How many seats will the Democrats lose (net) in the House?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

I'll say about 10-15. The GOP is still anathema in many parts of the country, any gains will have to come almost exclusively from the south.

[Senator Ben]

I'd say 20-25.

[Vepres]

I'll say about 10-15. The GOP is still anathema in many parts of the country, any gains will have to come almost exclusively from the south.

Actually, they have real room for growth in the industrial Midwest and the Mountain West. The industrial Midwest is in decline, and they have mostly Democrats in office at the moment. In the Mountain West, there is lots of anger about growing federal power and government spending. The leadership of the GOP understands they need to run moderates, the base just has to start listening. Will they? I don't know.

[Sibboleth]

Twenty million billion.

---

It's too early to say, obviously. The only things that are clear is that the pattern of Democratic gains which started (more or less) wi' the Chandler by-election is going to end, and the swing will be higher than average in most of the South. We'll have a better idea by the summer (that's the point at which it became clear in 2006, for those who had eyes to see, that the House was going to fall). Until then, all we're doing is throwing random numbers around, and often those that look pleasing to us. Confirmation bias is the devil of election prediction, and we are all vulnerable to it.

[N.i.K.]

I'd say 20-25.

That is around where I am predicting, like 22-27 though.

[dwkulcsar]

I'd say 10-17, and Alan Grayson (FL-8) is not going to be one of them. Grayson's detractors are in the upper part of his district, who did not vote for him anyways. He will win the Orlando and Orange County part of his district. Grayson has alot of cash and will not have a problem spending it to keep himself in office.

The GOP has put forth some very weak possible contenders, the only one that may be worth it is State Rep. Kurt Kelly, but he is from Ocala, and may not sell as well as Grayson can where the population is which is Orlando-Lake County.

[Senator Sbane]

I'll say about 10-15. The GOP is still anathema in many parts of the country, any gains will have to come almost exclusively from the south.

Actually, they have real room for growth in the industrial Midwest and the Mountain West. The industrial Midwest is in decline, and they have mostly Democrats in office at the moment. In the Mountain West, there is lots of anger about growing federal power and government spending. The leadership of the GOP understands they need to run moderates, the base just has to start listening. Will they? I don't know.

How many seats is the Mountain west really? They will probably lose that Idaho seat and that New Mexico seat as well as CO-4. But for it to be a real wave election and for the Republicans to take over congress they would need to win AZ-5, NV-3, CA-11. At this moment I don't see them winning either of them. But if health care doesn't pass, or the economy worsens, all bets are off. The democrats may have lost a lot of support in exurban/rural west but the good news for them is that not a lot of people live there.

[Wiz from Wis in Mass]

At this point, not enough to win either chamber, or even really come close in the House. A good number of the 2006/2008 pickups were seats that leaned D, like IA-1, the CT seats, the PA seats, The NY seats, NOVA, Denver Burbs, NM-1, FL22. I don't think they lose that many. Given that 2010 will force a number of states to redistrict that are pretty much gerrymandered to give the GOP a leg up, I doubt that regaining control of the House is in the cards barring some collapse the likes of which have not been postulated (15% + unemployment, huge clusterflock in Afghnistan, Giant Democratic child mollesting scandal and coverup).

[Alexander Hamilton]

they will gain about 23

[nkpatel1279]

Democrats will pick up DE-AL,IL-10,LA-2 and PA-6.
Democrats will have a tough time holding onto.
1)AL-2
2)AL-5
3)FL-8
4)ID-1
5)LA-3
6)MD-1
7)MI-7
8)NJ-3
9)NM-2
10)OH-1
11)OH-15
12)VA-2
13)VA-5

Democrats loose about 10 seats.

[OC]

Wave election net lose about 26 or 33 seats, but for now 10-17

[timmer123]

Only time will tell on this.  We talk about 1994 a lot, but remember that nobody saw the 52 seat loss the Dems incurred coming.  They were completely blindsided.

It's gonna depend on the economic situation of the country, and other variables.  15 seat minimum pick up.. but wouldn't be surprised to see upwards of 30.

[Mr.Phips]

Only time will tell on this.  We talk about 1994 a lot, but remember that nobody saw the 52 seat loss the Dems incurred coming.  They were completely blindsided.

It's gonna depend on the economic situation of the country, and other variables.  15 seat minimum pick up.. but wouldn't be surprised to see upwards of 30.

The difference this time is that Democrats expect to get their asses kicked next year. 

[OC]

I think the fewest number of seats the Dems will have is 225.  I don't see the republicans gaining more than 210.  The ousted Dems will be Dems who don't vote for Obama's budget anyway.  They are there for the numbers.

[Beet]

If the election were held today, they would lose 65 to 70 seats. The GOP would win the highest percentage of the Congressional vote since the 1920s.

[Rowan]

Democrats will pick up DE-AL,IL-10,LA-2 and PA-6.
Democrats will have a tough time holding onto.
1)AL-2
2)AL-5
3)FL-8
4)ID-1
5)LA-3
6)MD-1
7)MI-7
8)NJ-3
9)NM-2
10)OH-1
11)OH-15
12)VA-2
13)VA-5

Democrats loose about 10 seats.

Only 10?? You're insane.

[BushKenya]

I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 seats, give or take 5.

[J. J.]

Could be a lot higher: Democrats have won a bunch of seats in 2006 and 2008 that they really just have no business holding based on the PVI.

I think that this is really the key.

There are several factors. 

First, the only time, post war that the president's party gained seats in an off year election was when the president had high poll numbers and it was the first year after a redistricting (2002).  The most minor losses occurred when the president had higher numbers.  My guess would be that even if Obama were at 50% to 55%, you'd see a 10-15 seat loss. 

Second, there are a number of naturally GOP seats, that might include another 5-15 seats.

Two other factor will be if Obama is below 50% and if there is a strong anti-incumbency feeling by the election. 

Naturally, I'd say 25-35 seats could be expected, though not significant.  I'd say anything above 35, and you are entering re-alignment range.  The GOP doing better than 1994 is not out of the question.

[Bo]

I'd say 18 to 22. They will probably pick up around 5 and lose around 25, thus for a net loss of about 20.

[I left.]

Naturally, I'd say 25-35 seats could be expected, though not significant.  I'd say anything above 35, and you are entering re-alignment range.  The GOP doing better than 1994 is not out of the question.

Just as the Bradley Effect costing Obama the election was not out of the question.

[Vepres]

Naturally, I'd say 25-35 seats could be expected, though not significant.  I'd say anything above 35, and you are entering re-alignment range.  The GOP doing better than 1994 is not out of the question.

Just as the Bradley Effect costing Obama the election was not out of the question.

Well it wasn't. If you're attempting sarcasm, I'm failing to detect it

My general feeling is we're in a period (probably since 2006) where the controlling party, whichever one it is, will suffer huge losses after huge but short-lived gains in power.

[I left.]

Naturally, I'd say 25-35 seats could be expected, though not significant.  I'd say anything above 35, and you are entering re-alignment range.  The GOP doing better than 1994 is not out of the question.

Just as the Bradley Effect costing Obama the election was not out of the question.

Well it wasn't. If you're attempting sarcasm, I'm failing to detect it

My general feeling is we're in a period (probably since 2006) where the controlling party, whichever one it is, will suffer huge losses after huge but short-lived gains in power.

I'm just mocking J.J.'s analysis, that's it.

[Vepres]

Naturally, I'd say 25-35 seats could be expected, though not significant.  I'd say anything above 35, and you are entering re-alignment range.  The GOP doing better than 1994 is not out of the question.

Just as the Bradley Effect costing Obama the election was not out of the question.

Well it wasn't. If you're attempting sarcasm, I'm failing to detect it

My general feeling is we're in a period (probably since 2006) where the controlling party, whichever one it is, will suffer huge losses after huge but short-lived gains in power.

I'm just mocking J.J.'s analysis, that's it.

Ah, ok.

[Mr.Phips]

Naturally, I'd say 25-35 seats could be expected, though not significant.  I'd say anything above 35, and you are entering re-alignment range.  The GOP doing better than 1994 is not out of the question.

Just as the Bradley Effect costing Obama the election was not out of the question.

Well it wasn't. If you're attempting sarcasm, I'm failing to detect it

My general feeling is we're in a period (probably since 2006) where the controlling party, whichever one it is, will suffer huge losses after huge but short-lived gains in power.

So you would expect that Republicans lose big again in 2012?  Especially considering that Democrats likely wont work with Republicans the way they did on a good number of issues in 1995 and 1996, which made Republicans look somewhat competent.  This time, you will likely see Democrats blocking almost every Republican initiative. 

[Sewer]

This time, you will likely see Democrats blocking almost every Republican initiative. 

lol