Would the GOP be favored to Hold the House if Obama Wins Re-election?

[Skill and Chance]

The two most recent examples are in stark opposition: 1996 (D+9) and 1948 (D+75)

What does everyone think?  Could the GOP gerrymander well enough to hold the House even under 2008 conditions?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can't picture a reverse wave going on in 2012.... mind you in late 2008 I didn't exactly predict 2010, lol

[Skill and Chance]

I can't picture a reverse wave going on in 2012.... mind you in late 2008 I didn't exactly predict 2010, lol

lol Maybe the GOP will have wave #4 and become veto proof in the House while Obama wins.  Or the Dems hold the Senate while Obama loses.  Stranger things have happened.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a post-war recession in 1945-1946 that the country quickly recovered from. This recession has a much much slower recovery. People liked how the buck stopped with Truman as opposed to him being a completely ineffective leader. I think combined with the redistricting and Citizens United you can rule out a 75 seat gain for the Democrats in 2012.

[Mr.Phips]

If Obama wins reelection, the House will probably be within single digits. 

[Mr. Morden]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

[Mr.Phips]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

But Democrats are coming from a pretty low floor this time.  

In 2004, Republicans gained three.
In 1996, Democrats gained nine.
In 1984, Republicans gained fourteen
In 1972, Republicans gained twelve
In 1964, Democrats gained 38
In 1956, Republicans lost two
In 1948, Democrats gained 75
In 1944, Democrats gained 20
In 1940, Democrats gained five
In 1936, Democrats gained 12
In 1916, Democrats lost 16
In 1904, Republicans gained 44

The average going back to that date is a gain of 18 seats, so that would leave Republicans with a 224-211 majority. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

But Democrats are coming from a pretty low floor this time. 

I can see quite a few districts that probably are naturally Democratic territory that will likely fall back to them in '12, but not sure how many.

[Mr.Phips]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

But Democrats are coming from a pretty low floor this time. 

I can see quite a few districts that probably are naturally Democratic territory that will likely fall back to them in '12, but not sure how many.

Thinking probably NY-25, MN-08, NH-02, TX-27, PA-11, FL-22, IL-10, IL-17.  That's the easiest of the pickings. 

[Skill and Chance]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

But Democrats are coming from a pretty low floor this time. 

I can see quite a few districts that probably are naturally Democratic territory that will likely fall back to them in '12, but not sure how many.

Thinking probably NY-25, MN-08, NH-02, TX-27, PA-11, FL-22, IL-10, IL-17.  That's the easiest of the pickings. 

Getting to +15 with Obama winning the PV would be pretty easy.  It's those last 10 seats that complicate things.

[Mr.Phips]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

But Democrats are coming from a pretty low floor this time. 

I can see quite a few districts that probably are naturally Democratic territory that will likely fall back to them in '12, but not sure how many.

Thinking probably NY-25, MN-08, NH-02, TX-27, PA-11, FL-22, IL-10, IL-17.  That's the easiest of the pickings. 

Getting to +15 with Obama winning the PV would be pretty easy.  It's those last 10 seats that complicate things.

There a lot of seats where if Democrats could get defeated candidates to come back and run, they would probably win back.  CO-03, IN-08, MI-07, NY-13, NM-02, OH-01, PA-07, PA-08, WV-01, VA-05 are among those.  Then there are those like OH-15, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, NH-01, FL-08, WI-07, and WI-08 that were won by Obama and could be taken back. 

I am taking into account redistricting, hence I dont mention seats like NC-02, OH-18, OH-06, and IN-09. 

[pbrower2a]

President Obama might end up running against a "do-nothing, stop everything" Congress in 2012. Sure, redistricting will favor Republicans, but not enough to keep Democrats from ousting some Republicans ill-suited to their districts or some that get caught in personal scandals.

"One Size Fits All" might work in wave elections, but counter-waves can also be strong. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

President Obama might end up running against a "do-nothing, stop everything" Congress in 2012. Sure, redistricting will favor Republicans, but not enough to keep Democrats from ousting some Republicans ill-suited to their districts or some that get caught in personal scandals.

"One Size Fits All" might work in wave elections, but counter-waves can also be strong. 

This won't be a do nothing Congress. This will be a bring out the worst in Obama Congress.

[courts]

President Obama might end up running against a "do-nothing, stop everything" Congress in 2012. Sure, redistricting will favor Republicans, but not enough to keep Democrats from ousting some Republicans ill-suited to their districts or some that get caught in personal scandals.

"One Size Fits All" might work in wave elections, but counter-waves can also be strong. 

This won't be a do nothing Congress. This will be a bring out the worst in Obama Congress.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You would need a net gain of 25 seats for the Dems, right?  When's the last time either party saw a net gain of 25 seats or more in a presidential election year?  1980?

But Democrats are coming from a pretty low floor this time.  

In 2004, Republicans gained three.
In 1996, Democrats gained nine.
In 1984, Republicans gained fourteen
In 1972, Republicans gained twelve
In 1964, Democrats gained 38
In 1956, Republicans lost two
In 1948, Democrats gained 75
In 1944, Democrats gained 20
In 1940, Democrats gained five
In 1936, Democrats gained 12
In 1916, Democrats lost 16
In 1904, Republicans gained 44

The average going back to that date is a gain of 18 seats, so that would leave Republicans with a 224-211 majority. 

That sounds like the most reasonable outcome.

[minionofmidas]

I can't picture a reverse wave going on in 2012...

I can, actually... but I'm certainly not "predicting" anything of the sort.