Predict the House Makeup After 2016

[ClimateDem]

200D - 235R

[NewYorkExpress]

233R-202D

[Nyvin]

229 R - 206 D

[andrew_c]

231 R - 204 D

[Torie]

All these red avatars are putting their hopes somewhat ahead of reality. The over under number for the Pubs is around 240 in my view. There just isn't really much on the table.

[OSR stands with Israel]

200D - 235R

248 R 187 D

[ElectionsGuy]

Republicans will lose anywhere from 5 to 15 seats. So something like 237-198 with a error margin of 5.

[Maxwell]

Overall, I think Republicans lose 6-8 seats. Hovering around 240 seats.

[Xing]

232R - 203D

[aktheden]

170D 265R

[publicunofficial]

Somewhere around 201 D - 234 R.

[smoltchanov]

Republicans will lose anywhere from 5 to 15 seats. So something like 237-198 with a error margin of 5.

Agree

[Hydera]

236 R - 199 D

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

200D - 235R

Exactly!!!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

244 R, 191 D

Senate: 54 R, 46 D

Electoral College: 289 R, 249 D

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

238R 197D

[Mr. Illini]

170D 265R

lol

[Nyvin]

170D 265R

Well that's being imaginative

[Vosem]

243R-192D in the House (6 Democratic gains balancing out FL-18 and NE-2, to be specific), 52R-48D in the Senate (FL, IL, and WI being balanced out by NV) are my approximations for a neutral environment; I think that's the over/under for both parties.

[Gass3268]

Democrats will get to around 200.

[Miles]

241R 194D

I'm a bit on the pessimistic side for a Democrat, ATM.

[Torie]

241R 194D

I'm a bit on the pessimistic side for a Democrat, ATM.

That's exactly my over-under number.

[freepcrusher]

the democrats need to throw everything they've got at the HOR. I had always thought the 230-odd seats the republicans held after 1994 should be a highwater mark. There's no reason the dems shouldn't be holding as many seats as they did after 1994.

I'm starting to think that the DCCC is turning into the way the RNCC was under Guy Vanderjagt.

[Mr.Phips]

the democrats need to throw everything they've got at the HOR. I had always thought the 230-odd seats the republicans held after 1994 should be a highwater mark. There's no reason the dems shouldn't be holding as many seats as they did after 1994.

I'm starting to think that the DCCC is turning into the way the RNCC was under Guy Vanderjagt.

Yeah.  Just seeing what happened in NY-11 confirms that thinking.  You don't leave a seat that your party won in the last Presidential election basically uncontested. 

If Dems can't win some key governorships in 2018 and force fair maps in PA, MI, WI, VA, and OH in 2021, next decade will be just like this one for Dems in the House.

This all goes back to the DNC's decision under Obama in 2009 to abandon focus on the grassroots level and simply turn the organization into an Obama reelection organization.  This led to Democrats not having any support at the grassroots level and they lost many state legislative chambers that they should have been able to hold even in 2010.

It seems like a lot of Dems in Washington are OK being a White House only party like the Republicans were from 1968-1992.  It seems to suit them.just fine.

[free my dawg]

the democrats need to throw everything they've got at the HOR. I had always thought the 230-odd seats the republicans held after 1994 should be a highwater mark. There's no reason the dems shouldn't be holding as many seats as they did after 1994.

I'm starting to think that the DCCC is turning into the way the RNCC was under Guy Vanderjagt.

Yeah.  Just seeing what happened in NY-11 confirms that thinking.  You don't leave a seat that your party won in the last Presidential election basically uncontested. 

If Dems can't win some key governorships in 2018 and force fair maps in PA, MI, WI, VA, and OH in 2021, next decade will be just like this one for Dems in the House.

This all goes back to the DNC's decision under Obama in 2009 to abandon focus on the grassroots level and simply turn the organization into an Obama reelection organization.  This led to Democrats not having any support at the grassroots level and they lost many state legislative chambers that they should have been able to hold even in 2010.

It seems like a lot of Dems in Washington are OK being a White House only party like the Republicans were from 1968-1992.  It seems to suit them.just fine.

Except they literally did leave a seat they won uncontested in Florida.