Month: December 2007

This is the second in a series of analysis of congressional districts.

Note that one should not use these analyses to make statements about individuals. That’s called the ecological fallacy, and it can lead you very far astray, very quickly.

Also, please ask questions.  Don’t look at the graphs and equations and run away…..ask.  There are no dumb questions*.  I will *not tell you you are stupid for asking.  Statistics is confusing to lots of people, not just you!  So ASK!

Today, I started off by looking at median income and Cook PVI.  That led to other things.  More below the fold

(cross posted from DailyKos)

My suspicion, before looking at the relationship between median income and Cook PVI was that higher median income districts would be more Republican.  I did know that some high income districts were quite Democratic, but I thought these were exceptions.  Well, one reason to explore the data is to see whether your suspicions are correct.   Here’s a graph of median income and Cook PVI across 435 districts:

My favorite professor in grad school used to say “If you’re not surprised, you haven’t learned anything”.  I’m surprised, but what can we learn?

The very poorest districts are, indeed, very Democratic. At the extreme, the poorest district (NY16) is also the most Democratic (Cook PVI is D + 43).  But above a median income of about 30,000, there is only a modest relationship, and, what there is points to wealthier districts being more Democratic….. hmmm.

When results surprise you in this way, one thing that may be going on is that there is some third variable that is affecting the relationship.  I know that people in rural areas have different views than those in urban areas….

The language I used to draw these plots R offers a tool called conditioning plots, that lets you look at three variables in an interesting way.  You divide the third variable into groups, and then plot the first two in each group.   Easier to show than tell:

Each panel of the graph is congressional districts of a certain level of urban-ness.  The lower left is less than 50% urban, lower right is 50-75%, upper left is 75-90% and upper right is over 90% urban.  (Note, it is probably better to think of ‘urban’ as ‘urban or suburban’ or, perhaps ‘rural’).  This is interesting!  

First thing that strikes me is that there is almost no relationship between median income and Cook PVI except in the highly urban districts, where it is strong and in the expected direction: Higher median income = more Republican.  

Next, we can see that more urban districts are, generally, more Democratic: All but one of the districts with Cook PVI over D+20 are over 90% urban.  

Third, all the high income districts are mostly urban.  Of districts with median income above $60,000 or so, none were mostly rural, and most were 90%+ Urban.

Graphs are good for exploration, now let’s look at a model.  In specific, let’s look at several regression models, with the dependent variable being Cook PVI and the IVs being different combinations of urban and median income.

First, Cook PVI as a function of median income (I measured median income in thousands of dollars):

The resulting equation is:

CookPVI = 3.69 – .051*MedInc.

What this means is that the predicted PVI for a district with a median income of 0 is D+4, and that it declines by .05 for each thousand dollar increase in median income.  This difference wasn’t significant, and the R^2 for this model was only 0.0001, meaning that almost none of the variation in CookPVI is accounted for by median income.

Second, Cook PVI as a function of %Urban

This gives:

CookPVI = -29.45 + 0.39*Urban

that is, when urban = 0, the predicted CookPVI is R + 29, and it gets more Democratic by 0.39 points for each percent increase in Urban.  So, for a 50% urban district the predicted Cook value would be -29 + 50*.39 = R+9, and for a district that’s 100% urban, it would be D + 10.

R^2 here was 0.29 indicating that urban-ness accounted for 29% of the variation in Cook PVI

Finally, a model with both urban and median income:

Cook PVI = – 18.8 – 0.41*Median Income + 0.48*Urban

that is, for a district with median income = 0 and urban = 0, the predicted Cook PVI was R + 19, and this got more Republican by 0.41 units for each thousand dollar increase in median income, but got more Democratic by .48 units for each unit increase in Urban.

Both urban and median income were very significant, and this model had R^2 of 0.38.

Well 6 more districts now have candidates:

CA-49 – R+10,

FL-07 – R+3,

KY-05 – R+8,

MO-02 – R+9,

TX-03 – R+17,

TX-07 – R+16,

And candidate filing season has started with Illinois filings which closed with us filling all 19 races a great start.

But one race now no longer has a confirmed Democratic candidate:

MT-AL – R+11 (our candidate withdrew owing to ill health),

Once again go and take a look at the  

2008 Race Tracker Wiki.

**I have included Cook PVI numbers where possible after blogger requests to do so!**

Below the fold for all the news……

359 races filled! This of course includes 233 districts held by Democratic Congresscritters.

But we also have 126 GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic opponents.

So here is where we are at (GOP Districts):

Districts with confirmed candidates – 126

Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 2

Districts with rumoured candidates – 25

Districts without any candidates – 49

1) The GOP held districts with confirmed Democratic challengers are as follows:

AL-01 – R+12,

AL-03 – R+4,

AL-04 – R+16,

AK-AL – R+14,

AZ-01 – R+2,

AZ-02 – R+9,

AZ-03 – R+6,

AZ-06 – R+12,

AR-03 – R+11,

CA-03 – R+7,

CA-04 – R+11,

CA-21 – R+13,

CA-24 – R+5,

CA-26 – R+4,

CA-40 – R+8,

CA-41 – R+9,

CA-42 – R+10,

CA-44 – R+6,

CA-45 – R+3,

CA-48 – R+8,

CA-49 – R+10,

CA-50 – R+5,

CA-52 – R+9,

CO-04 – R+9,

CO-06 – R+10,

CT-04 – D+5,

DE-AL – D+7,

FL-01 – R+19,

FL-05 – R+5,

FL-07 – R+3,

FL-08 – R+3,

FL-09 – R+4,

FL-10 – D+1,

FL-12 – R+5,

FL-13 – R+4,

FL-14 – R+10,

FL-15 – R+4,

FL-24 – R+3,

GA-01 – R+?,

GA-09 – R+?,

GA-10 – R+?,

ID-01 – R+19,

IL-06 – R+2.9,

IL-10 – D+4,

IL-11 – R+1.1,

IL-13 – R+5,

IL-14 – R+5,

IL-15 – R+6,

IL-16 – R+4,

IL-18 – R+5.5,

IL-19 – R+8,

IN-03 – R+16,

IN-04 – R+17,

IN-06 – R+11,

IA-04 – D+0,

IA-05 – R+8,

KS-04 – R+12,

KY-04 – R+11.7,

KY-05 – R+8,

LA-01 – R+18,

MD-01 – R+10,

MD-06 – R+13,

MI-02 – R+9,

MI-07 – R+2,

MI-09 – R+0,

MI-11 – R+1.2,

MN-02 – R+2.7,

MN-03 – R+0.5,

MN-06 – R+5,

MO-02 – R+9,

MO-06 – R+5,

MO-09 – R+7,

NV-03 – D+1,

NJ-03 – D+3.3,

NJ-04 – R+0.9,

NJ-05 – R+4,

NJ-07 – R+1,

NJ-11 – R+6,

NM-01 – D+2,

NM-02 – R+6,

NY-13 – D+1,

NY-23 – R+0.2,

NY-25 – D+3,

NY-26 – R+3,

NY-29 – R+5,

NC-03 – R+15,

NC-05 – R+15,

NC-06 – R+17,

NC-08 – R+3,

NC-09 – R+12,

NC-10 – R+15,

OH-01 – R+1,

OH-02 – R+13,

OH-05 – R+10,

OH-07 – R+6,

OH-12 – R+0.7,

OH-14 – R+2,

OH-15 – R+1,

OH-16 – R+4,

OK-05 – R+12,

PA-03 – R+2,

PA-09 – R+15,

PA-15 – D+2,

PA-16 – R+11,

PA-18 – R+2,

TX-03 – R+17,

TX-04 – R+17,

TX-07 – R+16,

TX-08 – R+20,

TX-10 – R+13,

TX-13 – R+18,

TX-26 – R+12,

TX-31 – R+15,

TX-32 – R+11,

VA-01 – R+9,

VA-05 – R+6,

VA-06 – R+11,

VA-10 – R+5,

VA-11 – R+1,

WA-04 – R+13,

WA-08 – D+2,

WV-02 – R+5,

WI-01 – R+2,

WI-05 – R+12,

WI-06 – R+5,

WY-AL – R+19,

2) The following GOP held districts have a candidate that is expected to run but is yet to confirm:

KY-02 – R+12.9,

SC-04 – R+15,

3) The following GOP held districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!

AL-02 – R+13,

FL-06 – R+8,

FL-21 – R+6,

GA-03 – R+?,

GA-06 – R+?,

GA-07 – R+?,

GA-11 – R+?,

ID-02 – R+19,

MS-03 – R+14,

MT-AL – R+11,

NE-02 – R+9,

NE-03 – R+23.6,

NV-02 – R+8.2,

NJ-02 – D+4.0,

NY-03 – D+2.1,

OH-03 – R+3,

OK-03 – R+18,

OK-04 – R+13,

PA-06 – D+2.2,

TN-07 – R+12,

TX-02 – R+12,

TX-11 – R+25,

TX-24 – R+15,

UT-03 – R+22,

VA-02 – R+5.9,

4) And last but not least the following districts have not a single rumoured candidate:

AL-06 – R+25,

CA-02 – R+13,

CA-19 – R+10,

CA-22 – R+16,

CA-25 – R+7,

CA-46 – R+6,

CO-05 – R+15.7,

FL-04 – R+16,

FL-18 – R+4,

FL-25 – R+4,

IN-05 – R+20,

KS-01 – R+20,

KY-01 – R+10,

LA-04 – R+7,

LA-05 – R+10,

LA-06 – R+7,

LA-07 – R+7,

MI-03 – R+9,

MI-04 – R+3,

MI-06 – R+2.3,

MI-08 – R+1.9,

MI-10 – R+4,

MS-01 – R+10,

MO-07 – R+14,

MO-08 – R+11,

NE-01 – R+11,

OH-04 – R+14,

OH-08 – R+12,

OK-01 – R+13,

OR-02 – R+11,

PA-05 – R+10,

PA-19 – R+12,

SC-01 – R+10,

SC-02 – R+9,

SC-03 – R+14,

TN-01 – R+14,

TN-02 – R+11,

TN-03 – R+8,

TX-01 – R+17,

TX-05 – R+16,

TX-06 – R+15,

TX-12 – R+14,

TX-14 – R+14,

TX-19 – R+25,

TX-21 – R+13,

UT-01 – R+26,

VA-04 – R+5,

VA-07 – R+11,

WA-05 – R+7.1,

Praise to those states where we already have a full slate of house candidates – Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is also interesting to note that we have only one race left to fill in Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington. Thats 22 states with a full slate, and 10 states with one race to fill! That is more than half the states with a full or nearly full slate of candidates 12 months before election day, an impressive feat indeed!

Please note that in some races others at the racetracker site have confirmed candidates that I haven’t. This is because to satisfy me a confirmed candidate has either filed with the FEC, The Sec of State or has an active campaign website, or even if they come and blog and say yep I am running. Others are not so rigorous.

It is also great to see candidates in AZ-06, CA-42, FL-12, VA-06, and WI-06; 5 of 10 districts we did not contest in 2006!

We are well on track to beat the 425 races we contested in 2006.

** Tips, rumours and what not in the comments please.**

Here’s a bit of good news for former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore: state Delegate Chris Saxman announced today that he won’t challenge Gilmore for the Republican Senate nomination.  While Saxman wasn’t expected to be formidable against Democratic powerhouse Mark Warner, his candidacy would have at least been less embarrassing for Virginia Republicans.

As it is, the news leaves the field clear for Gilmore, although Delegate Bob Marshall, an anti-abortion crusader, is still considering running.  It would be interesting to see how that match-up would play out at the VA GOP’s next wingnut festival nominating convention.

This is Leland Lehrman, an alternative media publisher from Sante Fe.  Mr. Lehrman is the other candidate in New Mexico’s Democratic Senate primary, where he’s running a hard-charging campaign against progressive Rep. Tom Udall and Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez.

Lehrman’s campaign site lays out what is perhaps the boldest platform of any Senate candidate this year.  It truly runs the gamut: the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, “9/11 Truth”, decommissioning all foreign U.S. military bases, the declaration of a jubilee year with the cancellation of all foreign and domestic consumer debts, and the abolishment of all school vaccinations.

There has been no word yet on whether his campaign will reward donors with these complimentary pillows (made by the finest organic hemp and cotton, of course).  We will keep a close eye on this.

Of course, crackpots don’t just run for the House and Senate; there are many currently running for the White House, as well.  (And no, we don’t mean these guys.)  Our favorite of the cycle, and on the shortlist for the SSP Presidential endorsement?  Lee L. Mercer, Jr., whose site boasts a stirring, 70-point explanation for his candidacy.  My favorite:

49. To Prove the United States Government killed my sex life, my wife sex life, my daughter-in -laws sex life both may sons and other of my family members sex life with Espionage Experimentation and Espionage Exploitation sex killing.

Somebody please get this man an Actblue page!

What are your favorite crackpot candidate websites?  Feel free to post your favorite links in the comments.

PS: Say what you will about these nutters, but at least they have the sense not to host their official websites on Geocities.

---

Notable User Diaries

Quite a few good ones this week, including:

• OH-05: Despite the deep red hue of this district, Robin Weirauch is getting some help from Democratic institutions.  Ohio anon explains, and OhioDailyBlog has more.
• DemocraticLuntz tells us about the state of play in MD-01’s GOP primary, and how it just got even crazier.
• This cycle, Marty Chavez is easily SSP’s least-favorite Democratic candidate. DGM wonders if Marty’s dirty campaign tactics are fueled as much by pique as by strategy.
• plf515 gives us an interesting analysis of congressional districts, ethnicity, and presidential vote, complete with some eye-catching graphs.
• Interested in effects of money, incumbency, political climate, and party in recent House elections?  Dreaminonempty is back with a pair of fascinating diaries on the subject.  Check them out here and here.
• How badly is the GOP lagging in recruiting House candidates?  Benawu does the dirty work and finds that only 276 districts have confirmed Republican challengers — a far cry from the 354 districts with candidates who have stepped up for Team Blue.

Since our theme of the week has been GOP recruitment disasters (and the hits just keep on coming), here’s a story that slipped through the cracks: Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood, whom the Philadelphia Daily News called “the media-savvy police chief with off-the-chart name recognition”, recently declared that he’d take a pass on challenging freshman Dem incumbent Rep. Joe Sestak in the blue-trending Philly suburbs.

If the GOP can’t knock of Admiral Sestak next year (and such a task would be a mean feat, even with a decent recruit), this seat will be ceded to Sestak for a long, long time.

With the local and national GOP in utter shambles, it’s no wonder that outfits like CQ rate this race as “Safe Democrat”.

The last time we checked in with Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), his candidacy for the University of Missouri presidency apparently hit a brick wall after another candidate was offered the gig, ending our brief dreams of an off-year special election here.

Hulshof’s district is not a typical Democratic target.  Its PVI (R+6.5) and its 18-point margin for Bush in 2004, coupled with the incumbent’s uncontroversial tenure would have most analysts slotting this district in the “safe” column.  But while the GOP can’t even recruit top challengers to defend GOP seats lately (see: NJ-03), Democrats are shooting for the fences, even in red districts like this one.

Earlier this fall, the DCCC put Hulshof on its SCHIP hit list, and targeted the incumbent with radio ads slamming him for his cold-shouldered vote against America’s poorest kids.  

Now, it looks like Hulshof may finally get an opponent in state Rep. Judy Baker, who filed her papers to form an exploratory committee and begin raising money for a congressional campaign.  A Baker candidacy would be a big step up for local Democrats, who haven’t fielded a candidate with elected experience against Hulshof since 2000.

For Baker, her gut is telling her that now is the time to run:

Baker said she’s done some “initial analysis” and says there is opportunity to run in the Ninth this year. She cited significant anxiety over the status quo in Washington and “a very strong swing toward doing something different.”

“I think I am able to fill that gap,” Baker said. “But it’s also for me – I feel like I can’t do anything else. I keep trying to say, ‘No, this is not the time, this is not the year, this is not the race.’ But it kind of grabs me and won’t let me go. Because I feel that the issues are so critical at such a critical juncture that I feel like the whole thing won’t even let me go.”

Hulshof’s vote against SCHIP would likely be a key campaign issue for Baker, should she make her bid official:

Most recently, she has been critical of Hulshof for voting against expansion and reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“That is going to be a huge issue for the next two decades,” Baker said. “We need someone who’ll stand up for people who need health care and not just say ‘we’re not going to supply it.’ … There are numerous other issues and it’s not just health care — economy, the war, health care – all of these add up to people wanting a new perspective and new set of eyes to look at our problems and move us forward.”

This would be a challenging district for any Democrat, especially against an incumbent.  But any opportunity to make the GOP sweat should be seized upon.  And you never know — perhaps Hulshof isn’t that thrilled with his job and might jump ship for another opportunity.  We know that he’s been looking for an easy out already.

After a number of requests in previous diaries here it is. The same style diary, the same methodology and the same layout so as to allow you dear reader to compare us to them!

So below the fold to see how the Repubs are doing in House candidate recruiting for 2008!

And remember part two of this series appears tomorrow, a Dem House update. A hint – three weeks ago we had 354 candidates.

276 House races have confirmed Republican candidates – yep only 276!!! So as not to give any Repub trolls any hints this diary is very light on for analysis.

However it goes without saying that from these numbers the Repubs are really struggling to find candidates for House races in 2008. Wonder why? Just look at the number of unfilled races in California and New York.

Before we crack open the bubbly however a few cautionary notes.

I didn’t trawl through Repub blogs as much as I would through ours (try it yourself and you will see why!)

Very few State Repub Party sites had up to date lists of candidates. More Dem State Party sites did.

The Repubs don’t have a Swing State Project or 2008 Race Tracker wiki so again it is harder to find their candidates.

Expect a lot more of their 2006 candidates to step up as sacrificial lambs later in the cycle.

I am sure I have missed some candidates but not many as I FEC searched all 2006 candidates as well as checking out their websites for updates.

** Despite all that hedging we are soooo far in front of them!!!**

So here is where we are at (Democratic Districts):

Districts with confirmed candidates – 74

Districts with unconfirmed candidates – 4

Districts with rumoured candidates – 21

Districts without any candidates – 134

The Democratic held districts with confirmed Republican challengers are as follows:

AL-05 – R+6,

AZ-05 – R+4,

AZ-07 – D+10,

AZ-08 – R+1,

CA-05 – D+14,

CA-08 – D+36,

CA-09 – D+38,

CA-10 – D+9,

CA-11 – R+3,

CA-17 – D+17,

CA-23 – D+9,

CA-29 – D+12,

CA-43 – D+13,

CA-47 – D+5,

CA-53 – D+12,

CT-02 – D+8,

CT-05 – D+4,

FL-02 – R+2,

FL-11 – D+11,

FL-16 – R+2,

FL-22 – D+4,

FL-23 – D+29,

GA-08 – R+8,

GA-12 – D+2,

GA-13 – ?,

IL-01 – D+35,

IL-03 – D+10,

IL-08 – R+5,

IL-09 – D+20,

IL-12 – D+5,

IN-01 – D+8,

IN-02 – R+4,

IN-07 – D+9,

IN-08 – R+9,

IN-09 – R+7,

IA-02 – D+7,

KS-02 – R+7,

KS-03 – R+4,

KY-03 – D+2,

ME-01 – D+6,

MD-04 – D+30,

MD-08 – D+20,

MA-04 – D+17,

MA-06 – D+10,

MI-01 – R+2,

MI-05 – D+12,

MN-01 – R+1,

MN-05 – D+21,

MO-03 – D+18,

MO-05 – D+12,

NV-01 – D+9,

NH-01 – R+0,

NH-02 – D+3,

NY-01 – D+3,

NY-19 – R+1,

NY-20 – R+3,

NY-22 – D+6,

NC-07 – R+3,

NC-11 – R+7,

OH-10 – D+6,

OH-18 – R+6,

PA-04 – R+3,

PA-10 – R+8,

PA-12 – D+5,

PA-17 – R+7,

TX-09 – R+21,

TX-22 – R+15,

TX-23 – R+4,

TX-29 – D+8,

VA-08 – D+14,

VA-09 – R+7,

WA-02 – D+3,

WV-03 – D+0,

WI-08 – R+4,

The following Democratic districts have candidates that are expected to run but are yet to confirm:

HI-01 – D+7,

ME-02 – D+4,

OR-05 – D+1,  

WA-07 – D+30,

The following Democratic districts have rumoured candidates – please note that some of these “rumours” are extremely tenuous!

CA-06 – D+21,

CA-12 – D+22,

CA-20 – D+5,

CA-37 – D+27,

CO-02 – D+8,

KY-06 – R+7,

MD-05 – D+9,

MD-07 – D+25,

MA-05 – D+9,

MA-09 – D+15,

MN-08 – D+4,

NY-24 – R+1,

NC-13 – D+2,

ND-AL – R+13,

PA-07 – D+4,

PA-08 – D+3,

PA-11 – D+5,

RI-01 – D+16,

SD-AL – R+10,

TX-18 – D+23,

WA-01 – D+7,

And last but not least the following districts have not a single rumoured GOP candidate:

AL-07 – D+17,

AZ-04 – D+14,

AR-01 – D+1,

AR-02 – R+0,

AR-04 – D+0,

CA-01 – D+10,

CA-07 – D+19,

CA-13 – D+22,

CA-14 – D+18,

CA-15 – D+14,

CA-16 – D+16,

CA-18 – D+3,

CA-27 – D+13,

CA-28 – D+25,

CA-30 – D+20,

CA-31 – D+30,

CA-32 – D+17,

CA-33 – D+36,

CA-34 – D+23,

CA-35 – D+33,

CA-36 – D+11,

CA-38 – D+20,

CA-39 – D+13,

CA-51 – D+7,

CO-01 – D+18,

CO-03 – R+6,

CO-07 – D+2,

CT-01 – D+14,

CT-03 – D+12,

FL-03 – D+16,

FL-17 – D+35,

FL-19 – D+21,

FL-20 – D+18,

GA-02 – D+2,

GA-04 – D+22,

GA-05 – ?,

HI-02 – D+10,

IL-02 – D+35,

IL-04 – D+13,

IL-05 – D+18,

IL-07 – D+35,

IL-17 – D+5,

IA-01 – D+5,

IA-03 – D+1,

LA-02 – D+28,

LA-03 – R+5,

MD-02 – D+8,

MD-03 – D+7,

MA-01 – D+15,

MA-02 – D+11,

MA-03 – D+11,

MA-07 – D+18,

MA-08 – D+31,

MA-10 – D+8,

MI-12 – D+13,

MI-13 – D+32,

MI-14 – D+33,

MI-15 – D+13,

MN-04 – D+13,

MN-07 – R+6,

MS-02 – D+10,

MS-04 – R+16,

MO-01 – D+26,

MO-04 – R+11,

NJ-01 – D+14,

NJ-06 – D+12,

NJ-08 – D+12,

NJ-09 – D+13,

NJ-10 – D+34,

NJ-12 – D+8,

NJ-13 – D+23,

NM-03 – D+6,

NY-02 – D+7,

NY-04 – D+9,

NY-05 – D+18,

NY-06 – D+38,

NY-07 – D+28,

NY-08 – D+28,

FL-10 – D+14,

NY-10 – D+41,

NY-11 – D+40,

NY-12 – D+34,

NY-14 – D+26,

NY-15 – D+43,

NY-16 – D+43,

NY-17 – D+21,

NY-18 – D+10,

NY-21 – D+9,

NY-27 – D+7,

NY-28 – D+15,

NC-01 – D+9,

NC-02 – R+3,

NC-04 – D+6,

NC-12 – D+11,

OH-06 – D+0,

OH-09 – D+9,

OH-11 – D+33,

OH-13 – D+6,

OH-17 – D+14,

OK-02 – R+5,

OR-01 – D+6,

OR-03 – D+18,

OR-04 – D+0,

PA-01 – D+36,

PA-02 – D+39,

PA-13 – D+8,

PA-14 – D+22,

RI-02 – D+13,

SC-05 – R+6,

SC-06 – D+11,

TN-04 – R+3,

TN-05 – D+6,

TN-06 – R+4,

TN-07 – R+12,

TN-09 – D+18,

TX-15 – D+3,

TX-16 – D+9,

TX-17 – R+18,

TX-20 – D+8,

TX-25 – D+1,

TX-27 – R+1,

TX-28 – R+1,

TX-30 – D+26,

UT-02 – R+17,

VT-AL – D+8,

VA-03 – D+18,

WA-03 – D+0,

WA-06 – D+6,

WA-09 – D+6,

WV-01 – R+6,

WI-02 – D+13,

WI-03 – D+3,

WI-04 – D+20,

WI-07 – D+2,

Woo hoo to the Democratic Party we are implementing the 50 State Strategy in spades whilst the GOP are playing rats jumping off a sinking ship.