2012: House, Who's in Danger?

Today Larry Sabato addresses the 2012 congressional elections. While he provides a good analysis he misses a few things. He makes the same mistake many analysts do. They measure seat gains and losses compared to what they were before the election, instead of the current mean. This currently favors the Republicans around 227-208. The congressional make-up consistently stays around the mean. That’s why a big wave for one party is almost always followed by a correcting election. While Republicans hold more than they should, the mean favors them.

Of course we know that the mean is likely to move in the Republican party’s favor, not the other way around. And Presidents don’t have long coat tails in re-election campaigns.

He also makes a mistake of listing vulnerable districts. If the district is likely to be changed, you can’t know how much it’ll move in the redistricting party’s favor. There are only 14 potentially vulnerable Democratic seats and 18 potentially vulnerable Republican seats that are unlikely to be impacted by redistricting. Some of these are unlikely to be in danger, but I wanted to include all possibilities.



Republicans hold 15 districts that could be vulnerable, but might be helped enough by redistricting to make them safe.


On the other hand, there are 36 Democratic districts and 35 Republican districts that could become more vulnerable after redistricting. In some cases, these congressmen may be in danger of losing their seats because their state is losing a seat. In some cases two Democrats or two Republicans will be pitted against each other. In others sitting Republican and Democratic congressmen will have to face off. We should wait to see who is in the district before making that judgment.



I listed two Democrats in Massachusetts and two Republicans in Louisiana, because they are in danger of losing their seats because their states lose a district. The other party isn’t going to make gains.