Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (“Wave” Districts, Immigration, and the Supply Chain)

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Here is latest iteration of my “Table 1” for the 2018 primaries. The structure is the same as the last iteration (‘Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (How Big Does “The Wave” Have to Be?)’. As usual, the horserace information is the latest available from the Inside Elections tipsheet (last updated June 14[1]). All the districts even remotely in play are listed. There are 82, and surely, if the Democrats are to win the 23 seats they need to win to take control of the House, those 23 are in that 82.

I have added two columns: “PVI” and “HRC +/-.” PVI (data from Cook Political Report), or “Partisan Voter Index,” is “a measurement tool that scores each congressional district based on how strongly it leans toward one political party.” Concretely:

A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, 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 than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.

(Here is Howie Klein using PVI to evaluate past DCCC chair Steve Israel’s performance.) HRC +/- is 2008 Democrat candidate Hillary Rodman Clinton’s margin of victory or defeat (data compiled by Daily Kos). For many districts, I have added the “winner” to status, and added challengers and bios who “withdrew” (needed to make sense of California, where some withdrawals were forced). A few were “disqualified,” so I added that category to the Hoser. I have also added the category “Safe-D,” for those horse races that the Cook Political Report removed from its ratings after they moved from “Likely-D.” I also added a new backer, Great Slate.

I have updated challenger data for many more districts, but sadly could not update them all. (NY-24, OH-01, OH-12, PA-10, TX-21, TX-32, VA-02, VA-05, VA-07, WA_05, and WV-03 remain to do.) I have not updated backer data. As always, if alert and kind readers with time on their hands find error, I’ll gratefully correct them. It’s a work in progress!

Herewith the table, which gives us important results, different and more nuanced than in the past.

Table 1: Worksheet on House Races, Election 2018 (06-26).

District Date Party Status Incumbent Horserace Horserace (Previous) PVI HRC +/- Challengers
AR-02 05‑22 R Hill Likely-R Likely-R R+17 -10.70 Gwen Combs (Women’s March; more.) [m, e, w], Jonathan Dunkley (more) [e][M], Paul Spencer (Rural broadbamd.) [e][M], Clarke Tucker (More.) [DCCC, DP][fM]
AZ-01 08‑28 D O’Halleran Tilt-D Tilt-D R+02 -1.10 Miguel Olivas [DP; ]
AZ-02 08‑28 R Open McSally Tilt-D Tilt-D R+01 4.90 William Foster, Matt Heinz [DP; h], Ann Kirkpatrick (more, more; but see here; more.) [EL, DCCC, DP; ][fM], Billy Kovacs, Mary Matiella (more) [JD; m][M], Barbara Sherry (more), Bruce Wheeler (more) [DP; ][M], Yahya Yuksel [DP; ][M]
AZ-08 08‑28 R Special VACANT Likely-R Likely-R R+13 -21.10 Judith McHale (McHale dropped out of the race prior to the filing deadline), Bob Musselwhite (More.) [DP; e], Bob Olsen [m, l], Hiral Tipirneni (More; more.) [IN; h][fM], Brianna Westbrook (More; more.) [JD, OR][M]
CA-04 06‑05 R McClintock Likely-R Likely-R R+10 -14.70 Regina Bateson. (More.) [o], Roza Calderon (More. Also DSA-endorsed.) [BN, JD, OR; s][M], Robert Lawton (More.) [M], Richard Martin (More), Jessica Morse (More; more.) [m][fM], Rochelle Wilcox (More.) [l]
CA-07 06‑05 D Bera Safe-D Likely-D D+03 11.40 [No challenger]
CA-10 06‑05 R Denham Tilt-R Tilt-R EVEN 3.00 Mike Barkley [DP; m][M], Lisa Battista, Mateo Morelos Bedolla (More.) [DP][M], Michael Eggman, Josh Harder [e][M], Virginia Madueno [EL][fM], Dotty Nygard, Dotty Nygard [M], Seth Vaughn, Sue Zwahlen [DP]
CA-21 06‑05 R Valadao Likely-R Likely-R D+05 15.50 TJ Cox (More.) [DCCC], Emilio Huerta (More.)
CA-25 06‑05 R Knight Tilt-R Tilt-R EVEN 6.70 Bryan Caforio [JD, OR][M], Kelan Farrell-Smith (More.), Daniel Fleming, Diedra Greenaway (More.) [DP], Katie Hill [EL][fM], Michael Masterman-Smith (More.) [h], Scott McVarish (More.), Mary Pallant (more) [DP], Jess Phoenix [OR]
CA-39 06‑05 R Open Royce Toss-Up Toss-Up EVEN 8.60 Jay Chen (More.) [m, in, s, e][M], Gil Cisneros (more; more) [DCCC; m], Sam Jammal (more) [DP; ][M], Phil Janowicz (More.) [e], Suzi Park Leggett [DP; ], Ted Rusk, Cybil Steed (more) [e], Andy Thorburn (more) [OR; e][M], Mai Khanh Tran (more, more) [EL; h]
CA-45 06‑05 R Walters Lean-R Lean-R R+03 5.40 Brian Forde, Brian Forde [DP; s], John Graham, Kia Hamadanchy [DP][M], Dave Min (CAP.) [DP], Katie Porter [EL][M], Greg Ramsay, Eric Rywalski, Ron Varasteh
CA-48 06‑05 R Rohrabacher Tilt-R Tilt-R R+04 1.70 Hans Keirstead [h][fM], Michael Kotick, Laura Oatman, Rachel Payne (Googler; more) [EL; s], Harley Rouda [IN, DCCC], Deanie Schaarsmith, Omar Siddiqui [in][fM], Tony Zarkades [m][M]
CA-49 06‑05 R Open Issa Toss-Up Toss-Up R+01 7.50 Douglas Applegate [JD; m][M], Sara Jacobs (more) [EL, DP; ][M], Paul Kerr (more ) [m][M], Mike Levin (more) [DP; ][M]
CA-50 06‑05 R Hunter Likely-R Likely-R R+11 -15.00 Pierre Beauregard (More.) [DP], Josh Butner [m], Ammar Campa-Najjar. (More; more; more.) [IN, JD, OR, DP][M], Gloria Chadwick (More.) [h, w], Glenn Jensen (More), Patrick Malloy (More; more) [M], Alex Spilger (more)
CO-06 06‑26 R Coffman Tilt-R Tilt-R D+02 8.90 Jason Crow [DCCC, DP; m], Erik Stanger, Erik Stanger [M], Levi Tillemann [OR, DP][M]
FL-07 08‑28 D Murphy Lean-D Lean-D EVEN 7.30 Chardo Richardson [BN, JD; m][M]
FL-13 08‑28 D Crist Safe-D Likely-D D+02 3.20 [No challenger]
FL-26 08‑28 R Curbelo Tilt-R Tilt-R D+06 16.30 Demetries Grimes [m], Ricky Junquera (more), Steven Machat [DP][M], Debbie Mucarsel-Powell [EL, DCCC], Steve Smith [m]
FL-27 08‑28 R Open Ros-Lehtinen Lean-D Lean-D D+05 19.60 Mary Barzee Flores [EL; ], Kristen Rosen Gonzalez (more) [DP; e], Matt Haggman, Michael Hepburn (more) [BN, JD; e], Mark Anthony Person, David Richardson (more, more) [DP; ][M], Jose Javier Rodriguez (more) [DP; ], Ken Russell [DP; ], Donna Shalala (more; more) [EL, DP; ]
GA-06 05‑22 R Handel Likely-R Likely-R R+08 -1.50 Kevin Abel (Runoff, July 24. Abel.), Steven Knight Griffin [h][fM], Bobby Kaple (More; more. ), Lucy McBath (Runoff, July 24. More; more.) [EL]
GA-07 05‑22 R Woodall Likely-R Likely-R R+09 -6.30 Kathleen Allen (More) [h][M], Carolyn Bourdeaux (Run-off July 24. More; more.) [EL, DP; e], Melissa Davis (More.), David Kim (Run-off July 24. More. ) [e], Ethan Pham [fM], Steve Reilly
IA-01 06‑05 R Blum Toss-Up Toss-Up D+01 -3.50 Abby Finkenauer [EL, DCCC, DP], Thomas Heckroth [DP], George Ramsey [m, l], Courtney Rowe [JD; m][M]
IA-03 06‑05 R Young Likely-R Likely-R R+01 15.30 Cindy Axne (More.) [EL][fM], Pete D’Alessandro (More; more.) [JD, OR; s][M], Eddie Mauro
IL-06 03‑20 R Roskam Tilt-R Tilt-R R+02 7.00 Becky Anderson (Becky Anderson), Sean Casten (more) [DCCC][fM], Carole Cheney [DP], Grace Haaf (More), Amanda Howland [DP; e], Ryan Huffman [DP][M], Kelly Mazeski (“A Medicare-for-all public option.”) [fM], Geoffrey Petzel (More), Austin Songer, Becky Anderson Wilkins (more), Jennifer Zordani
IL-12 03‑20 R Bost Lean-R Lean-R R+05 -14.80 David Bequette [m], Brendan Kelly (more) [DCCC; m, in, l]
IL-13 03‑20 R R. Davis Likely-R Likely-R R+03 -5.50 Jonathan Ebel (More.) [m, in], David Gill (More; more.) [h][M], Erik Jones (More; more.) [DP; l][fM], Betsy Londrigan (More.) [EL, DCCC, DP; w][fM], Angel Sides (More) [M], Benjamin Webb (More.) [e], Mark Wicklund (More.)
IN-02 05‑08 R Walorski Likely-R Likely-R R+11 -23.20 Aaron Bush, Douglas Carpenter (More) [h][fM], Pat Hackett (More) [fM], Mel Hall (More.) [OR, DP; h], Yatish Joshi (More) [DP][fM], Roland Leech, John Petroff (More)
KS-02 08‑07 R Open Jenkins Lean-R Lean-R R+10 -18.40 Paul Davis [DCCC, DP], Nathan Schmidt (more) [DP]
KS-03 08‑07 R Yoder Lean-R Lean-R R+04 1.30 Sharice Davids (More; more) [EL], Chris Haulmark (More), Reggie Marselus, Mike McCamon (“Create a single-payer Option”) [s], Tom Niermann [e], Andrea Ramsey (More.) [EL], Jay Sidie, Brent Welder [BN, JD, OR, DP][M], Sylvia Williams
KY-06 05‑22 R Barr Lean-R Lean-R R+09 -15.30 Jim Gray (more) [DP], Theodore Green, Daniel Kemph, Amy McGrath [DCCC, DP; m], Reggie Thomas [DP; e], Geoff Young (perennial candidate)
ME-02 06‑12 R Poliquin Lean-R Lean-R R+02 -17.60 Phil Cleaves (Dexter rural mail carrier), Jonathan Fulford (more; withdrawal.) [DP][fM], Jared Golden (more; ) [GS, DP; m][M], Craig Olson (More.) [DP][fM], Tim Rich (More.), Lucas St. Clair (More; more; more; more) [M]
MI-06 08‑27 R Upton Likely-R Likely-R R+04 -8.40 David Benac (More) [DP; e][M], Paul Clements (More) [e][M], Rich Eichholz [s][fM], George Franklin (More) [DP], Eponine Garrod (More; more.) [s], Aida Gray [m], Matt Longjohn (More) [h]
MI-07 08‑07 R Walberg Likely-R Likely-R R+07 -17.00 Gretchen Driskell (More.) [DCCC, DP], Steven Friday (More; more.) [m, s][M]
MI-08 08‑27 R Bishop Lean-R Lean-R R+04 -6.70 Elissa Slotkin (Money race; “the real deal”; Biden endorses.) [EL, DCCC, DP; m, in][fM], Chris Smith
MI-11 08‑27 R Open Trott Toss-Up Toss-Up R+04 -4.40 Tim Greimel (Site not responsive.) [DP], Suneel Gupta, Dan Haberman [fM], Fayrouz Saad [JD, DP][M], Haley Stevens [DP]
MN-01 08‑14 D Open Walz Toss-Up Toss-Up R+05 -14.90 Johnny Akzam [M], Dan Feehan (more, more, more) [DCCC, DP; m], Vicki Jensen [DP; ], Bob Ries (more) [m], Joe Sullivan, Rich Wright (more) [DP; m, l][M]
MN-02 08‑14 R Lewis Toss-Up Toss-Up R+02 -1.20 Angie Craig (more) [EL, DCCC; ], Jeff Erdmann (more) [e][M]
MN-03 08‑14 R Paulsen Lean-R Lean-R D+01 9.40 Brian Santa Maria [M], Adam Jennings (more) [m], Dean Phillips [DCCC]
MN-07 08‑14 D Peterson Likely-D Likely-D R+12 -30.80 [No challenger]
MN-08 08‑14 D Open Nolan Toss-Up Toss-Up R+04 -15.60 Kirsten Hagen Kennedy (more) [DP; ], Michelle Lee [M], Jason Metsa (more) [DP; ], Leah Phifer (more) [in][M], Joe Radinovich [DP; ]
MT-01 06‑05 R Gianforte Likely-R Likely-R R+11 -20.60 John Heenan (More; more; more.) [s][M], Grant Kier (More; more.) [DP], John Meyer, Lynda Moss (More.) [DP], Jared Pettinato (More; ) [DP; l], Kathleen Williams (More; more; more.) [DP], Tom Woods (More. ) [DP; e]
NC-09 05‑08 R Pittenger Tilt-R Tilt-R R+08 -11.60 Christian Cano (More; more.) [fM], Dan McCready (More; more.) [DCCC; m], Maria Warren (More.) [e]
NC-13 05‑08 R Budd Likely-R Likely-R R+06 -9.40 Adam Coker (More.) [DP], Kathy Manning (More; ; more; more.) [EL, DCCC], Beniah McMiller
NM-02 06‑05 R Open Pearce Lean-R Lean-R R+06 -10.20 David Alcon (More.), David Baake (More.), Ronald Fitzherbert, Madeleine Hildebrandt [GS; m, e], Tony Martinez (More; more.) [m], Angel Pena (More; more.), Xochitl Torres Small (More; more; more.) [EL, DCCC, DP], Adolf Zubia (More.)
NE-02 05‑15 R Bacon Tilt-R Tilt-R R+04 -2.20 Brad Ashford [DCCC, DP], Kara Eastman (On her conversion to #MedicareForAll; more.) [JD; e][M]
NH-01 09‑11 D Open Shea-Porter Tilt-D Tilt-D R+02 -1.60 Mark S. Mackenzie (more, more) [DP; ], Deaglan McEachern (more) [DP; ], Mindi Messmer (more) [BN; s][M], Terence O’Rourke [m, l][M], Chris Pappas (more) [DP; ], Levi Sanders (more; more) [M], Lincoln Soldati [l], Maura Sullivan (more) [EL, DP; m]
NJ-02 06‑05 R Open LoBiondo Tilt-D Tilt-D R+01 -4.60 Will Cunningham (more) [DP; ], Sean Thom (more) [e][M], Jeff Van Drew (more) [DCCC, DP; ], Tanzie Youngblood (more) [e]
NJ-03 06‑05 R MacArthur Likely-R Likely-R R+02 -6.20 Rich Dennison (More.) [DP], Katherine Hartman (More.), Andrew Kim (More; more.) [DCCC; m, in], Frederick John Lavergne (More) [DP]
NJ-05 06‑05 D Gottheimer Safe-D Lean-D R+03 -1.10 [No challenger] (Now safe D.)
NJ-07 06‑05 R Lance Tilt-R Tilt-R R+03 1.10 Peter Jacob (On the Justice Democrats; Congressional candidate plans ‘Medicare-for-all’ town hall in Bedminster) [BN, JD, OR][M], Goutam Jois, Tom Malinowski [DCCC, DP]
NJ-11 06‑05 R Open Frelinghuysen Tilt-D Tilt-D R+03 -1.00 Mitchell Cobert [l], Jack Gebbia (more) [m], Tamara Harris (more), Alison Heslin, Mikie Sherrill (more) [EL, DCCC; m, l][M], Mark Washburne [e][M]
NV-03 06‑12 D Open Rosen Tilt-D Tilt-D R+02 -1.00 Richard Hart, Susie Lee (more; more)) [EL, DCCC; e], Jack Love [M], Guy Pinjuv (more) [s], Steve Schiffman, Eric Stoltz, Michael Weiss (more) [M]
NV-04 06‑12 D Open Kihuen Likely-D Likely-D D+03 4.90 John Anzalone (more) [e], Steven Horsford (more) [DCCC, DP; ], Patricia Spearman (more) [DP; m][M], Allison Stephens (more) [DP; e], Amy Vilela (more) [BN, IN, JD; ][M], Sid Zeller [m, in]
NY-11 06‑26 R Donovan Likely-R Likely-R R+03 -9.80 Michael DeVito, Jr. (More.) [m, e][M], Zach Emig (Bond trader; more.) [M], Radhakrishna Mohan (More), Max Rose (More; more; more.) [DCCC; m, l][fM], Paul Sperling (More), Omar Vaid (More) [fM]
NY-19 06‑26 R Faso Tilt-R Tilt-R R+02 -6.80 Jeff Beals [JD; in, e][M], David Clegg [M], Erin Collier (more) [EL, DP], Antonio Delgado [fM], Brian Flynn [M], Gareth Rhodes [DP], Pat Ryan [m, in]
NY-22 06‑26 R Tenney Tilt-R Tilt-R R+06 -15.50 Anthony Brindisi [DCCC, DP][fM]
NY-24 06‑26 R Katko Likely-R Likely-R D+03 3.60 Dana Balter [IN], Juanita Perez Williams [DCCC]
OH-01 05‑08 R Chabot Likely-R Likely-R R+05 -6.60 Robert Barr, Aftab Pureval [DCCC], Laura Ann Weaver
OH-12 05‑08 R Special VACANT Tilt-R Tilt-R R+07 -11.30 Ed Albertson, Danny O’Connor, Jackie Patton, John Peters, John Russell, Zach Scott, Doug Wilson
OH-14 05‑08 R Joyce Likely-R Likely-R R+05 -11.50 Betsy Rader [EL]
PA-01 05‑15 R Fitzpatrick Tilt-R Tilt-R D+31 61.30 Steve Bacher [DP; e][M], Rachel Reddick [EL; m], Scott Wallace (more) [DP]
PA-05 05‑15 R Open Meehan Likely-D Likely-D R+13 -28.80 Larry Arata [e], George Badey (more) [DP; ], Shelly Chauncey (more) [in][fM], Margo Davidson [DP; ], Thaddeus Kirkland [DP; ], Richard Lazer (more) [DP; ][M], Lindy Li (more), Ashley Lunkenheimer (more) [l], Dan Muroff (more; more) [DP; ], Mary Gay Scanlon, Molly Sheehan (more) [s][M], Greg Vitali (more) [DP; ], David Wertime, Theresa Wright
PA-06 05‑15 R Costello Likely-D Likely-D R+02 0.60 Chrissy Houlahan (more; more) [EL, DCCC; m]
PA-07 05‑15 R Open Dent Tilt-D Tilt-D R+01 2.30 David Clark, Rick Daugherty [DP; ], Greg Edwards [JD; ][M], John Morganelli [DP; l], Roger Ruggles (more) [e], Susan Wild (more; more) [EL; l]
PA-08 05‑15 R Cartwright Likely-D Likely-D R+02 -0.20 [No challenger]
PA-10 05‑15 R Perry Likely-R Likely-R R+16 -35.90 Shavonnia Corbin-Johnson, Eric Ding, Alan Howe, George Scott
PA-17 05‑15 R Rothfus Toss-Up Toss-Up R+01 -10.10 Conor Lamb [m, l], Ray Linsenmayer (Dropped out (oddly). More; more; more.)
TX-07 03‑06 R Culberson Tilt-R Tilt-R R+07 1.40 Joshua Butler [h, e], James Cargas [DP; ], Lizzie Pannill Fletcher [EL, DCCC], Laura Moser (more) [JD, DP], Ivan Sanchez [DP][fM], Alex Triantaphyllis, Jason Westin (background; reflections on his loss) [h]
TX-21 03‑06 R Open Smith Likely-R Likely-R R+10 -10.00 Derrick Crowe, Joseph Kopser, Elliott McFadden, Mary Wilson
TX-23 03‑06 R Hurd Toss-Up Toss-Up R+01 3.40 Gina Ortiz Jones [EL, DCCC, DP; m, l][M], Rick Trevino [JD, OR, DP; ][M]
TX-32 03‑06 R Sessions Likely-R Likely-R R+05 1.90 Colin Allred (more) [DCCC, DP; ][fM], Ron Marshall, Todd Maternowski, Ed Meier, George Rodriguez, Lillian Salerno, Brett Shipp
UT-04 06‑26 R Love Lean-R Lean-R R+13 -6.70 Sheldon Kirkham (more), Ben McAdams [DCCC, DP], Darlene McDonald [JD; s][M], Morgan Shepherd, Tom Taylor [s][M]
VA-02 06‑12 R Taylor Likely-R Likely-R R+03 -3.40 Elaine Luria [EL, DCCC], Karen Mallard
VA-05 06‑12 R Garrett Likely-R Likely-R R+06 -11.10 Leslie Cockburn [EL], Roger Dean Huffstetler, Andrew Sneathern
VA-07 06‑12 R Brat Lean-R Lean-R R+06 -6.50 Abigail Spanberger [EL], Dan Ward
VA-10 06‑12 R Comstock Toss-Up Toss-Up D+01 10.00 Shadi Ayyas [DP; h], Julia Biggins (more) [s], Alison Kiehl Friedman (more) [DP; in], Daniel Helmer (more) [m][fM], Julien Modica, Paul Pelletier (more) [l], Michael Pomerleano (more), Lindsey Davis Stover (more) [DP; ], Jennifer Wexton (more) [DP; l]
WA-05 08‑07 R McMorris Rodgers Likely-R Likely-R R+08 -20.10 Lisa Brown [EL, DCCC], Matt Sutherland
WA-08 08‑07 R Open Reichert Toss-Up Toss-Up EVEN 3.00 Poga Ahn, Thomas Cramer [M], Shannon Hader (more) [h], Robert Hunziker (more) [M], Brian Kostenko [M], Jason Rittereiser (more; more.) [IN; l][M], Kim Schrier (more) [EL, IN; h]
WI-01 08‑14 R Open Ryan Lean-R Lean-R R+19 -10.30 Randy Bryce (more) [JD, DCCC][fM], Cathy Myers (more) [e][M]
WV-03 05‑08 R Open Jenkins Likely-R Likely-R R+23 -49.20 Paul Davis [DCCC], Janice Hagerman, Shirley Love, Richard Ojeda
  • Bio keys are m, i, l, and o) for Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Other (except I didn’t find any Others this time[5]). A candidate who worked for the CIA is keyed i. A candidate who worked in Law enforcement and the military is keyed “lm.” “Law Enforcement” is conceived broadly, including not only police but district attorneys.
  • Backer keys are BN, EL, GS, IN, JD, OR, and DCCC, Brand New Congress, Emily’s List, Great Slate, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, and (of course) the DCCC. In addition, there is a DP key, for members of the Democrat Party network, elected and otherwise, and S, for challengers inspired by Sanders.
  • Policy keys are M, fM, for Medicare for All, and any of the various bait-and-switch alternatives proposed by think tanks like CAP, or centrists like Merkeley. Some judgement is involved, based on the verbiage. “Single payer” always merits an “M,” for example.

First, let’s look at those safe Democrat districts. Here they are:

Figure 1: Newly Safe Democrat Districts

These are, as it were, pieces off the board. This is consistent with a slow erosion of Republican strength, as from “Likely-R” to “Tilt-R,” as seen in the previous two worksheets.

Now let’s look at something much more interesting, and take our new PVI and HRC columns out for a spin. The first query returns districts — not all, remember, but the “battleground districts” we are tracking — where Clinton’s margin was between zero and ten:

Figure 2: Republican Districts Likely to be Targeted (by HRC)

You will immediately recall that the Democrats need to flip 23 seats, and when you look at the figure, you will see that of the 22 districts listed, 19 are Republican. It makes sense, pragmatically, for Democrats to try to flip Republicans seats that Clinton won, as we have been told. For example:

Democrats will surely look first to flip the 25 districts where Mrs. Clinton outperformed Mr. Trump.

I continue to insist that these Democrats will have a lot of trouble getting this done, because the dominant factions in the party[2] are so awful in every way (Shattered; Chasing Hillary; Listen, Liberal!). The Republicans won’t be passive, either. But you can see why the professionals are less skeptical of Democrat victory than I am. (For me, the outcome of the election is either gridlock — assuming that Pelosi sticks to her promise not to impeach Trump, which would tear the country apart — or Götterdämmerung for today’s liberal Democrat establishment. So I’m sitting in the catbird seat: All the outcomes are good!)

Now let’s sort the same query by district.

Figure 3: Republican Districts Likely to be Targeted (by District)

California leaps to the eye, and would, even if I hadn’t outlined these districts in red and highlighted them in yellow! Let’s put those districts on a map. (This the best I can do; all the others I could find are in some JavaScript-heavy [family blogging] interactive format I can’t just add mark-up to.)

Figure 4: Republican Districts Likely to be Targeted (Mapped)

Time presses, and I haven’t added a demographic column to Table I (and at some point I’m going to run out of horizontal space). So I will speculate, though I think with reason (see below), that the Latinx composition of the urban districts mapped is high, and that the prospect of Latinx votes in these key, flippable districts accounts for the Democrat Party’s drastic and sudden shift from “Russia! Russia! Russia!” to what Nicholas Nassim Taleb labels pedophrasty. (That’s not to say that immigration policy is not a serious issue — it is — but to say that the liberal Democrats approach to it shows little evidence of good faith.)[3]

Now let’s add an additional overlay to the map in Figure 4: California ports.

Figure 5: Republican Districts Likely to be Targeted (Supply Chain)

A new picture emerges, doesn’t it? Here are some statistics for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach complex:

The port’s container volume was 9.3 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) in calendar year 2017, a 5.5% increase over 2016’s record-breaking year of 8.8 million TEU. It’s the most cargo moved annually by a Western Hemisphere port. The port is the busiest port in the United States by container volume, the 19th-busiest container port in the world, and the 10th-busiest worldwide when combined with the neighboring Port of Long Beach. The port is also the number-one freight gateway in the United States when ranked by the value of shipments passing through it.

In terms of market share, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined are twice as large as the next ranked port, New York. (In other words, these ports are the most important choke point for the entire supply chain of the United States, incoming and outgoing.)

Now let’s ask ourselves a question that Democrats do not ask, at least in public: What is the nature of the working class that makes these ports run? By a happy coincidence, I have been working through Kim Moody’s excellent On New Terrain (recommended at NC by Steven Parfitt here), and Moody provides the answer to this question. From Chapter 5, “Logistics: Capital’s Supply Chain Gang,”[4] pages 59 et seq.:

Even as capital in the United States was consolidating in industry after industry, the ties that bind the production of goods and services together, whether locally or across space, were tightening in new and important ways…. One of the most important changes in the reorganization of supply chains is their geography, the concentration of workers in key “nodes” or “clusters” [see Figure 5] along with their technological drivers and linkages…

Because the turnover times of sunk capital that characterize logistics clusters and their internal infrastructure are long, and profits sloe in coming, there is enormous pressure on both owners and users of this infrastructure to seek out relatively cheap labor compared to that employed in the movable aspects of logistics: trucks, trains, planes, ships, and the like.

All the metropolitan sites of major logistic clusters are also homes to large “ghettos” and “barrios” housing large numbers of unemployed and underemployed working-class people…. They are the quintessential reserve army of labor….

This is the unspoken locational “metric” that makes the Los Angeles, Chicago, and the New York-New Jersey metropolitan areas, the country’s three largest metropolitan statistical areas with their millions of low income Black and Latino people and relatively high poverty and unemployent rates, the biggest logistics clusters of all.

So you can see what the Democrat Party is doing here. As we show in Figure 5, three of the districts in California that Democrats must flip — must flip, if one takes their protestations in good faith, to remove a psychotic President from office, and prevent Fascism — are centered on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach; they are logistics clusters, hence have (at least for the Latinx portions of the reserve army of labor) exactly the same demographics that Democrats are — as seems obvious to me — trying to manipulate with their “Babies! Babies! Babies!” moral panic. Yet will they attempt, as a party, to address the, er, “economic anxiety” of this portion of the working class? Will they support a $15-dollar-an-hour wage? (That would buy some babies better formula!) How about card checkMR SUBLIMINAL lol no so that these “ghetto and barrio” workers can form unions? (That might get some babies health insurance through collective bargaining!) Call me crazy, but how about #MedicareForAll? (That should help some babies grow up with two healthy parents!) Will they even combine their serial moral panics with an economics appeal? Of course not.

On the one hand, liberal Democrats would kill Baby Hitler in his or her cradle; on the other, they’d rather die as a party — as they may well do — than make a class-based appeal in districts that cry out for it![5] Every logistics cluster is a ginormous [family blogging] cage with hundreds of thousands of inmates, including babies, and liberal Democrats seem firmly determined to keep the working class confined behind the chain link fences and bars. Well played, all.


[1] That is, before the migrant moral panic began, and so not including its effects, if any. My guess, and we’ll see in two weeks whether I’m right, is that the effect will be “not very much,” assuming that the memory of Obama’s own deportations, for-profit detention centers, and family separations remains vivid in the minds of those targeted, and that liberal Democrat apparatchik virtue signaling posturing, preening, and historical erasure fail to gain traction except among those already sold. In a close election, of course, “not very much” could translate to “just enough.”

[2] Remember that the purpose of this series is not following the horse race — although who can look away from it? — but to come to an understanding of the Democrat party as an institution. Frankly, I don’t feel that I’m very far along. The closest I have come, so far, is that the Democrats are a gang that control the ballot line instead of a street corner, but that analogy does not provide an account of entities like Brock’s million-dollar trolls, tame “journalists,” or Democrat-aligned factions in the intelligence community. It also doesn’t provide an account of changes in the Democrat base, as described by Thomas Frank.

[3] Speaking against this account would be that the current episode concerns Central American migrants, and I neither know the exact Latinx composition of these districts nor wish to assume that all Latinx voters have identical values and interests.

[4] Here I pause to pat myself on the back for making shipping and supply chain issues central-to-mission for Water Cooler.

[5] Bernie should hold a town hall or two in some logistics centers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. DonCoyote

    According to this Yahoo article, (TX-31) may be on play:

    Democrat’s viral campaign video could be trouble for tea party Republican in deep-red Texas

    After the 2016 election, we all hopefully learned to be suspicious of polling data. So take it with however much salt you want or need. But I do think there will be some “surprises” like this, for both Team-D and Team-R. Much of the country is still very much in “tear it down/throw the {family blog}s out”, which probably means incumbents won’t do quite as well as normal. One possible “wave” indicator if there are more of these surprise wins for Team-D, vs an equal number for each side.

    btw, no issues page on her website. Is one viral video enough?

  2. Rebecca

    Clarification on NY-19: Gareth Rhodes supports Medicare for All. Flynn supports the M4A bill in the Senate, but does not support the House bill (the one he’d have a chance to vote on). The candidates that support the House bill (HR 676) are Beals, Clegg, and Rhodes. Collier and Flynn support the Senate bill (S1804). Delgado and Ryan favor a public option.

    The supporting the Senate bill but not the House bill seems sneaky to me – you get to say you support M4A but weasel out of having to actually vote for it…

      1. BitterIn19

        I live in this district, and am very involved in local post-Bernie organizing. That is not true. Four candidates ran explicitly on M4A. They received 60% of the total vote. The left vote was divided, and Beals was an incredibly polarizing candidate with a lot of media connections. Bennet Ratcliff and Matt Siegel were both attached to his campaign, early on. Ratcliff is a former media consultant for the Clintons who also did PR for the coup government in Honduras. He is now teaming up with tea party operative John Pudner to write a playbook about how to win a “people-powered” campaign:

        Beals quickly positioned himself as the sole “Bernie” candidate in the race, and propagated this narrative on the national level. Unfortunately, he had no record of issue advcocacy or activism prior to the 2016 election – and even there, could not demonstrate that he had actually volunteered for Bernie in anyway. He was new to the district, taught at an expensive private school (this is only his second year as a teacher there) and led a pretty dilletantish existence since leaving the state department – wrote an unpublished book, directed an unreleased film, and managed his father’s gentleman Turkey farm (featuring a $million+ house). He had none of the authenticity of a candidate like Ocasio-Cortez, and came off as very smug and arrogant. Some people adored him and his willingness to “call out the system”, but many others found him unpleasant at best.

        We had another candidate with an almost identical platform, Dave Clegg – a trial lawyer and a local Deacon with 37 years of volunteer work in the community. Clegg was a basketball coach at the YMCA. He taught classes at a local prison and helped with parole re-entry. He helped found a local habitat for humanity chapter and serves on the board of a group committed to securing affordable housing in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. And that’s truthfully just a fraction of his service resume. As both a Methodist Deacon and a member of the regional Boy Scouts Council, Clegg has an in with many Republican and unaffiliated voters who know him personally and respect him. We need those constituents to win in the general (but of course they can’t vote in the primary) – the district is split almost evenly three ways.

        Unfortunately, Clegg did not take naturally to campaigning. He was asked to run by locals who didn’t want to see a “carpetbagger” lose for the third time in a row and now his stature in the community. But he had to wind down his law practice and myriad volunteer commitments, and couldn’t fully throw himself into the race in the crucial early months. He is one of those honest people who doesn’t want to commit publicly to something if he hasn’t fully researched it. That translates into looking unprepared. His early stump speech was weak. The 5 other campaigns snatched up most of the early field talent.

        While Clegg fumbled, Beals made his move to strategically wrap up the “Bernie” vote early on. This worked everywhere but in Ulster County, where everyone knows Dave (and he came in a close second to Delgado last night). Local activists in Ulster were split, wanting to support Dave but feeling underwhelmed by his performance. He was the only candidate with deep, longstanding ties to the grassroots, but was outshined by both Beals and Rhodes, a 29 year old former press secretary for Cuomo, who also campaigned primarily on M4A, visited every town in the massive district in an RV, was born and raised in the district, and scored a ton of union endorsements.

        Efforts were made to early on decide on a left candidate and unite the left vote, but it was a very difficult choice and put a real strain on the activist community. In my personal experience, Beals was rather uncomradely towards his competitors who shared his platform, and felt entitled to our support even though he had not put the work in the way Clegg had. I think Beals would have been creamed in the general, whereas Clegg had the right material to work with but just wasn’t a quick enough study because campaigning started unusually early. By Election Day he was much stronger on his feet, but the damage was already done. People wanted to vote for a winner, and I know many people who preferred Clegg but voted Beals or Rhodes because they thought with all the national media there was more momentum behind those candidates. A very difficult and frustrating race, all around. Luckily we have some very strong grassroots candidates running to state senate to coalaesce behind.

        1. drumlin woodchuckles

          So many people wanted to vote for a winner . . .

          This is a perceptual and behaviorial disorder afflicting many citizens. Perhaps it is induced and implanted by the overwhelming horse-race obsession of the MSM and the “alternative MSM” ?

          At what point do people who “want someone in particular” decide to vote for him/her without worrying about whether he/she ” can win”?

  3. Mike Mc

    On May 15, 2018, the NE-02 Democratic primary victor was Kara Eastman (woohoo!), an actual progressive Medicare For All Democrat in Red State Nebraska, albeit in slightly purple Omaha.

    I may be late to the Worksheet – and completely ignorant of protocol for same – but Kara’s victory is a Big Effing Deal for Nebraska Democrats (both of us…) and definitely a part of progressive women Democrats winning primaries in 2018.

  4. David

    The CA district map may not be current. See here and here.

    IMO, immigration and sanctuary status will be key for red voters, like 2014. Will the blue voters turn up?

    Also, Rouda will be the challenger for CA-48 (source).

      1. Kael

        Re CA-10, it’s populations centers are now 2 cities along US HWY-99 in the Northern San Joaquin Valley: approx district 18 in the post’s maps. Culturally and politically quite distinct from the Port of Oakland area.

  5. John k

    Reps so far spent 17 mil to get Ca ballot initiative that repeals gas tax (earmarked to fix roads on ballot), Ryan’s overall purpose to bring conservative voters to polls this nov.
    Wonder who gave them the money… and how much of dem donor money the dems plan to spend to get their own to the polls… maybe they’ll propose m4a…

  6. Synoia

    Of the three “must flip” seats in Southern CA, one is in Riverside, and two in San Diego (Home of the Pacific Fleet, and Marines).

    10 Is a Rural Area south of Sacramento, traditionally R

    25 appears to be San Bernardino/Riverside which leans R all the time (must be the heat)

    48 Appears to be the Marine or Tech Area in San Diego

    49 Appears to be the Naval Area – Whose retirees lean heavily Republican.

    Repealing the Gas Tax in CA is a wonderful idea, because the money is used to fund roads. I cannot conceive of a better way to destroy the highways in CA, and force people not to commute.

  7. Synoia

    The closest I have come, so far, is that the Democrats are a gang that control the ballot line instead of a street corner,

    Ballot Boxes are a means to an end.

    Think of them as controllers of Federal Spending, and all becomes much clearer.


    Some observations on the race for NY’s 11th: Rose is about as straight out of DCCC casting as you can possibly get. Vague, muddled “stances,” military service (which his logo is meant to allude to). Most likely will win. Emig is somewhere between centrist and progressive. I see him getting the lion’s share of the non-Rose vote. Vaid is the closest to being a Berniecrat in the field, but he only recently moved back to the district, and he lives in the Brooklyn side of it, which is a guarantee of losing. Whichever Dem wins, they’ll most likely lose. However, there’s a good chance that Donovan will get primary’d by former Rep Michael Grimm, he of convicted felon, threatening to throw journalists off balconies fame. The last time a Dem won the district, it was a combination of the Obama wave and the incumbent having an extra-marital child scandal, so Grimm winning would give the Dem candidate an outside chance.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Emig the bond trader was quite the character. Part of his platform was a comic book and the platform as a whole was a PDF of 50 pages or so that he clearly wrote himself!

  9. audrey jr

    If I might chime in on San Bernardino/Riverside, since I was once a homeowner there and still have family in S.B. County whom I visit a least once a month, the residents of these two counties are the “deplorables” of Southern California.
    Many of them are poor Latino/Black families who cannot afford the “good life” that the rest of the localities in So. Cal. enjoy, i.e., quickly rising home values, lots of eating away from home and the jobs and schools there are of a lower standard than that of their neighboring counties.
    In the High Desert area of Hesperia, Victorville and Apple Valley many are descendants of the “okies” who settled there during the Great Depression. These are good and hard working folk who tend to vote Republican because their parents and grandparents did. No kidding. I am always out talking to people and I am old so I get away with quizzing folks on such matters.
    California regularly dumps the convicted sexual predators and other “undesirables” in these two counties, disproportionately.
    That said, Kern County does not fare much better, along those lines.
    Beautiful job here, Lambert. Thanks for all your hard work.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      You’re welcome!

      I actually lived in the High Desert for awhile, and its got its problems. (Like I didn’t know until then that going into abandoned meth labs, sucking up the soil, and filtering out the chemicals was a business model until that point.)

      Nevertheless, during my stay Borders air-dropped an enormous box store into the area and it was instantly filled, and the customers weren’t all looking for devotional literature, either. My reading was that this showed a great hunger for learning (which humans actually like to do; it’s adaptive).

  10. timotheus

    Huge upset for Ocasio-Cortez in NY14, not even close (57-43). Very Important People had said zero chance.

  11. kernel

    ME-2 Primary was won by Jared Golden, so you can drop the other Challengers now. That’s the only House seat in New England held by GOP, and I’m looking to fix that.

    Thanks for running this – I’m using it (and other sources) to choose where to apply some out-of-state help.

Comments are closed.