What will Paul Ryan do if the Democrats take control of the House in 2018?

[UWS]

What will Paul Ryan do if the Democrats take control of the House in 2018?

[Rjjr77]

What will Paul Ryan do if the Democrats take control of the House in 2018?

Wake up from a bad dream.

In all honesty I think the house is just out of reach in '18 for the dems, but '20 will be their shot

[MAINEiac4434]

He'll probably lose his seat (which iirc is only like R+5) if the Democrats wave enough to get the House back.

[Roronoa D. Law]

What will Paul Ryan do if the Democrats take control of the House in 2018?

Wake up from a bad dream.

In all honesty I think the house is just out of reach in '18 for the dems, but '20 will be their shot

How is the House out of reach when Republicans needed 39 in 2010 to receive majority in the house the Democrats only need 24. There is path and right now is not the time to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

[Rjjr77]

What will Paul Ryan do if the Democrats take control of the House in 2018?

Wake up from a bad dream.

In all honesty I think the house is just out of reach in '18 for the dems, but '20 will be their shot

How is the House out of reach when Republicans needed 39 in 2010 to receive majority in the house the Democrats only need 24. There is path and right now is not the time to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

I don't consider 2010 a wave, it was a readjustment from the 2006 and 2008 elections that were waves, I don't think there are 24 winnable seats right now, I think the dems will grab about 9-15 this cycle, making the house a really close place until whomever wins president in 2020 keeps it in their party's hands

[Mr. Morden]

He'll probably lose his seat (which iirc is only like R+5) if the Democrats wave enough to get the House back.

Ryan won reelection by 35 points this past November.  There are many many more than 24 seats that would fall before Ryan's seat did.

[MasterJedi]

He'll probably lose his seat (which iirc is only like R+5) if the Democrats wave enough to get the House back.

He's very popular in his district, I don't think he can lose, even in a wave year.

[DrScholl]

Refuse to give up power. No way would he allow Democrats to take over and he'd have Trump to back him.

[Hindsight was 2020]

What will Paul Ryan do if the Democrats take control of the House in 2018?

Wake up from a bad dream.

In all honesty I think the house is just out of reach in '18 for the dems, but '20 will be their shot

How is the House out of reach when Republicans needed 39 in 2010 to receive majority in the house the Democrats only need 24. There is path and right now is not the time to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

I don't consider 2010 a wave, it was a readjustment from the 2006 and 2008 elections that were waves, I don't think there are 24 winnable seats right now, I think the dems will grab about 9-15 this cycle, making the house a really close place until whomever wins president in 2020 keeps it in their party's hands

I disagree I think there are suburban areas in places Virginia, Colorado, an California that are ready to shift like 2010 was for rural southern areas

[progressive85]

If you go back and look at pre-2006, you'll see all sorts of people sayin that the Democrats couldn't do it.  They were just too entrenched of a majority and folks like Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand were never going to get elected. 

The polls can even show the Republican incumbents in a solid position for re-election, until about October or so when something happens, like a Mark Foley scandal, when the media cycles are really bad and the Democrats that were never even on the radar are suddenly looking like upsets.

Sure, there's going to be a lot of 2018 Dems who aren't going to make it.  Trump voters will prop up the Republicans in the lean-conservative districts... but it's a midterm and anything can happen.

If a year from now in March 2018, Trump has pissed off even more people than he already has, I'd expect to see some major Republican retirements.  Some of these people are going to say, "I've gotten my pension and now I'm getting out of here."

[Hindsight was 2020]

If you go back and look at pre-2006, you'll see all sorts of people sayin that the Democrats couldn't do it.  They were just too entrenched of a majority and folks like Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand were never going to get elected. 

The polls can even show the Republican incumbents in a solid position for re-election, until about October or so when something happens, like a Mark Foley scandal, when the media cycles are really bad and the Democrats that were never even on the radar are suddenly looking like upsets.

Sure, there's going to be a lot of 2018 Dems who aren't going to make it.  Trump voters will prop up the Republicans in the lean-conservative districts... but it's a midterm and anything can happen.

If a year from now in March 2018, Trump has pissed off even more people than he already has, I'd expect to see some major Republican retirements.  Some of these people are going to say, "I've gotten my pension and now I'm getting out of here."

^ This

[Kingpoleon]

Retires. Cathy McMorris Rodgers beats Scalise for it by eleven votes, with Louie Gohmert taking eight votes.

[Virginiá]

I don't consider 2010 a wave, it was a readjustment from the 2006 and 2008 elections that were waves, I don't think there are 24 winnable seats right now, I think the dems will grab about 9-15 this cycle, making the house a really close place until whomever wins president in 2020 keeps it in their party's hands

By usual House standards, a 6.8% PV win is pretty much a wave. However, this does kind of pose an interesting question to me. The last time we had a close margin in the House PV during a midterm was 1998, but in terms of the number of house seats gained, 2002 does not really count. I'm more inclined to believe 2010 was a small wave for Republicans in terms of the House PV, but had a huge turnover in seats because of how overextended Democrats were. Given the PV and huge seat change, that surely qualifies as a wave.

I'd like to believe that the House PV would be best for determining this. For instance, in 1990, Democrats won the House PV by 7.8% - surely wave PV numbers, but because they already had 260 House seats, they only gained 7. Seat change number would suggest not a wave, but the large House PV win does. Their 1988 House PV margin was even bigger (and '86's was bigger than 88!). Could it not be the case that they actually had 3 waves in a row, but because they already basically maxed out their plausible seat pickups from the first one, the 2nd/3rd wave(s) only sustained the first wave's seats (and a little bit extra?).

Anyway, point is, there are more factors to consider.

[Anna Komnene]

Regrow his beard?

[Roronoa D. Law]

If you go back and look at pre-2006, you'll see all sorts of people sayin that the Democrats couldn't do it.  They were just too entrenched of a majority and folks like Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand were never going to get elected. 

The polls can even show the Republican incumbents in a solid position for re-election, until about October or so when something happens, like a Mark Foley scandal, when the media cycles are really bad and the Democrats that were never even on the radar are suddenly looking like upsets.

Sure, there's going to be a lot of 2018 Dems who aren't going to make it.  Trump voters will prop up the Republicans in the lean-conservative districts... but it's a midterm and anything can happen.

If a year from now in March 2018, Trump has pissed off even more people than he already has, I'd expect to see some major Republican retirements.  Some of these people are going to say, "I've gotten my pension and now I'm getting out of here."

Your right. Plus the WaPo Sessions article timing is questionable. We don't know what maybe released in 2018. Plus being entrenched in a district means nothing it is possible Ros-Lehtinen could become the Gene Taylor of 2018. Both their district went 20 points for opposing party 2 years prior and both were elected in 1989.

[Rjjr77]

I don't consider 2010 a wave, it was a readjustment from the 2006 and 2008 elections that were waves, I don't think there are 24 winnable seats right now, I think the dems will grab about 9-15 this cycle, making the house a really close place until whomever wins president in 2020 keeps it in their party's hands

By usual House standards, a 6.8% PV win is pretty much a wave. However, this does kind of pose an interesting question to me. The last time we had a close margin in the House PV during a midterm was 1998, but in terms of the number of house seats gained, 2002 does not really count. I'm more inclined to believe 2010 was a small wave for Republicans in terms of the House PV, but had a huge turnover in seats because of how overextended Democrats were. Given the PV and huge seat change, that surely qualifies as a wave.

I'd like to believe that the House PV would be best for determining this. For instance, in 1990, Democrats won the House PV by 7.8% - surely wave PV numbers, but because they already had 260 House seats, they only gained 7. Seat change number would suggest not a wave, but the large House PV win does. Their 1988 House PV margin was even bigger (and '86's was bigger than 88!). Could it not be the case that they actually had 3 waves in a row, but because they already basically maxed out their plausible seat pickups from the first one, the 2nd/3rd wave(s) only sustained the first wave's seats (and a little bit extra?).

Anyway, point is, there are more factors to consider.

I have a hard time taking house PV as the gospel, too many factors. The metric that would be best used would be contested house PV, excluding uncontested and write in races.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Retires. Cathy McMorris Rodgers beats Scalise for it by eleven votes, with Louie Gohmert taking eight votes.

[Lief 🗽]

Hopefully retire, but I'm sure he'll find a position in the private sector where he'll be able to continue to pursue his dream of slaughtering poor people.

[Chief Justice Keef]

He'll probably lose his seat (which iirc is only like R+5) if the Democrats wave enough to get the House back.

It's a district Obama won narrowly in 2008, so it's possible in a Dem wave year.

[Rjjr77]

He'll probably lose his seat (which iirc is only like R+5) if the Democrats wave enough to get the House back.

It's a district Obama won narrowly in 2008, so it's possible in a Dem wave year.

It was redistricting safer for Ryan after 2010.

[Kingpoleon]

Retires. Cathy McMorris Rodgers beats Scalise for it by eleven votes, with Louie Gohmert taking eight votes.

Daniel Webster would get twelve votes.*
*To be clear, I'm mocking Wulfric's 2020 predictions where he said things like "Donald Trump 59% Elizabeth Warren 39%" in a non sarcastic manner

[Skill and Chance]

He'll be just thrilled when he still gets a prime seat for Trump's "the era of small government is over" SOTU speech.

[Skill and Chance]

He'll probably lose his seat (which iirc is only like R+5) if the Democrats wave enough to get the House back.

Ryan won reelection by 35 points this past November.  There are many many more than 24 seats that would fall before Ryan's seat did.

Seriously, if Ryan actually loses, this is another 1874 and Democrats have flipped 80-100 seats.