House in play?

[Angel of Death]

Can the knowledgeable people here give their opinion on how realistic this assessment is?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

15/20 seats is range. But a 2012 like scenario will give Dems House. And that's with Dems netting  5-7 senate Seats

[Vega]

Democrats have the chance to pick up the bulk of what they lost in 2014, and a good few California districts, but other than that, I don't think it really is.

[Xing]

In a good year, Democrats could meet or exceed their 2012 numbers. Short of a divine intervention, though, the house will stay Republican.

[President Johnson]

Anything beyond a 15 seat pick up is unreasltic for the Democrats. Sadly.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It isn't flipping. Sorry.

[swf541]

If it was held today isnt flipping, in a normal bad year it wont flip, this year is bizarre so I really doubt it, but with Trump and Cruz as the GOP likely nominees at a convention fight or some other bizarre outcome, I am not so sure

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It isn't flipping. Sorry.

This.  One could argue that the Democrats had a chance to put it in play at one point (although I'm skeptical), but even if they did, they blew it by waiting so long to try to recruit credible candidates in Republican-leaning districts.  I'm glad they've found credible candidates in WI-8, CO-3, and AK's CD in the span of a week, but you don't take back the House by throwing away opportunities in seats like VA-2, NV-3, NJ-3, IL-13, CA-21, OH-14, etc.  And that's not even getting into the failure to expand the playing field by trying to recruit credible candidates in seats like OH-6, PA-6, NJ-2, NC-13, FL-6, IL-12, KS-3, WI-7, VA-10, etc.

[windjammer]

It isn't flipping. Sorry.

This.  One could argue that the Democrats had a chance to put it in play at one point (although I'm skeptical), but even if they did, they blew it by waiting so long to try to recruit credible candidates in Republican-leaning districts.  I'm glad they've found credible candidates in WI-8, CO-3, and AK's CD in the span of a week, but you don't take back the House by throwing away opportunities in seats like VA-2, NV-3, NJ-3, IL-13, CA-21, OH-14, etc.  And that's not even getting into the failure to expand the playing field by trying to recruit credible candidates in seats like OH-6, PA-6, NJ-2, NC-13, FL-6, IL-12, KS-3, WI-7, VA-10, etc.

I think you're both really pessimistic.

I don't think the DNC's recruitment has been so awful, of course it could have been better but still.

Of course this chamber isn't going to flip anytime, unless a wave happens.

[The Mikado]

Dems would need a thirty seat pickup. It's really not that hard to plot a 15 seat pickup, and a 20 seat pickup is doable in a massive Democratic year, but you're going to hit a brick wall around 210-212 Democrats. The road from 210 to 218 becomes VERY hard.

[smoltchanov]

In a good year, Democrats could meet or exceed their 2012 numbers. Short of a divine intervention, though, the house will stay Republican.

+100. Exactly my opinion too. Voting in most of the US became too polarized: even conservative Democrat can't win now in almost all conservative districts and vice versa. A sort of irony - when i look at many state legislators and congressmen of 40-50 years ago (when i was almost a child, but - with interest for politics) situation was VERY different; for example Florida's "pork chop" Democrats were, generally, MUCH more conservative then almost all Florida Republicans of these days. And in the North-East (and, in fact - in other areas too) there was a substantial number of progressive Republicans, who, frequently, were more progressive then their Democratic counterparts. Now districts outside of relatively narrow (somewhere between (R+6)  (Collin Peterson) and D+8 (Bob Dold)) interval are unwinnable for "other party", and this greatly reduces the number of seats "in play" even in wave years.. And, rather frequently, a candidates are a poor match for districts: even in conservative districts Democrats insist on running "progressives", and even in liberal ones Republican manage to nominate right-wingers, what reduces chances of "unexpected success" even more...

[Kingpoleon]

Fortunately, no. Gridlock is good to the extent that it limits one party from dominating the system.

[BuckeyeNut]

In a good year, Democrats could meet or exceed their 2012 numbers. Short of a divine intervention, though, the house will stay Republican.

+100. Exactly my opinion too. Voting in most of the US became too polarized: even conservative Democrat can't win now in almost all conservative districts and vice versa. A sort of irony - when i look at many state legislators and congressmen of 40-50 years ago (when i was almost a child, but - with interest for politics) situation was VERY different; for example Florida's "pork chop" Democrats were, generally, MUCH more conservative then almost all Florida Republicans of these days. And in the North-East (and, in fact - in other areas too) there was a substantial number of progressive Republicans, who, frequently, were more progressive then their Democratic counterparts. Now districts outside of relatively narrow (somewhere between (R+6)  (Collin Peterson) and D+8 (Bob Dold)) interval are unwinnable for "other party", and this greatly reduces the number of seats "in play" even in wave years.. And, rather frequently, a candidates are a poor match for districts: even in conservative districts Democrats insist on running "progressives", and even in liberal ones Republican manage to nominate right-wingers, what reduces chances of "unexpected success" even more...

I'd like to find numbers on this, but I can't help but think that, historically, House seats had less partisan Cook scores.