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

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

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.

Hey I'll also bring up the fact he thinks every House seat in PA from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia except Kanjorski will flip to the GOP.  I think I have my new Pennsylvania flame-war buddy now that Phil's gone.

[Bo]

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.

Why did Phil leave this forum?
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.

Hey I'll also bring up the fact he thinks every House seat in PA from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia except Kanjorski will flip to the GOP.  I think I have my new Pennsylvania flame-war buddy now that Phil's gone.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I've been running a series of numbers recently, and the most likely scenario at this time is for a net loss (relative to the results of the 2008 elections) of 24 seats.

A lot can change between now and November, 2010 but it is likely that the Democrats will sustain a net loss of at least 17 seats but probably not more than 44.

[redcommander]

I'm thinking more than 50, possibly over 60 if things continue to go downhill.

[OC]

If we can keep our incumbants in the Senate, I think that will neutralize the down the ballot races. 

[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.

What's with this highly alarmist talk? Did you see the Gallup poll in the early thread?

Bump. Do more people believe this now?

[N.i.K.]

Looking to be around 28-35, now.

[Beet]

I admit 65-70 might be a bit high. But when I made that prediction even I didn't see MA-SEN coming!

Just figure out this: how many blue dog / McCain districts are represented by Democrats (answer: 49)? Because you can pretty much kiss 90% of them goodbye, as of today. I also expect a net loss in districts that voted for Obama.

The Democrats' only hope in containing losses to the currently expected 28-35 lies in things getting better by November.

[So the Heroes Fall]

If I had more time, I'm sure I could come up with more than 5 safe Democrats in McCain seats. Actually just two off the bat are the two in Arkansas who aren't Snyder (one who doesn't even have an opponent yet.)

[Senator Ben]

I'd say 20-25.

25-30 now.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'd say 20-25.

25-30 now.

I think you are probably correct.

Also, its the ideal number for Republicans.

They won't be a majority, so they won't be saddled with responsibility.

Also, they can hope to keep Nancy 'the nutcase' Pelosi up front and center.

[OC]

I predict the dems will have a 6 seat majority in the House come Jan 2011.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I predict the dems will have a 6 seat majority in the House come Jan 2011.

Sounds good.

[J. J.]

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.

Amazing how my prediction is now the middle of the top answer bracket. 

[Iosif]

8. They'll lose a net of 8 seats.

[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'd say 23-44 now.

[Thomas D]

29

[You kip if you want to...]

About 60.

[Bo]

About 60.

What is your reasoning for this? That's even more than they lost in 1994, after they failed to pass healthcare reform.

[Mr.Phips]

32 seats.

[OC]

24 seats in the House and 4 senate seats.

[redcommander]

35 seats right now.

[Beet]

Um. Intrade has it priced at around 60% that Democrats will lose the house. That puts the loss at more than 38 seats. How much more than 38 seats depends on what you think the shape of the average probability function across the traders on Intrade assign to their certainty of estimation.

[Vepres]

35 - 55

Anybody who says they may only lose 20-ish seats is in denial

[OC]

Well, didn't Cook predict precisely a 25 seat loss? Down from his earlier prediction of 35 seats.  As far as Intrade, they are basing it on speculation, I think time will tell whether the Dems can get back in it and the election is 3 months off anyways, alot can change.