucket to be repugnant.

Once elected, Democrat "moderates" normally march in goose-step with their liberal colleagues. Even when narrowly in the minority as is the case today in the House, Democrats voting as a united bloc is nearly always sufficient to thwart any unwanted legislation. This happens because there are always enough liberal Republicans in the party's "big tent" to cross over and assist the Democrats whenever the Republican establishment (GOPe) desires for that to occur. Sometimes, particularly on legislation which has no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law, the Democrat puppetmasters will permit their most vulnerable House members to temporarily leave the plantation and cast a non-liberal vote. Which they can then highlight to the voters back home as a sign of their alleged "independence" when re-election time rolls around. Of course there is no real independence; they vote as they are told to -- always.

Those who control the Republican party (and especially its purse strings) also seek to run the most liberal candidates possible in House races -- even in solid Republican districts -- because the GOPe finds anyone who is even remotely conservative to be repugnant. On this topic, the leadership of both parties are in agreement. Occasionally, the GOPe is correct in running a moderate-liberal if the nature of the district is inappropriate for a nominee who is perceived as being too far to the right.

Based on the above criteria, we have identified 62 districts which should be competitive this year. This list is not substantially different from the one we published over a year and a half ago, but the data associated with these districts is now up-to-date. In addition to the potential flippers, there's also one district in Washington which features two Republicans and zero Democrats running; the incumbent Republican is a Trump-hating impeachment RINO while the challenger is a solid conservative. If an upset should occur there it won't count as a GOP pickup since they already hold that seat, but it would be a welcome development nonetheless.

2. Background

After the 2022 elections, Republicans controlled the House by the margin of 222-213. Since that time there have been 8 special elections held to replace representatives who retired or died. Seven of those 8 were won by the same party which originally held the seat. The lone exception occurred in New York in February when Democrats won the special election in NY-3 to replace conservative Republican George ("Miss Me Yet?") Santos. That election was necessitated when the Stupid Party decided to expel Santos from Congress in December, 2023 for allegedly being so corrupt that he might as well have been a Democrat. But he voted like a conservative which, come to think of it, probably didn't help his case with the party leadership.

The have been three other resignations or deaths for which special elections have not yet been held (or will not be held), and the GOP currently has a 220-212 advantage in the House. Because two of the three vacancies exist in solid Democrat districts (NJ-9, TX-18) which will be easily retained in November, the Democrats effectively have 214 seats going into the election which means they require a net gain of merely 4 seats to seize control.

3. Belated Redistricting

Congressional redistricting -- the redrawing of U.S. House district lines -- took place in all states prior to the 2022 elections, except of course in the six (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) which have only one district that comprises the entire state and therefore there are no district lines.

After 2022 however, a handful of states redrew their districts. This will have a net effect of close to zero on the partisan composition of Congress in 2025, but will result in significant changes within the affected states.

In North Carolina the Democrat-controlled state Supreme Court in 2020 (and then again in 2022) chose to illegally bypass the Republican-controlled legislature and mandated district lines which favored Democrats. In 2022 the voters of the Tarheel State delivered a GOP majority to the Court. The Court then began acting lawfully and returned the task of line-drawing to the legislature, where it belongs. As a result, Republicans will almost certainly be picking up three House seats (NC-6, NC-13, NC-14) from Democrats on election day.

However this windfall will be negated by redistricting-related outcomes in Alabama, Louisiana and New York. In the two southern states, partisan Democrat judges demanded that two conservative White Republicans (one in Alabama, one in Louisiana) be replaced in the House by two liberal black Democrats. Barry Moore (AL-2) and Garret Graves (LA-6) are the two Republicans who will be out of work after 2024 because of these racist court rulings.

In New York, Democrats in 2022 were forced to settle for a district map that was only a slight improvement over the one from which they had benefitted in 2020; they had tried for a hyper-partisan gerrymander which would have all but eliminated Republicans (it would have been something like 22 Democrats and just 4 Republicans) from the New York congressional delegation. In March of 2024, New York Democrats tried once again to gerrymander the state's congressional districts in their favor, and they succeeded without any resistance from the GOP. We wrote about this in detail at the time it occurred.

Having already picked up NY-3 in the Santos debacle, NY Democrats ensured that their pickup would not revert to the GOP in November (and it won't). Additionally, they have altered the Syracuse-Utica area district of freshman Republican Brandon Williams to severely endanger him, making it all but certain for the Democrats to go +1 in New York. At least +1. Redistricting greatly altered no other New York districts, though it did make NY-18 a little safer for liberal freshman Democrat Pat Ryan. However it always was probable that New York and California would be bloodbaths for the Republicans in 2024. That logical assertion is based on the sheer number of close (fluke) House wins which the GOP somehow achieved in those liberal states in 2022, and many close/fluke outcomes were likely to be reversed in 2024 with or without the assistance of Democrat gerrymandering.

One other state -- Georgia -- redrew its lines after 2022 by a court order similar to the one which affected Alabama and Louisiana. Democrats have been fuming ever since that ruling came down because Republicans found a way to comply with the racist ruling without sacrificing any of their currently-held seats. We also wrote about that in detail at the time it occurred.

Even counting New York at only -1 for the Republicans, that, along with the -2 which is guaranteed from Alabama and Louisiana means a break-even as the result of belated redistricting despite the upcoming GOP bonanza in North Carolina.

4. The 62 Most-Flippable Districts

These do not include the North Carolina, Alabama and Louisiana districts already mentioned above, but does include NY-22 (Williams) because it is not quite 100% certain that the district will be won by a Democrat. The following 62 districts are the ones which should be strongly sought by both parties -- but it doesn't work out that way in all cases, as we will illustrate. Several of the listed districts, mostly ones held by Democrats, are not very likely to flip despite the vulnerability of the Democrat incumbents. Or at least not nearly as likely as they should be, mainly because the GOP does not have infinite funds to work with, while the Democrats (via their "ActBlue" money laundry) apparently do.

Some are finally beginning to catch on to the illegal activities of ActBlue, but it's too late to do anything about it in this election cycle and Democrats are likely to be able to purchase a significant number of House and Senate seats which might otherwise be far more tenuous.

Here are the 62 most likely potential flippers, by region. The bloodiest battlegrounds are highlighted, and some which probably won't be so bloody come with brief explanations.

Northeast (16):
  • CT-5: Hayes (D)
  • ME-2: Golden (D)
  • NJ-3: open (D) -- D+5 district, limited GOP funds are better spent elsewhere
  • NJ-7: Kean (R)
  • NY-1: LaLota (R)
  • NY-2: Garbarino (R) -- Democrats have other far better pickup opportunities in NY
  • NY-4: D'Esposito (R)
  • NY-17: Lawler (R)
  • NY-18: Ryan (D)
  • NY-19: Molinaro (R)
  • NY-22: Williams (R)
  • PA-1: Fitzpatrick (R)
  • PA-7: Wild (D) -- R+2 district but Republicans seemingly conceding defeat anyway
  • PA-8: Cartwright (D)
  • PA-10 Perry (R)
  • PA-17: DeLuzio (D) -- district rated even but same story as PA-7

Mid-Atlantic (3):
  • MD-6: open (D) -- GOP retread has little chance against mega-$$$$ Democrat
  • VA-2: Kiggans (R) -- could be a battleground but GOPe ($$$) loves this moderate freshman
  • VA-7: open (D)

South (2):
  • FL-13: Luna (R) -- local (biased) "shock" poll showed her losing; even Rats don't believe that
  • NC-1: Davis (D)

Midwest (13):
  • IA-1: Miller-Meeks (R)
  • IA-2: Hinson (R) -- a rare potential battleground that Democrats declined to compete in
  • IA-3: Nunn (R)
  • IL-17: Sorenson (D) -- only D+2 but seems farther left; GOP basically punting here
  • MI-3: Scholten (D) -- only D+1 but another GOP punt
  • MI-7: open (D)
  • MI-8: open (D)
  • MI-10: James (R)
  • MN-2: Craig (D) -- Rats have always spent big to support this carpetbagging dyke from Arkansas
  • OH-1: Landsman (D) -- another winnable district in which the Republicans have bailed
  • OH-9: Kaptur (D) -- Republicans showing a faint pulse here, but not much more
  • OH-13: Sykes (D) -- see OH-1, and this district is even MORE winnable than that one
  • WI-3: Van Orden (R)

Great Plains-Mountain West (8):
  • CO-3: open (R)
  • CO-8: Caraveo (D)
  • KS-3: Davids (D) -- yet another R+ district with a radical leftist Rat incumbent; GOP punts again
  • MT-1: Zinke (R)
  • NE-2: Bacon (R)
  • TX-15: de la Cruz (R) -- a marginal district where the Republican seems to be safe
  • TX-28: Cuellar (D) -- Democrat with ethical issues; Republicans let him completely slide
  • TX-34: Gonzalez (D)

West (20):
  • AK-At Large: Peltola (D)
  • AZ-1: Schweikert (R)
  • AZ-6: Ciscomani (R)
  • CA-3: Kiley (R)
  • CA-9: Harder (D) -- D+5 isn't that far left for CA but GOP pulled the plug to play defense elsewhere
  • CA-13: Duarte (R)
  • CA-22: Valadao (R)
  • CA-27: Garcia (R)
  • CA-40: Kim (R) -- she's no conservative and has a lot of $$$; Rats are sort of giving her a pass this time
  • CA-41: Calvert (R)
  • CA-45: Steel (R)
  • CA-47: open (D)
  • CA-49: Levin (D)
  • NM-2: Vasquez (D)
  • NV-1: Titus (D)
  • NV-3: Lee (D) -- a vulnerable but well-funded Rat in a marginal district; GOP not trying hard enough
  • NV-4: Horsford (D) -- ditto
  • OR-5: Chavez-DeRemer (R)
  • WA-3: Perez (D)
  • WA-8: Schrier (D) -- district is more marginal than it appears, but Republicans haven't noticed

As noted above, the most competitive districts are bolded. A little more (34) than half of the listed districts fit that description. Of these 34, 11 are currently held by Democrats and 23 by Republicans. That's not a good ratio.

There are some others which are perhaps a small amount behind in terms of competitiveness. They are:
  • CT-5 -- GOP candidate from '22 back for a rematch; came within 1 point last time
  • MI-10 -- also a 2022 rematch and it was very close (0.5%) then
  • MT-1 -- and yet another rematch; Zinke should win somewhat comfortably
  • NV-1 -- a D+1 district in which the GOP is at least trying to compete
  • PA-1 -- the 4th 2022 rematch in this section; lots of D $$$ here (unlike '22) but probably won't prevail
  • PA-8 -- an R+4 district held by a very wealthy slimy trial lawyer D incumbent; don't get your hopes up

Three of those are currently GOP districts and three are held by Democrats. Add them to the 34 super-contested districts and the Republicans have the potential to lose 26 marginal seats, the Democrats 14.

The 40 most competitive districts are mostly in states which are toss-ups at the presidential level (AZ, MI, NC, NV, PA, WI) or ones which the bumbling Word Salad Queen is guaranteed to win (CA, CO, NE*, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VA, WA).

Only six of the 40 battleground districts lie in states that Trump should win (AK, IA, ME*, MT, TX). Eleven lie in the swing states and 23 are in states where Trump's probability of victory ranges from "very unlikely" to "utterly impossible". If there is any presidential coattail effect in that latter group, it is hardly going to be beneficial for GOP House candidates.

[* ME-2 and NE-2 are in states which split electoral votes. Trump is likely to win ME-2 and lose NE-2, replicating the 2020 outcome in those two districts.]

In these 40 districts, Democrats have raised more money in 30 of them and have spent more money in 30 of them. Republicans have the financial edge in only 10 of the 40. As we've stated several times before: there is no election in this country, at any level, in which Democrats cannot outspend Republicans (often by astronomical amounts) if they wish to do so. Money alone doesn't determine the outcome of an election, but having more than your opponent surely doesn't hurt.



The results in the other districts listed above are not likely to be as close as they should be. Republicans are not trying as hard as they might in R-leaning districts like KS-3, OH-9, OH-13 and PA-7. They are also not terribly competitive in some districts which lean only slightly to the left (in the D+1 to D+4 range) such as IL-17, MD-6, MI-3, MN-2, NV-3, NV-4, OH-1, PA-17 and TX-28. These represent blown opportunities, although if a "red" wave somehow materializes there may be some pleasant surprises here.

There are about a dozen districts which have not been mentioned previously but could change partisan hands in November; it would require moderate to major upsets in order to wind up doing so. Some of these are really just pipe dreams for one party or the other, and the majority of them are not even being seriously contested (financially) although some are. We enumerate them just to cover all the bases:
  • AZ-2: Crane (R)
  • CO-4: open (R -- Lauren Boebert moving over from CO-3)
  • FL-9: Soto (D)
  • FL-27: Salazar (R)
  • FL-28: Gimenez (R)
  • IN-1: Mrvan (D)
  • NH-1: Pappas (D)
  • NH-2: open (D)
  • OR-4: Hoyle (D)
  • OR-6: Salinas (D)
  • TN-5: Ogles (R)
  • WI-1: Steil (R)

5. Conclusion

Add it all up and the probability of the GOP remaining in charge of the House appears to be less than 50% (perhaps much less), barring a clear shift to the right between now and November 5. As we have documented, there are likely to be more tight races in Republican-held districts than there will be in Democrat-held ones.

Anything can happen in a close election, in case you've somehow forgotten 2020.

Even if the GOP wins as many as half of the most precarious 40 districts, which is by no means certain to happen, that would make it +6 for the Democrats and 220-215 control of the House.

When Democrats rule a legislative body by even one seat, they govern with an iron fist as if they have 100% control; when Republicans face the same margins -- as they currently have in the House and will in the Senate next year -- they become even more timid than usual (they aren't really comfortable with the concept of "governing") and act as if they have control of nothing. Which, in effect, they don't. And good luck with Senate "control" anyway with traitors like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham in the GOP caucus -- assuming that none of them switch parties after 2024.

The difference between how the parties behave in advantageous situations will be quite evident beginning in January, unless the Republicans can stem the tide of potential House losses and cling to power, such as it is with a twerp like Mike Johnson in command. As spineless as the GOP leadership is, that party's control of the House at least means that the Trump agenda (assuming he wins the presidency) is not immediately D.O.A. as it would be under racist election-denying Speaker Hakeem Homeboy, and it also means we would avoid a never-ending series of Trump impeachments.

Vote hard.

Tags:

2024 House "Red" wave in the House? Not likely


[More commentary]