How many House seats will Democrats gain in 2012?

[Mr.Phips]

Also you have to factor the massive takeover by republicans in the state legislatures. That will have quite a bit of influence in the new district lines. 

There is only so much that can be done in redistricting.  Especially considering that Republicans hold almost every swing district. 

[Mr.Phips]

Gain seats..... They will lose seats. Indiana 2 (very high probability) and possibly Indiana 7 (if the GOP decides to be ambitious as I personally think we can beat Carson with Rokita.

Republicans are not gaining IN-07.  If Carson survived handily in 2010, he wont lose in 2012 with Obama leading the ticket.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

No, Carson's totally going down, his new district's only 66% Obama, down from the previous district being 71% Obama. And Rokita is going to run in IN-07 despite the fact he can move like a mile to remain in his current district.

[pbrower2a]

There will usually be a rebound after a wave election. Waves sweep in some grossly-unqualified and inept politicians and those who otherwise ill fit their districts. People might vote for the Whole Package of the Other Side as a protest of economic conditions -- once, only to find out afterward what they elected. Many Republicans now hold D+4 districts, and they have much convincing to do before November 2012 if they are to be re-elected.

At a minimum, even with an electorate like that of 2010, the Republicans would be sure to lose some House seats. The Whole Package might not look so good when it ill suits a district. There will be 'winners' of some elections who prove extreme, who prove arrogant, who fail in efforts to reshape the electorate to suit the politician's beliefs, who fall short of the usual expectations of public office, who serve their financial angels far outside their districts at the expense of their constituents, or misuse their authority. But here I speak of normal times. There are also general shifts of demographics that suggest that a political heritage is at an end somewhere, and there are some unusually-strong winners who prove unusually adept over time.

If the electorate of 2012 is like that of 2006 or 2008, then a House majority for Republicans is impossible. Both elections were about D+2 to D+5, and no gerrymandering can prevent Democratic majorities. That of 2010 was about R+4, which means that many Republicans hold seats that they cannot hold in a reversal of the wave.


Indeed at D+5, many of the efforts to gerrymander districts can backfire. A plan of the Indiana State legislature concentrated Democrats in two districts that went about 70-30 for Obama in 2008 and most of the rest going about 52-48 for McCain in 2008. It wouldn't take much of a shift  in voting behavior toward Democrats to stick Indiana with a majority House delegation for Democrats.

Paul Ryan may have thrown away many potential Republican votes for Representatives with an effort to privatize Medicare. Many of those were McCain voters in 2008... and if they still vote for the Republican nominee for President, they could vote for Democratic Representatives. The 112th Congress so far has achieved practically nothing except to float trial balloons for the 2012 elections. The new Republican members of the House have achieved little and are unlikely to achieve much. The Religious Right is shrinking every year.   The super-rich are not becoming more popular.

The Republicans still have a well-funded campaign machine -- if you include fronts like Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, the National Chamber of Commerce, and Crossroads America. But if political life has become merged with the arts of marketing, even marketing has its limits of effectiveness. Some things just don't sell well,  but in politics one can rarely win  by running away from one's voting record. An auto manufacturer can restyle an unattractive or obsolete model of car to make it more successful at times; people can't. It might not be fair to compare politicians to con men who peddle their wares and then run away with the loot, but all in all a Representative can reshape himself fast enough.

Most GOP losses -- and I now predict about a  10-seat majority for Democrats in the House in the 113th Congress.   The big money that backs right-wing politicians is still out there, and I can assure you that Big Business will do everything possible to demonstrate that voting for right-wing Republicans is a show of good 'corporate citizenship' for loyal employees that might be used as a criterion for advancement or retention on the job. 

 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

There will usually be a rebound after a wave election. Waves sweep in some grossly-unqualified and inept politicians and those who otherwise ill fit their districts. People might vote for the Whole Package of the Other Side as a protest of economic conditions -- once, only to find out afterward what they elected. Many Republicans now hold D+4 districts, and they have much convincing to do before November 2012 if they are to be re-elected.

This is almost always not the case, actually. Wave elections are often followed by either status quo elections or further gains for the "wave" party:

1978: Republicans gain 15 in the House in a "strong GOP year."
1980: Republicans gain another 34 in an even stronger wave.

1986: Democrats pick up 5 seats in the House; 8 (!) in the Senate in a great Dem year.
1988: Democrats follow up with another 2 in the House and 2 in the Senate.

1994: Republicans pick up 54 House seats in a historic romp.
1996: Republicans give up 9 in the House, but do go +2 in the Senate.

2002: Republicans gain 8 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a rare midterm performance.
2004: Republicans gain 3 more House seats; 4 more in the Senate.

2006: Democrats pick up 31 seats and take full control of the U.S. Congress.
2008: Democrats add another 21 to their House total while gaining 8 seats in the Senate.

[Nichlemn]

There will usually be a rebound after a wave election. Waves sweep in some grossly-unqualified and inept politicians and those who otherwise ill fit their districts. People might vote for the Whole Package of the Other Side as a protest of economic conditions -- once, only to find out afterward what they elected. Many Republicans now hold D+4 districts, and they have much convincing to do before November 2012 if they are to be re-elected.

This is almost always not the case, actually. Wave elections are often followed by either status quo elections or further gains for the "wave" party:

1978: Republicans gain 15 in the House in a "strong GOP year."
1980: Republicans gain another 34 in an even stronger wave.

1986: Democrats pick up 5 seats in the House; 8 (!) in the Senate in a great Dem year.
1988: Democrats follow up with another 2 in the House and 2 in the Senate.

1994: Republicans pick up 54 House seats in a historic romp.
1996: Republicans give up 9 in the House, but do go +2 in the Senate.

2002: Republicans gain 8 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a rare midterm performance.
2004: Republicans gain 3 more House seats; 4 more in the Senate.

2006: Democrats pick up 31 seats and take full control of the U.S. Congress.
2008: Democrats add another 21 to their House total while gaining 8 seats in the Senate.

While I agree that people are mostly underestimating the chances of further Republican gains in the House, only a few of your examples support this. Senate gains aren't nearly as relevant because of its staggered elections - a party can gain seats despite losing popularity due to a good map.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

10-14 seats, not enough to take back the house.

[Zarn]

It's possible the GOP picks up seats, but I think the number will be small either way.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

There will usually be a rebound after a wave election. Waves sweep in some grossly-unqualified and inept politicians and those who otherwise ill fit their districts. People might vote for the Whole Package of the Other Side as a protest of economic conditions -- once, only to find out afterward what they elected. Many Republicans now hold D+4 districts, and they have much convincing to do before November 2012 if they are to be re-elected.

This is almost always not the case, actually. Wave elections are often followed by either status quo elections or further gains for the "wave" party:

1978: Republicans gain 15 in the House in a "strong GOP year."
1980: Republicans gain another 34 in an even stronger wave.

1986: Democrats pick up 5 seats in the House; 8 (!) in the Senate in a great Dem year.
1988: Democrats follow up with another 2 in the House and 2 in the Senate.

1994: Republicans pick up 54 House seats in a historic romp.
1996: Republicans give up 9 in the House, but do go +2 in the Senate.

2002: Republicans gain 8 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a rare midterm performance.
2004: Republicans gain 3 more House seats; 4 more in the Senate.

2006: Democrats pick up 31 seats and take full control of the U.S. Congress.
2008: Democrats add another 21 to their House total while gaining 8 seats in the Senate.

While I agree that people are mostly underestimating the chances of further Republican gains in the House, only a few of your examples support this. Senate gains aren't nearly as relevant because of its staggered elections - a party can gain seats despite losing popularity due to a good map.

Okay, so only 4 of the 5 elections resulted in follow-up gains in the House. If 2012 is anything like the odd year out -- and you can certainly make a strong argument that it will be -- then the GOP will still be holding the House when all is said and done.

I don't think it's guaranteed either, but if the main reason Obama wins is because the GOP candidate for President is lousy (which may be the case!), there's plenty of reason to believe moderate suburban districts will keep their moderate GOP incumbents.

Overall, I think movement will be slight in the D direction. Republicans just picked up so many seats in 2012 (63, more than they got in 1994) that there will probably be some giveback (as happened in 1994). Redistricting complicates things, of course, but overall ...

[Landslide Lyndon]

there's plenty of reason to believe moderate suburban districts will keep their moderate GOP incumbents.

Like Allen West, Tim Walberg and Joe Walsh?

[Mr.Phips]

There will usually be a rebound after a wave election. Waves sweep in some grossly-unqualified and inept politicians and those who otherwise ill fit their districts. People might vote for the Whole Package of the Other Side as a protest of economic conditions -- once, only to find out afterward what they elected. Many Republicans now hold D+4 districts, and they have much convincing to do before November 2012 if they are to be re-elected.

This is almost always not the case, actually. Wave elections are often followed by either status quo elections or further gains for the "wave" party:

1978: Republicans gain 15 in the House in a "strong GOP year."
1980: Republicans gain another 34 in an even stronger wave.

1986: Democrats pick up 5 seats in the House; 8 (!) in the Senate in a great Dem year.
1988: Democrats follow up with another 2 in the House and 2 in the Senate.

1994: Republicans pick up 54 House seats in a historic romp.
1996: Republicans give up 9 in the House, but do go +2 in the Senate.

2002: Republicans gain 8 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a rare midterm performance.
2004: Republicans gain 3 more House seats; 4 more in the Senate.

2006: Democrats pick up 31 seats and take full control of the U.S. Congress.
2008: Democrats add another 21 to their House total while gaining 8 seats in the Senate.

While I agree that people are mostly underestimating the chances of further Republican gains in the House, only a few of your examples support this. Senate gains aren't nearly as relevant because of its staggered elections - a party can gain seats despite losing popularity due to a good map.

Okay, so only 4 of the 5 elections resulted in follow-up gains in the House. If 2012 is anything like the odd year out -- and you can certainly make a strong argument that it will be -- then the GOP will still be holding the House when all is said and done.

I don't think it's guaranteed either, but if the main reason Obama wins is because the GOP candidate for President is lousy (which may be the case!), there's plenty of reason to believe moderate suburban districts will keep their moderate GOP incumbents.

Incumbent Presidents never win just because their opponent is lousy.  If the economy is bad or is perceived to be bad, "lousy" candidates often win(see Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Bill Clinton in 1992 who was seen as a very weak candidate in Spring 1992).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

there's plenty of reason to believe moderate suburban districts will keep their moderate GOP incumbents.

Like Allen West, Tim Walberg and Joe Walsh?

Well, none of those are moderates, and come 2012, none of the districts they represent will really be "moderate." I already said redistricting complicates things. So no. Not like Allen West, Tim Walberg, and Joe Walsh.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Who are these so-called "moderate" incumbents? The only freshman who didn't vote to abolish Medicare and Social Security is that guy in West Virginia.

[Mr.Phips]

Who are these so-called "moderate" incumbents? The only freshman who didn't vote to abolish Medicare and Social Security is that guy in West Virginia.

I was going to say the same thing. 

[Miles]

Who are these so-called "moderate" incumbents? The only freshman who didn't vote to abolish Medicare and Social Security is that guy in West Virginia.

I was going to say the same thing. 

And even he'll probably lose.

[Lief 🗽]

Who are these so-called "moderate" incumbents? The only freshman who didn't vote to abolish Medicare and Social Security is that guy in West Virginia.

They're vaguely perhaps kind of pro-choice every now and then so OMG MODERATE.

[The Dowager Mod]

24.