U.S. Congress race ratings, 2016
In 2016, Ballotpedia rated all 469 congressional races based on how close we expected each race to be. These races were then classified as being either safe, competitive, or a battleground. This allowed us to focus our coverage on those battleground races, while spending less time on races that were effectively decided in the primary. A number of criteria were used to make these ratings, the most important of which were the margin of victory in the last congressional election and whether the incumbent was seeking re-election to the seat. More information on the ratings and criteria used to make those ratings is detailed below.
Ratings
Ballotpedia used three ratings classifications in the 2016 elections: Safe, Competitive, and Battleground.
- Safe - A race that was not expected to be competitive at all in 2016. This was the most common rating, as the majority districts have a clear partisan lean. Margins of victory in these races were expected to be greater than 10 percent.
- Competitive - A race in which one party was favored, but not by a large enough margin to be considered a safe race. Margins of victory in these races were expected to be between five and ten percent.
- Battleground - The closest races in the country fell into this category. These are the races in which neither party was a clear favorite and could have gone either way. Roughly five percent of all races fit into this category in 2016. Margins of victory in these races were expected to be less than five percent.
Criteria
The following criteria were examined to determine how close each race was expected to be. No specific number of criteria had to be met to label a district competitive or a battleground, but all of the following were considered in each race.
1. Margin of victory (MOV) in the past two House elections:
- The MOV of the district in the previous two elections was the primary basis for estimating the potential competitiveness of the district in 2016.
- Example: Arizona's 2nd District had extremely low margins of victory of less than 1 percent in the past two elections.
- The MOV of the district in the previous two elections was the primary basis for estimating the potential competitiveness of the district in 2016.
2. Margin of victory in the past two presidential elections (2012 and 2008):
- Presidential elections play a huge role in all races on the ballot. Voter turnout is always higher in presidential elections. A strong presidential candidate can also provide a boon to all candidates from his or her party on the ballot. Since 2016 was a presidential election year, these figures are often more telling than House results from 2014, because midterms are very different from presidential elections.
- Example: In California's 25th District, President Barack Obama (D) won by 1 percent in 2008, while Mitt Romney (R) took the district by 1.9 percent in 2012.
- Presidential elections play a huge role in all races on the ballot. Voter turnout is always higher in presidential elections. A strong presidential candidate can also provide a boon to all candidates from his or her party on the ballot. Since 2016 was a presidential election year, these figures are often more telling than House results from 2014, because midterms are very different from presidential elections.
3. Open seats:
- Incumbents have extremely high re-election rates. In 2014, 94.4 percent of congressional incumbents who sought re-election won. An open seat is traditionally far more vulnerable than one in which the incumbent is seeking re-election, even if the incumbent is unpopular.
- Example: Florida's 13th District was an open seat in 2016. This fact pushed it to be rated as a battleground in 2016.
- Incumbents have extremely high re-election rates. In 2014, 94.4 percent of congressional incumbents who sought re-election won. An open seat is traditionally far more vulnerable than one in which the incumbent is seeking re-election, even if the incumbent is unpopular.
4. Time spent in office:
- The number of terms an incumbent has spent in office has an impact on how vulnerable they may be. Freshmen incumbents tend to be more vulnerable than those who have served multiple terms in the House.
- Example: A number of districts featured incumbents in their first term of office, including Iowa's 1st Congressional District.
- The number of terms an incumbent has spent in office has an impact on how vulnerable they may be. Freshmen incumbents tend to be more vulnerable than those who have served multiple terms in the House.
5. Outside race ratings:
- Race ratings from the Cook Political Report were considered when making our initial list of battlegrounds.
- Example: Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District was rated as a Toss-up by Cook Political Report.[1]
- Race ratings from the Cook Political Report were considered when making our initial list of battlegrounds.
6. Special highlights:
- Special highlights could include anything from a rematch of the 2014 House race, to an incumbent made vulnerable due to an ongoing scandal. Any special circumstances were taken into account here.
- Example: Redistricting in Florida caused a number of seats to be more vulnerable in 2016.
See also
- United States Congress elections, 2016
- United States Senate elections, 2016
- United States House of Representatives elections, 2016
- U.S. Senate battlegrounds, 2016
- U.S. House battlegrounds, 2016
Footnotes
