Which result would you consider a win or loss for your party?

[MT Treasurer]

For me: I'd say if the GOP loses 15+ seats in the House and/or picks up fewer than 4 Senate seats, that would be a pretty bad result. Also, Heitkamp and McCaskill are by far my least favorite Democratic Senators, so I hope Republicans can beat at least one of them, ugh (though I acknowledge that Stormin' Heidi is heavily favored, unfortunately).

As for the gubernatorial races... I'm fine with the GOP losing in IL, NM, NV and maybe even MI. But anything beyond that would be pretty ugly, especially a loss in FL. I'm also rooting for the Democratic candidate in NH, because Sununu really needs to go.

[Virginiá]

Not taking back the House is ultimately a loss for the Democratic Party, imo. I do not consider the Senate majority in play, and without the House, that means Trump will be be able to coast through an entire term without any meaningful Congressional oversight. I do not believe the Russia scandal is the only thing that will be worth investigating over 4 years of Trump, and without Democrats leading investigations, a lot will probably be swept under the rug.

As for the Senate - I'd still consider the midterm a win for Democrats if they won the House and lost a handful of Senate seats, but somehow losing, say, 5 - 7 would be a punch to the gut, as that likely means a sustained GOP Senate majority until at least 2022-2024.

Lastly, the one mitigating issue on both sides is the state level gains for Democrats. If Democrats gain a ton of Governorships and yet come up a little short in the House, I still consider it a long-term win, as redistricting will be much more favorable in 2021-2022. If Democrats fail to make any substantial gains in Governorships but still take back the House, I'll consider it a short-term win and a long-term loss.

So an unambiguous win to me is a House majority and a relatively substantial number of gubernatorial wins.

[_]

Democrats regain the house and the GOP failing to get to 55 senators would be a loss.

A win would be the GOP restricting losses in the house to below 15, and getting to at least 55 senators, preferably while having all current GOP incumbent Senators holding onto their seats (though Heller is tilt R at best and I can easily see him losing.)

Also a yuuuuuge win in the Gubernatorials would be winning VA this year (NJ is obviously lost), holding all Gubernatorials excluding NH, ME, NV, and NM while taking CO, MN, CT, AK, and RI.

Also if Rauner pulls off reelection I will be ecstatic regardless.

[Kamala]

For my state:
If Democrats can get at least 40% on both the gubernatorial and House At-Large election, that would be a good night. A decent showing on the open row offices (Sec of State, Attorney General, Auditor, and Treasurer), above 40%, would also be a "win".

A loss would be getting below 33% on all of those seats, or below 30% in half of them.

[Technocracy Timmy]

To piggyback on what Virginia said (all of which I agree with): if we don't successfully flip my district (CA-48) I will be very disappointed even if it's not particularly shocking. I hate Dana Rohrabacher. Climate denying Putin puppet.

[Xing]

A win would be taking back the House, and limiting losses in the Senate to two seats or less. A loss would obviously be failing to pick up the House, but for the Senate I'd say a net loss five seats or more, so there's a bit of gray area there.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems netting the House will be a huge win a win 26 Governorships

[Hoosier_Nick]

I pretty much agree with everyone else. For the House, winning it back seems to be the average and if we do better than that, it's a good night. If not, it's probably a poor performance.

For the Senate it's probably a loss of 2 seats.

For gubernatorial elections probably around 5.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I pretty much agree with everyone else. For the House, winning it back seems to be the average and if we do better than that, it's a good night. If not, it's probably a poor performance.

For the Senate it's probably a loss of 2 seats.

For gubernatorial elections probably around 5.

Dems can muster up a tie in the Senate if the House break the Dems way.

As for the Govs Dems will net FL, MI, NM, NV, IL, ME, NH for a net 7 seats

I do see the ground swell of support breaking for the Democratic party due to Trump failing on delivering on his promise, change DC

[Drew]

Look to Wisconsin:  A win for Dems would feature a BaldWin and a Walker loss; a loss would be the reverse.  This state could be a barometer for how the nation is going on Election Night.

More generally, from Dem perspective:

House win:  Dems win chamber.
House loss:  GOP keeps chamber.

Senate win:  Dems break even or gain seats.
Senate loss:  Dems lose seats.

Governor win:  Dems win majority of governorships.
Governor loss:  GOP retains majority of governorships.

These could be lofty goals, but then again Trump has a 34% approval rating.  IMO, if the party doesn't get a majority in a certain chamber/group, it's not really a 'win' for the party at the end of the day.  Though I'll grade the Senate on a curve given the unusually tough situation there.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Wins:
Most importantly, not losing a bunch of governors/state legislatures. Keeping in control of redistributing is more important than the balance of power in Congress at any given time as long as Dems don't get a majority in both legislative houses plus the presidency. In particular, re-electing Gov. Bruce Rauner is important and would easily be the biggest win of any combination in my opinion.

Second most importantly, increasing our hold on the Senate so we can withstand more losses in 2020. Knocking off a "moderate" Democrat or two this year could well be the difference someday between Claire McCaskill casting the 50th vote for universal healthcare or amnesty for all 18 million illegal aliens and Ann Wagner casting the heroic 51st vote to oppose it. I especially would like to see McCaskill gone, of course.

Dems can have the House as far as I'm concerned; I doubt they would hold it long.

[PAK Man]

A win would be holding most of the red state D seats (losing only one or two) and picking up either Nevada or Arizona in the Senate, and picking up between 15-25 seats in the House.

[Figueira]

Morally, winning the House popular vote would be a win.

In reality though, flipping either house of Congress would be a victory for Democrats. Obviously the House is more likely, but if Democrats somehow win the Senate and not the House, that would be good too.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

House win: Keep over 230 seats
House loss: Lose the House

Senate win: Gain a filibuster-proof majority
Senate loss: Lose seats (I don't think it's possible to lose the Senate)

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Nothing big up in the state, but it will be a good night if we make gains anywhere.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

House (loss): gain of fewer than five seats
House (win): regaining control
Senate (loss): 55 GOP seats
Senate (win): no change.
Senate (impossibility): majority leader Schumer
Illinois (loss): governor pritzker
Illinois (mild irritation): governor rauner
Illinois (win): governor biss
State races (loss): increase in control in 1-3 states, split control in 1-3 states which are currently all GOP.
State races (win): increase in control in more than 3 states, split control in more than 3 states which are currently all GOP.

[Pollster]

Senate majority will not be in play unless Trump is below 30% approval, which I doubt happens unless he sends troops into Mexico. Dems breaking even/sustaining 2-3 losses would be a win.

In the House, Dems need to win back the majority for it to be considered a victory, anything less leaves the GOP with the trifecta and will infuriate progressives.

At the state level, I'm paying less attention to governorships and more attention to state legislatures, especially in states where Clinton 2016 outperformed Obama 2012. Regarding governorships, Dems need to take back/hold all of the Clinton states (NM, IL, NV, the New England states challenging but doable) and makes gains in at least one swing/light-red/special circumstance states (MI, WI, FL, GA, KS, I don't think IA or AK are out of the realm of possibility).

[Orser67]

House win: Re-take control
House meh result: Pick up ~15-22 seats. House Republicans would have a very hard time getting anything done with such a small majority.
House loss: anything less than a pickup of 15 seats.

Senate win: Break even
Senate meh result: Lose a couple seats
Senate loss: Lose 4 or more seats

Guv win: Pick up ~8 seats
Guv meh result: Pick up ~4 seats
Guv loss: Anything less than a pickup of a couple seats

For the gubernatorial races, I'm most concerned the effect on 2022 redistricting. So OH, PA, GA, MI, IL, and FL stand out as key races, and a "win" would require winning at least half of those races.

[Beet]

Gaining 200 state legislative seats would be a win. Gaining 400 would be a big win.

As for Congress, gaining two House seats for every Senate seat lost would be a win, given the map.

[Beet]

Gaining 200 state legislative seats would be a win. Gaining 400 would be a big win.

As for Congress, gaining two House seats for every Senate seat lost would be a win, given the map.

No, that would be objectively terrible on all accounts. This is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum. Say Dems lose 10 Senate seats, the ones in Trump states (there's zero chance that happens, but just for the sake of argument). That's still be only 20 House seats. Not worth it at all because the GOP could pass anything they wanted in the Senate and hold the chamber for the next decade for only a small tradeoff of a reduced House majority. A Senate seat is worth about 20x more than a House seat in terms of importance (technically 4.35, but a Senate majority is infinitely more valuable than a House majority.

Yeah but you have to take expectations into account, since the Senate map looks very bad. If you assume a Senate seat is worth 20x more than a House seat (which I don't necessarily disagree with), there's no way Democrats can win in 2018. Might as well pencil in the loss today.

Anyway, that was secondary to my point about state legislative seats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is the anti-GOP incumbant year that Dems were hoping to get in the last several elections, when they should of won the House in 2012.

The Trump administration has ethical issues and you see even in Red states like Alabama and Tennessee Red state incumbant senator Corker losing to Marsha Blackburn