A lot of the focus for the next two years will be on Republicans trying to gain seats, which feels appropriate but not the full story. Republicans do have more targets than the Democrats do. The 2018 midterms the Democrats won all but three of the districts Hillary Clinton won in 2016, while 31 Democrats now represent seats that were won by Donald Trump in 2016. But 2018 did point to a number of seats that the Democrats nearly won that could be competitive in 2020, particularly if the Democrats are winning the White House. 1974/76, 1978/80, and 2006/08 were all back-to-back cycles where the same party netted seats in a row, thanks almost entirely to a strong performance from their party for the White House (all three of those election cycles saw the Oval Office switch parties). If Trump is as unpopular as he was last November, and the Democrats can translate that into an indictment on Trump's party (neither far-fetched), we could be looking at a similar situation for 2020.
But where will those gains happen? Let's find out! I have listed below the ten seats that are most on Nancy Pelosi's Wish List, one of which she could well win before November 2020. If the Democrats are to gain seats next year, it's almost certain they'll have done so by looking at some of these seats. Because we're so far out and we don't know (for the most part) extenuating circumstances like candidate recruitment and retirement information, I'm not ranking these, but listing them alphabetically. Without further adieu...
 |
| Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL) |
Why It's Vulnerable: Heading into election night, this open district (that went for Trump) looked like a tossup call between Ross Spano and Kristen Carlson. Spano won by 6-points, a respectable margin considering he wasn't the incumbent and the polling, which indicated that Carlson slightly underperformed expectations. Spano, however, made a name for himself after the election for violating campaign finance laws, which he's now under investigation for. This leaves the freshman congressman, who is still making a name for himself with his constituents, increasingly vulnerable to an attack both in the primary and the general election next year, and either of those make this seat one to watch for in 2020.
Why It Might Not Be: You're going to be hearing a couple of recurring refrains in these articles, but let's get to one that's unique to Florida-15 first-the criminal charges. As was indicated last year by Chris Collins & Duncan Hunter, being credibly accused of an actual crime is no longer a hindrance to winning federal office, and as a result Spano may not have as much to worry about here as either of those two men did (though it's worth noting that FL-15 is considerably closer to the center than CA-50 or NY-27). The other two questions are around Trump's coattails & rerun candidates. Historically an incumbent president's coattails don't matter as much in a presidential election, but that doesn't mean that they won't matter here, particularly as history is kinder to ticket-splitting than our current reality. How many people will vote for Trump and then not just vote for Spano? The second is that the Democrats are going to struggle to not nominate the same people in 2020. I have been toying with tackling this in a separate article, but by-and-large it's a bad idea to nominate the same losing candidate as last time unless the situation changes (someone like Angie Craig is rare for a reason). Carlson underperformed here in 2018, and there's not really a reason to assume she wouldn't do so again in 2020-will the D's nominate her anyway due to brand loyalty & a lack of a bench? If so, I think they're helping Spano more than themselves.
 |
| Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-GA) |
Why It's Vulnerable: I'm not ranking these seats, but I would argue that if there's one seat the Republicans should be most worried about losing, it's GA-7. In 2018, the Democrats nearly took the seat away from incumbent-Rep. Rob Woodall, as Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux lost by only 319 votes, an absurdly small margin. Woodall announced after that close call that he's retiring, and Bourdeaux leads off with a strong head start from her close last election, and unlike other "rerun" candidates on this list, she actually has changed circumstances; it's a lot easier to bet on Bourdeaux in 2020 when she doesn't have to beat an incumbent and had a 2018 performance that should help her fundraising. The district looks a lot like many of the seats the Democrats won in 2018, made up of suburbs in northern Atlanta, and though it went for Donald Trump in 2016, it also went for Stacey Abrams in 2018, indicating that the seat certainly can be won by a Democrat, and there's proof that Trump might not win it in 2020.
Why It Might Not Be: This is still an historically Republican district; pre-Trump, we wouldn't even be talking about it being vulnerable, even if open. Bourdeaux will certainly have to face a crowded primary to win (though the Republicans could as well), and Abrams' run in 2018 was a way to galvanize minority voters that might not be as possible in a presidential election. Bourdeaux will need strong turnout from the district's African-American, Hispanic, and Asian communities in order to win this seat...it's probable she'll need some help like Stacey Abrams running for the Senate to get there.
 |
| Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) |
Why It's Vulnerable: A sprawling district that links both the exurbs of St. Louis and the State Capitol into its path, the 13th has been the district that the Democrats just can't win for eons. That nearly changed in 2018, when Betsy Dirksen Londrigan came out of nowhere (polling had shown it theoretically close, but an easy hold for Davis) and was 2000 votes away from finally winning the district for the left. That shows that Davis should still be on the vulnerable list, and that Democrats would be wise not to ignore Davis, even if he feels a bit like Lucy with the football for them.
Why It Might Not Be: You'll notice I'm not as high on this race, and it's partially superstition (Davis has never been considered a great campaigner, but perhaps that's something that should be reconsidered as he consistently clobbers very strong opponents like Ann Callis), but it's also the reality of this portion of the country being the kind of district that Republicans are doing better in rather than worse. While there are some suburbs and college-town pockets, this is a lot of small cities for one district, and feels like the kind of place that the Democrats used to be more competitive in-unlike almost every other district on this list, I struggle to find any Democratic nominee in 2020 who can win here at a presidential level, and with an incumbent on the ticket why would the seat flip while Trump is winning it? There's also the problem of recruitment. Considering how well she did last year, Dirksen Londrigan certainly deserves another shot, but I think the Democrats would be wise to bet on a local officeholder instead, someone like Andy Manar or Mike Frerichs, who can match Davis's prowess when it comes to actually getting winning ballots. Still, Dirksen Londrigan proved in 2018 that there's the ability for a Democrat to win here, even if it's still a tough climb.
Why It's Vulnerable: When votes finally settled from 2018, we saw the results of places like OK-5 and SC-1 where the victories were staggering because the Democrats won in places they weren't expected to do so. We also saw districts that the Democrats nearly won, and perhaps none was more jaw-dropping than MO-2. This isn't because the district doesn't fit the profile of a competitive district-it does. The 2nd encompasses most of the St. Louis suburbs, the new battleground for the Democrats, and is by far the wealthiest and most highly-educated district in the state. It's weird because this race wasn't really on anyone's radar. Democrat Cort VanOstram came within four points of besting longtime-Rep. Ann Wagner with almost no national money or attention on his campaign. In 2020, that would likely change, and like Carolyn Bourdeaux above, there's reason to be optimistic if you're a Democrat looking at this seat. After all, while she lost statewide, Claire McCaskill did beat Josh Hawley in the second district, so a Democrat can win here.
Why It Might Not Be: Unlike Georgia, Missouri will get no attention in the presidential election (its years as a bellwether have long since passed), and while Democrats are now aware of the competitive potential here, so is Ann Wagner, a brilliant fundraiser who won't be caught slacking in the district. It's worth noting, of course, that McCaskill was a twice-elected senator when she won here, so there was history there that no Democrat will have against Wagner, and it's not clear that VanOstram is the best candidate at the end of the day when he's not just "generic Democrat." Still, this is one to watch if Trump's suburban slump continues.
 |
| Kara Eastman (D-NE) |
Why It's Vulnerable: In 2018, Democrats largely wrote this district off when Kara Eastman, a liberal social worker to the left of the district's profile, bested former-Rep. Brad Ashford in the primary against incumbent Don Bacon. In hindsight, this was a foolish move as Eastman lost by about three points, a closer margin than most anticipated, and may well have won if the DCCC had spent more time here. In 2020, Eastman is back, as is congressman Ashford's wife Ann, into the race, and it's very probable given the strange congressional apportionment laws of Nebraska that the Democratic presidential candidate will push hard to win here, potentially giving the House candidate coattails if the nominee is successful.
Why It Might Not Be: Couple of problems here. For starters, we have no way of guaranteeing that the Dem nominee for POTUS will win here. Sure, Hillary Clinton came close and this district in the heart of Omaha is more left-leaning than the rest of the state, but this is still a marginally Republican district, one that hasn't given a great boost to the Democratic prospects that they can actually win, just that they can get close. Secondly, I think the D's would be better off skipping both the Ashford & Eastman wells, but it's hard to see them not picking one of these two candidates in 2020 as their nominee, as both seem damaged from a very bitter 2018 primary and general election. In order to win here, the D's need an inside straight-I don't think they can get there if they duplicate the 2018 primary.
 |
| Rep. John Katko (R-NY) |
Why It's Vulnerable: There are still three Hillary Clinton-won seats that are in Republican hands after the bloodbath such districts encountered in the 2018 midterms, and none of those seats did Hillary win by more than in NY-24 (she took the seat by four points). Democrats largely abandoned Democrat Dana Batler in 2018, assuming that she'd lose to the popular Rep. John Katko, but she still held him to a 5-point win, and perhaps more damning, other districts that had similarly "impenetrable" incumbents like CA-21 in 2018 fell to the Democrats thanks to Trump hatred, even with popular incumbents. It's hard to imagine the DCCC letting Katko go as easily even with his past strengths in 2020, knowing this is one of the most-likely Republican-held districts that will go for a Democratic nominee for president, and in an era with less ticket-splitting, that gives them a solid opening.
Why It Might Not Be: John Katko is not Mimi Walters or David Valadao or John Culberson, all longtime incumbents who had never lost until they faced a truly "no Republicans allowed" electorate like in 2018. The fact that he actually won in 2018 is very telling, even against a weak and underfunded opponent like Batler. Secondly, though, his biggest advantage may be recruitment-the star candidates in NY-24 frequently refuse the DCCC, and I think Batler would be the definition of an underwhelming rerun candidate. Before 2018, the dream candidate would have been Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, but she ruined most of her goodwill by playing Hamlet and then starting an ill-advised independent run for governor. Other Democrats like Anne Messenger or Chris Ryan would be decent options, but they refused in 2018-are there any indications they'd want to take on Katko after he proved he could win even in the worst of circumstances?
 |
| Dan McCready (D-NC) |
Why It's Vulnerable: This seat is kind of cheating to put on the list (look below for the 11th place seat if you don't think this one should count). However, it'd still be a pickup since the most recent person to hold the seat is a Republican, so I'm keeping it on the list. In case you are unaware, NC-9 is currently an open seat, and is so because Republican campaign operatives in 2018 attempted to defraud voters in the district to win the election for their candidate Mark Harris. Democrats came within a 1000 votes (and who knows how much closer if all ballots had been legal) in 2018, and after an investigation threw out the results of the election, will later this year face a special election for the remainder of this Congress. Democrats have at least an upward advantage, as the Republicans' behavior in the 2018 election will surely rile up parts of the base, and unlike the GOP, they won't have a competitive primary, as Dan McCready will be the nominee again after many in his party feel he was cheated out of a victory last year.
Why It Might Not Be: This is a relatively Republican district, one that Donald Trump won by double-digits, and was likely only vulnerable in 2018 because Harris was a notably awful candidate, one whom the incumbent he beat refused to endorse after a nasty primary (there is also evidence that there was electoral misconduct in the GOP primary as well, which may be what this stems from). Put it this way-if McCready were to win the special this November, he'd rocket straight onto my list of ten most vulnerable Democratic incumbents. While the GOP has not recruited Pittenger or former Governor Pat McCrory (candidates that might have cleared the field), they also don't have Harris in the race which would have made this considerably easier for McCready. A crowded GOP primary may lead to another Harris, but without one McCready is going to need a Conor Lamb-style performance to win here, and that's a tough hurdle to jump.
 |
| Rachel Reddick (D-PA) |
Why It's Vulnerable: The second of the Hillary-won districts, this is the seat of the three I think the Democrats have the best on-paper chance of winning back come next November. That's because there's improvement to be had from 2018, provided they get their act together. For starters, the Democrats picked a pretty weak candidate here in Scott Wallace, who surprised in the primary over Rachel Reddick, and then quickly watched his campaign endure a series of missteps. I'd argue that if Reddick had been the nominee and avoided Wallace's missteps, the strong up-ballot performance by the Democrats for Governor & Senate would have carried her across the finish line. In 2020, were someone like Reddick to run (I'd guess she'd be a top choice from the DCCC), and the Democrats win this district again, Fitzpatrick would be in trouble.
Why It Might Not Be: Despite a poor campaign by Wallace, Fitzpatrick still won in a district that went for Hillary Clinton. That's a sign of strength for his campaign, and proof he can carry this district even as Democrats are winning it at the top of the ballot. Additionally, there's no indication that Reddick would have been that much better than Wallace. She did lose a primary to him, and though she didn't have a membership to an anti-semitic club and wouldn't have sworn in a synagogue while campaigning, that's not to say she was a rock star. The Democrats could likely hold this seat with strong margins if they were to ever win it, but until that happens, it'll still be a tough time to best Fitzpatrick.
 |
| Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) |
Why It's Vulnerable: The third district to go to Hillary Clinton, this one was not supposed to be competitive in 2018, but was. Many people assumed that Will Hurd would be safe, as the Democrats had nominated an underperforming candidate, and while the last minute push by Donald Trump on immigration certainly wasn't helping Hurd (this district is nearly 70% Hispanic, making it possibly the only majority-Hispanic district outside of FL-25 that is represented by a Republican after the midterms), it wasn't going to take him down. And, to be fair, it didn't, but winning by less than a thousand votes in a district where he had a double-digit polling lead shouldn't reassure Hurd, particularly if Trump remains toxic in 2020, as Democrats will know to ignore the polls at this point, because Hurd underperforms. Hurd has done a decent job of differentiating himself from Trump, but he's going to need at least 2-3% of voters to go Dem Nominee/Hurd if the last couple of cycles are any indication-it's achievable, but not easy.
Why It Might Not Be: Hurd, like Fitzpatrick & Katko, has the advantage of being a Republican that won in 2018. That's not a foolproof plan (people like Steve Chabot & Chris Shays both won hard-fought races in 2006 just to watch another toxic Republican environment in 2008 take them down), but it's a pretty good one. Hurd can also take comfort in knowing that while this district did vote for Hillary Clinton, it's one of the districts that also went to Mitt Romney, making it feel more anti-Trump than anti-Republican. This could be how he won in 2018, and may be why Hurd has been making great pains to point out the differences between he and Trump. Hurd also can take comfort in knowing Democrats are notoriously bad at winning here, even if they always get close. People like Ciro Rodriguez, Pete Gallego, and Gina Ortiz Jones were all highly-touted recruits that still lost in this seat, and it's entirely possible that, for lack of originality, they try Ortiz Jones again, even though Gallego & Rodriguez have both lost a similar seat multiple times, proving fresh voices may be better.
Why It's Vulnerable: For my final option, I debated between TX-21 and TX-24, as both were way closer than anyone assumed they'd be, but I'm going with TX-24 because it was vulnerable with an incumbent, Kenny Marchant, while Chip Roy in the 21st had to win an open seat, a much harder task during a wave than simply retaining voters you've already won before. Still, both seem vulnerable if 2018 wasn't a fluke-an increasingly blue Texas has been forecasted for years, but Beto O'Rourke provided the Democrats an actual map of how they could do it, and Marchant seems vulnerable from that vantage point.
Why It Might Not Be: It's difficult to imagine, even if he's on the ballot, O'Rourke recreating the unique conditions that helped him win in 2020. That might not matter (the sleeping giant could be awake), but Marchant now knows he's a target, and will act accordingly, and it's hard to see the Democratic presidential candidate spending as much time trying to woo Texas Democrats to his or her side as O'Rourke did. If they don't have a strong Senate candidate against Cornyn, might Marchant be able to avoid a Democrat riding coattails?
No comments:
Post a Comment