ding ding all change here please!

Here’s something interesting I noticed on electoral-vote.com, who are the shit btw. They’ve listed all the tight House scraps according to how the corresponding district voted in the past, i.e. if in the previous election the district elected a republican by a margin of 54% - 48% it’s considered as an R+6 district. R being republican and +6 representing the margin the republican won by, if a democrat won a district 52% - 45% it would be D+7, get the drift?

Anyway, their list starts with the strongest republican districts down to the strongest democratic districts. The idea being that at the top of the list, if all was equal, you should find republicans winning in the strong republican districts, and as you go down the list to the strong democratic districts you should find democrats winning. But, as everyone keeps telling us, it’s not a good time to be a republican, so all’s not equal, which is why it’s not surprising to see a few democratic challengers performing well in what were strong republican districts. OK, but what is surprising, is there are almost as many republican challengers doing well in the strong democratic districts, and that shouldn’t be happening.

In this environment a democrat running in a strong democratic district should be whooping their republican challenger's bottom, so why aren't they? Well, it's clear that the vast majority of the electorate want change, but could it be that they’re so desperate for change they want fresh faces regardless of party affiliation?

I've no doubt it's a bad time to be a republican, but perhaps it's an even worse time to be an incumbent, just saying...

You can check the list here, go to previous reports find Oct 21st and scroll about halfway down the page.