Margins

[Person Man]

How much do you think Democrats have to win the National Popular Vote by to win the House?

[Young Conservative]

Probably not by as much as you think. I would say a few points is all the need. 1.3at the lowest, 3 st the max. It depends on how equally voted are distributed.

[Pericles]

I'd say better vote distribution would help, gerrymandering wearing out but still at least 5 points probably high single digits.

[Person Man]

I am beginning to suspect its probably no worse than it has been. Maybe we might need more conservative democrats, but we only have 3 of them left. Maybe if we win by 5 or 6, we would won 15 center-left to Resistor seats and 15 spanning from Bill Clinton style to Atlas-Style conservadems.

[Virginiá]

Numerous analysis' of this question puts figures anywhere from 5 - 12 points when you account for things like incumbency advantages. However, those doesn't take into consideration the changes in the map that have occurred in 2016, for both sides.

Personally I believe a bare minimum of 6 - 7 points is probably necessary.

At least for PR reasons, I sure hope Democrats win a majority in the House if they get a decently big popular vote win. It's not exactly healthy for our elections/institutions if one side feels like every time no matter what, even when they win, they lose.

[publicunofficial]

D+8 is the number I've heard most commonly cited.

[Person Man]

Numerous analysis' of this question puts figures anywhere from 5 - 12 points when you account for things like incumbency advantages. However, those doesn't take into consideration the changes in the map that have occurred in 2016, for both sides.

Personally I believe a bare minimum of 6 - 7 points is probably necessary.

At least for PR reasons, I sure hope Democrats win a majority in the House if they get a decently big popular vote win. It's not exactly healthy for our elections/institutions if one side feels like every time no matter what, even when they win, they lose.

What would happen if Republicans hold onto 220-230 seats despite losing by 4 or 5 points?

[Virginiá]

What would happen if Republicans hold onto 220-230 seats despite losing by 4 or 5 points?

Well I don't mean to imply it would be a direct trigger for something bad, but in all likelihood it would become thee symbol of how broken American elections are, and would probably spread like wildfire through the Democratic Party, just like gerrymandering has. I've met people (Democrats) who knew little about politics but somehow knew the word "gerrymandering" - even if they didn't quite understand what i was about/did, they knew it basically as a way Republicans have "stolen" elections (yes I know that's oversimplified, I'm just writing a key word I've heard in relation to that)

America's institutions are facing a lot of stress right now. Years of declining wages and job prospects, paired with a political party who has literally made attacking/demonizing govt its primary goal/msg has taken its toll on the public's trust in government to be fair and help solve problems everyday Americans face. In a political climate as polarized as this, people shouldn't begin thinking the elections are being perpetually stolen from them. We already have a 2 Republican presidents in a row getting into office against the will of a plurality of people, Trump losing by millions, the GOP stealing a Supreme Court seat from us purely to keep it conservative, and add on the growing perception that more people voting Democratic still won't get us majorities in many legislatures and the House because of rigged maps by the GOP is absolutely toxic for public faith in govt. It doesn't matter if this is "just how it was designed" - it looks really bad, and peaceful elections depend on faith from the people.

I'm increasingly believing that we take for granted our elections/govt far too much. In order for govt institutions and peaceful elections to exist in meaningful capacities, they need the trust and faith of the people. That's a part of the reason I am so pro-election reform - the people need to believe their right to give input into the system is being respected and not marginalized.

[Person Man]

I actually think it's lower than most... maybe 4-5 points.  Democrats are already pretty maxed out in big cities and now Republicans are pretty maxed out in rural areas.  For Democrats to win a 5 point margin in today's environment, it probably means they are carrying most of the swing districts.

If you asked me this 5 years ago when Democrats were getting 60-80 point margins in cities and Republicans only 10-30 point margins in rural areas, I would have said a bigger spread was needed.  

And the thing is that if Democrats win, it is generally because they are winning by the high single digits.

What would happen if Republicans hold onto 220-230 seats despite losing by 4 or 5 points?

Well I don't mean to imply it would be a direct trigger for something bad, but in all likelihood it would become thee symbol of how broken American elections are, and would probably spread like wildfire through the Democratic Party, just like gerrymandering has. I've met people (Democrats) who knew little about politics but somehow knew the word "gerrymandering" - even if they didn't quite understand what i was about/did, they knew it basically as a way Republicans have "stolen" elections (yes I know that's oversimplified, I'm just writing a key word I've heard in relation to that)

America's institutions are facing a lot of stress right now. Years of declining wages and job prospects, paired with a political party who has literally made attacking/demonizing govt its primary goal/msg has taken its toll on the public's trust in government to be fair and help solve problems everyday Americans face. In a political climate as polarized as this, people shouldn't begin thinking the elections are being perpetually stolen from them. We already have a 2 Republican presidents in a row getting into office against the will of a plurality of people, Trump losing by millions, the GOP stealing a Supreme Court seat from us purely to keep it conservative, and add on the growing perception that more people voting Democratic still won't get us majorities in many legislatures and the House because of rigged maps by the GOP is absolutely toxic for public faith in govt. It doesn't matter if this is "just how it was designed" - it looks really bad, and peaceful elections depend on faith from the people.

I'm increasingly believing that we take for granted our elections/govt far too much. In order for govt institutions and peaceful elections to exist in meaningful capacities, they need the trust and faith of the people. That's a part of the reason I am so pro-election reform - the people need to believe their right to give input into the system is being respected and not marginalized.

I guess people would just progressivey distrust government in general, potentially even at the lower level. Especially, if the law becomes that much different because of "rigged" elections. I could really see more and more people resulting to self-help and  probably more social unrest, even if there's no organized and sustained mass disobedience.