Are the dems being underestimated here for the House in 2018?

[Hindsight was 2020]

This isn't a response to any thread in particular but I have seen preconditions for 2018 being made here with general consensus being a 15-25 seat pick up for the House. Yet they smashed this last 3Q of fundraising which isn't suppose to happen with early, we have seen special elections that while losses have been heavy dem swings in deep red seats, on top of that we have seen at the state level dems doing great as well with noticeable huge enthusiasm gaps and over performance of Hillary's numbers, and a GOP with little accomplishments on the verge of civil war. Maybe it's a playing safe mentality after 2016 but still are people here underestimating how ugly/great 2018 can be for the GOP/Dems?

[Lachi]

I'm waiting till after the coming round of elections before I start to get serious about the midterms.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

[Virginiá]

I'm waiting till after the coming round of elections before I start to get serious about the midterms.

Ideally, the Virginia elections should be quite informative on how 2018 could possibly play out. VA HoD elections have been pretty stable and pro-Republican since 2011, so a sharp reversal of that could be bad/good news, depending on what party you are rooting for.

[Tartarus Sauce]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

GA-6 is still on the table in 2018 as are districts similar to it.

[Hindsight was 2020]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

But GA-6th had a turnout level closer to a presidential election then a midterm one and considering alot more has happened since then that isn't all that fair

[AtorBoltox]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

Aren't there about 70 seats that were more favourable to the dems that GA-6? If the GA-6 swing were replicated nationwide democrats would easily win the house

[Pericles]

The answer is yes.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

Aren't there about 70 seats that were more favourable to the dems that GA-6? If the GA-6 swing were replicated nationwide democrats would easily win the house

GA-6 is a Trump +1 seat. After the 23 Clinton-Republican Seats, it is one of the least conservative R seats. Dems went all out for it and only outperformed Clinton's showing (47%) by 2% in the Jungle and 1% in the Runoff. The fact that Ossoff didn't win, and that all Rs combined beat all Ds combined the in the Jungle, casts serious doubt on dem ability to win other marginal trump seats (which would be the path to gains in the 30s or 40s), and to hold seats like MN-1.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes, but we Democrats shouldn't be overconfidant.

CNN article worth reading: Here's why Republicans are in deep trouble in 2018

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[AtorBoltox]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

Aren't there about 70 seats that were more favourable to the dems that GA-6? If the GA-6 swing were replicated nationwide democrats would easily win the house

GA-6 is a Trump +1 seat. After the 23 Clinton-Republican Seats, it is one of the least conservative R seats. Dems went all out for it and only outperformed Clinton's showing (47%) by 2% in the Jungle and 1% in the Runoff. The fact that Ossoff didn't win, and that all Rs combined beat all Ds combined the in the Jungle, casts serious doubt on dem ability to win other marginal trump seats (which would be the path to gains in the 30s or 40s), and to hold seats like MN-1.

The relevant data is the congressional result in 2016, not the presidential one

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

Aren't there about 70 seats that were more favourable to the dems that GA-6? If the GA-6 swing were replicated nationwide democrats would easily win the house

GA-6 is a Trump +1 seat. After the 23 Clinton-Republican Seats, it is one of the least conservative R seats. Dems went all out for it and only outperformed Clinton's showing (47%) by 2% in the Jungle and 1% in the Runoff. The fact that Ossoff didn't win, and that all Rs combined beat all Ds combined the in the Jungle, casts serious doubt on dem ability to win other marginal trump seats (which would be the path to gains in the 30s or 40s), and to hold seats like MN-1.

The relevant data is the congressional result in 2016, not the presidential one

No. Price's 2016 opponent had no website, raised no money, and literally didn't campaign.

[Brittain33]

For the senate, people are overestimating dems, most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

For the house, I think 15-25 is about right. Dems can get quite a bit through fairly low-hanging fruit, but GA-6 showed that gains in the 30s or 40s are beyond what the dems are capable of achieving.

Aren't there about 70 seats that were more favourable to the dems that GA-6? If the GA-6 swing were replicated nationwide democrats would easily win the house

GA-6 is a Trump +1 seat. After the 23 Clinton-Republican Seats, it is one of the least conservative R seats. Dems went all out for it and only outperformed Clinton's showing (47%) by 2% in the Jungle and 1% in the Runoff. The fact that Ossoff didn't win, and that all Rs combined beat all Ds combined the in the Jungle, casts serious doubt on dem ability to win other marginal trump seats (which would be the path to gains in the 30s or 40s), and to hold seats like MN-1.

The relevant data is the congressional result in 2016, not the presidential one

No. Price's 2016 opponent had no website, raised no money, and literally didn't campaign.

Do you expect GA-6 to see Presidential level turnout in 2018, as it did in 2016 and in June?

[Strudelcutie4427]

overestimated

[KingSweden]

I’m reserving judgment until next summer.

The 2014 GOP wave was late-breaking, after all. Way way way too early to tell

[Nyvin]

We'll have a better idea in about two weeks.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, I think they are more likely to win it than not at this point.  It will be a combination of the 5-10 2X Obama + Clinton districts Republicans still hold, and 10-15 ~Obama+5-10 Trump districts in the North and 10-15 Romney+5-10 Clinton districts, mainly in the West.  I don't think the generic ballot is actually D+15, but if it is, they could gain as many seats as Republicans did in 2010.  That's a level at which the gerrymanders would start to collapse in places that don't even look competitive now.

People shouldn't extrapolate from the loss in GA-06, which Trump still won, to VA-10, IL-06 or CA-45, which went from modest Romney wins to Clinton +5-10.  Those are much more doable.

However, I do think Senate Dems are being way overestimated here.  They should go into this expecting 4ish losses in the states Trump won even in a year that modestly favors them.  Even in a full on reverse 2010, I think someone among McCaskill/Heitkamp/Donnelly/Manchin/Brown goes down, and Florida seems to be moving right in a way that may be understated by Trumps 1% win there.

Finally, NJ-GOV and VA-GOV have unusual turnout patterns and are historically uncorrelated with anything that happens in the next midterm. I wouldn't take them too seriously as indicators of anything for 2018.

[PAK Man]

I’m reserving judgment until next summer.

The 2014 GOP wave was late-breaking, after all. Way way way too early to tell

This. I distinctly remember, throughout 2013 and early- to mid-2014, there really weren't any indications that 2014 was going to be a wave.

[fluffypanther19]

I’m reserving judgment until next summer.

The 2014 GOP wave was late-breaking, after all. Way way way too early to tell

exactly, its def way too early to tell and we won't get a decent idea til next year. at the moment, I think that the GOP will retain a much more narrow victory, but anything can still happen

[UncleSam]

I think most people are underestimating just how large the range of possible outcomes are right now, due to how much time there is before the midterms. Any number of things could both happen and be forgotten by late 2018, and those will largely determine who holds congress, not campaigns (though obviously campaigns do matter).

I typically give the range of outcomes I think likely to happen right at this moment, since you can't really know how the future will shift the fortunes of each party. Right now I think the Democrats would pick up between 15-25 seats in the house, most likely falling just short of a majority. I think there is no chance they would lose seats or win in a crazy tsunami style of 75~ (or even go above 40, tbh).

By the time next year rolls around we will see where we are at, but the possibility certainly exists for Democrats to gain 40, 50, or even 60+ seats in the house next year. It also exists for them to take mild losses or even up to double digit losses. I think it is hard to foresee anything happening that would cause the final number to fall outside of (-25, +90) right now, but that's such a stupid large range that the statement itself is hardly meaningful.

As of right now, no, I don't think Democrats are being underestimated. I do think their possible gains (and losses) are, however. No one projected the GOP to take even 30, much less 63 seats in 2010 at this point in the cycle, but then no one saw how ObamaCare would turn out (or even that it would pass) at that point either.

[Gustaf]

I think it's foolish to use GA-06 as a strong bellwether because it had already swung heavily against Trump. If there is a wave it will likely be Democrats sustaining the anti-Trump swings from 2016, coupled with reversals to Obama-Romney result in the areas that went the other way.

[Orser67]

Yes. People are underestimating the historic negative effect of presidential mid-terms, the unpopularity of Trump, and the dissension within the Republican Party.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

most notably by putting McCaskill at Lean or Likely D.

Aren't you one of those guys who said that the MT Republican Party shouldn't even put up a candidate because it is "obvious" that Tester is going to win by a lot without a breaking a sweat (for reasons you never elaborated on, but okay...)? That's way more ridiculous than rating MO Lean D, even if other people seem to agree with your opinion.

Anyway, we really won't know the answer to this question until the election has actually been held. I agree with Skill and Chance that the 2017 races in VA and NJ are bad indicators of how 2018 will shape up, though I guess they could tell us something about Democratic and especially Republican enthusiasm.

I never said the MT GOP party should never contest the race, just that the current field, aside from potentially Rosendale, seems to lack the strength to defeat Tester.

[JonHawk]

If this forum is any indication its been overestimated. The Democrats will obviously gain seats, i think Republicans could nab a seat or two. Maybe 3.

[Person Man]

We are either underestimating Democratic chances in 2018 or overestimating Democratic viability in the future at all. It was the same going into 2006. I at least see Democrats coming to the same conclusion they came out of 1988 with if 2018 is a loss. That is, that the base doesn't deliver. And I think that could make them more electable in the early 2020s but we all saw what Clintonism did in the long run.