Can the Democrats win back the House without an anti-Trump wave?

[DC Al Fine]

I've seen some posters speculating that now that Donald Trump is president, the Democrats could take back the House in 2018. This requires a 24 seat pickup to win a bare majority. Ideally they'd pick up 30+ so they'd be able to have working control. If Trump is very unpopular, they could easily pass that mark. The problem is, what if Trump is only moderately unpopular?

Suppose the base map for 2018 is a pedestrian D+15ish, with the remaining pickups having to come from strong local campaigns. Could the Democrats pull it off. I'm skeptical. Here's a map of the 2006 results when the Democrats won a modest majority. Please excuse the bad colour scheme.



There are plenty of Democratic districts on that map that no longer seem feasible; many rural southern seats, parts of the midwest including both Dakotas. Contrast this with the 2016 map:



There doesn't seem to be a lot of low hanging fruit for the Democrats. Sure there are a few suburban and small city seats here and there that could be picked off pretty easily, but much of the low hanging fruit has already been taken (e.g. new maps in North Carolina and Florida). Between midterm minority turnout and the fact that America is rapidly turning into a Democratic pack, it seems like the Democrats are dependent on an anti-Trump wave to retake the House.

Of course, I am no expert. What say you?

[Heisenberg]

One thing that could help Democrats is the fact that Republicans have so many seats to defend, that they could be caught spreading themselves too thin, but I kind of doubt that.

[Xing]

It's pretty clear that Democrats need Trump to be extremely unpopular. Fortunately for them, there's a good chance he will be. They'll need to do a much better job at recruitment than they did this year, though, and actually try to get decent candidates in R+3-5 districts, or even some R+6-7 ones.

[smoltchanov]

No, they need Trump to be much more unpopular than Obama was in 2010 and 2014 to even have a fighting chance.

+1. If Trump manages to get even medium numbers, Democratic chances will be very close to Zero...

[morgieb]

No. Not under current maps anyway.

[Kingpoleon]

No. With an anti-Trump wave? Most definitely.

My ideal scenario involves them picking up between 15 and 29 seats, thus demanding a pretty moderate speaker to keep all the party members in line.

[jamestroll]

One thing that could help Democrats is the fact that Republicans have so many seats to defend, that they could be caught spreading themselves too thin, but I kind of doubt that.

Exactly this. My early guess, though it could change, is that Democrats will gain in the House and the GOP will gain in the senate. The question is more, how much?

If it is a truly anti Trump wave, surprising seats could become competitive.

Also it is 2018, not 2012. So the district lines are not as meaningful at that point. People move, climates change, political leanings change, etc.

[DC Al Fine]

It's pretty clear that Democrats need Trump to be extremely unpopular. Fortunately for them, there's a good chance he will be. They'll need to do a much better job at recruitment than they did this year, though, and actually try to get decent candidates in R+3-5 districts, or even some R+6-7 ones.

What does that look like in terms of seats? What's are some seats that could be the one that puts the Dems over the top?

[Mr.Phips]

It's pretty clear that Democrats need Trump to be extremely unpopular. Fortunately for them, there's a good chance he will be. They'll need to do a much better job at recruitment than they did this year, though, and actually try to get decent candidates in R+3-5 districts, or even some R+6-7 ones.

What does that look like in terms of seats? What's are some seats that could be the one that puts the Dems over the top?

Well, they would need to take places like FL-26 and 27, VA-10 and 02, pick up all the Romney-Clinton seats in CA and everything won by Obama twice.  Then it's a question of whether Midwestern areas that clearly backed Trump turn against him or places like GA-06, TX-32 and TX-07 which abruptly went from 60% Romney to basically tied flip out even more when we pull out of NAFTA next year?

And they'd need NY-01 and upstate NY seats like NY-19, NY-21, NY-22, NY-23, NY-23, and NY-24.  With Trump as President, I could see some of those seats flipping.  In NY-24, many of the Democrats that voted for Katko in 2014 and 2016 may not be so likely to now. 

[Devils30]

Not without a wave but many in the media are vastly underestimating the Dems odds. If Trump turns this whole thing into a circus, 24 seats is a pretty realistic gain if his approval is 33%.

[Devils30]

Exactly. Too many variables to predict what is going to happen now. It could be a Democratic wave, it could be a nothing year. Something like 2002 where most Dems like Tester, McCaskill win re election isn't out of the question either with most GOP retaining house seats.

[Virginiá]

Which I expect he will get. America is very polarized today, 40% of the country is going to approve of Trump no matter what (unless he starts a war or something like that), just like 45% of the country approved of Obama no matter what.

Obama bounced around in the 40-42 range quite a bit in 2014.

Given Trump's constant average mid-30s favorables, I'm going to go ahead and say that if Trump doesn't deliver on so many of those big, fanciful promises he made, such as bringing all those jobs back, many of those people that already don't like him aren't going to perpetually approve of his presidency no matter what. Obama's favorables were often higher than his approval rating and when they weren't, it still wasn't that far from his approvals.

As for the House, that's a pretty tall order, but if Trump gets an Obama midterm-level House PV, particularly 2014, then those numbers are at least at the lower end of what some say is needed to have a chance at the House. So I guess we'll see how his presidency plays out. Maybe he pulls a rabbit out of his hat, maybe he doesn't.

[MT Treasurer]

Exactly. Too many variables to predict what is going to happen now. It could be a Democratic wave, it could be a nothing year. Something like 2002 where most Dems like Tester, McCaskill win re election isn't out of the question either with most GOP retaining house seats.

If McCaskill wins reelection, the GOP will likely lose the Senate and the House. Not happening unless Trump has approvals in the 30s, which - sorry - is probably wishful thinking from the Democrats (especially since it's coming from the same people who already predicted a Democratic wave this year).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Exactly. Too many variables to predict what is going to happen now. It could be a Democratic wave, it could be a nothing year. Something like 2002 where most Dems like Tester, McCaskill win re election isn't out of the question either with most GOP retaining house seats.

If McCaskill wins reelection, the GOP will likely lose the Senate and the House. Not happening unless Trump has approvals in the 30s, which - sorry - is probably wishful thinking from the Democrats (especially since it's coming from the same people who already predicted a Democratic wave this year).

The mood in the country was for change and Hillary ethical issues got in the way of that, Bernie Sanders would have won the presidency.

In 2018, if the GOP continues to mess with Obamacare and cutting social services, Trump approvals will slide.  I am predicting a good Democratic year in 2018 and 2020.

[Fusionmunster]

Exactly. Too many variables to predict what is going to happen now. It could be a Democratic wave, it could be a nothing year. Something like 2002 where most Dems like Tester, McCaskill win re election isn't out of the question either with most GOP retaining house seats.

If McCaskill wins reelection, the GOP will likely lose the Senate and the House. Not happening unless Trump has approvals in the 30s, which - sorry - is probably wishful thinking from the Democrats (especially since it's coming from the same people who already predicted a Democratic wave this year).

"Wishful thinking"?

Trumps already close to the 30s and he hasnt even taken office.

[jamestroll]

tnvolunteer.. You always predict massive gop victories.

Averores, you really think narrow loses in some rust belt states in 2016 means that those states are entirely lost causes for Democrats up and down the ballot and we should just give up?

[pikachu]

No, but there are so many ways that these next two years can go poorly for Republicans that an anti-Trump wave in 2018 is a very real possibility. Though as this forum has shown us several times in the past, election predictions two years out tend to end up be very wrong.

[MT Treasurer]

Exactly. Too many variables to predict what is going to happen now. It could be a Democratic wave, it could be a nothing year. Something like 2002 where most Dems like Tester, McCaskill win re election isn't out of the question either with most GOP retaining house seats.

If McCaskill wins reelection, the GOP will likely lose the Senate and the House. Not happening unless Trump has approvals in the 30s, which - sorry - is probably wishful thinking from the Democrats (especially since it's coming from the same people who already predicted a Democratic wave this year).

"Wishful thinking"?

Trumps already close to the 30s and he hasnt even taken office.

Don't know where you get that number from? Also, favorability ratings aren't approval ratings, as Bill Clinton will tell you. I think the general trend we're seeing is that blue states are electing Democratic Senators and red states are electing Republican Senators, which is one reason Cory Gardner underperformed by a lot in 2014, for example. As Democrats always like to point out, ticket-splitting isn't really as common as it was 50 years ago, and every state that voted for Trump elected a Republican Senate candidate, while every state that voted for Clinton elected a Democratic Senate candidate. That is something to keep in mind when you're predicting that Democrats are favored in states like ND or IN. I'd definitely rate most of these states Tossups since there is always the possibility that Trump does something insane and the fact that one election does not make a trend, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the red-state incumbents lost by a lot, especially if Trump is as popular among the Republican base as Obama is among the Democratic base.

tnvolunteer.. You always predict massive gop victories.

Except that I don't. I predicted that Clinton would win this year and that Democrats would win back the Senate.

[jamestroll]

I was getting very crazy and some people said "over reacting" towards the end. It turns out I was right, the rural white margins were too strong for a lot of Democrats to pull through.

Back of my head knew Trump would win but I didn't see how he could win popular vote. He is a lunatic, even if he is not far right.

The thing is, just because every state voted the same for President and Senate does not mean that will happen in every single election in the future for the rest of time. I think Democrats gain house seats and lose senate seats. But that is just an easy prediction to make right now.

[ElectionsGuy]

Exactly. Too many variables to predict what is going to happen now. It could be a Democratic wave, it could be a nothing year. Something like 2002 where most Dems like Tester, McCaskill win re election isn't out of the question either with most GOP retaining house seats.

If McCaskill wins reelection, the GOP will likely lose the Senate and the House. Not happening unless Trump has approvals in the 30s, which - sorry - is probably wishful thinking from the Democrats (especially since it's coming from the same people who already predicted a Democratic wave this year).

They only have Arizona and Nevada to lose, and even then it would be 50/50 under Republican control.

Anyway, the Dems have a very small chance of taking the House back anytime soon, and it may have to be two successive good cycles for Democrats, say 2018 and 2020 combined. If Democrats end up at a net gain of 6 this year (likely), they'll need 24 seats. One trend favoring Democrats in the House long term is that under a Trump GOP, Republicans are maximizing the rural vote, which puts just a few Dems in danger, but the well-off suburban vote trending Democrat puts a lot of Republicans in danger. There are lots of cherries to pick when it comes to suburban Republican house seats in Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. So I would say Republicans need to worry about that long term, but short term its fine.