Will Democrats gain 25 seats gross in the House?

[Mr.Phips]

I had been warning Democrats since the day Obama was elected how seriously they needed to take the 2010 midterms due to the fact that it was a redistricting election.  They stupidly ignored me and now they will likely be locked out of the House and most state legislatures for a generation. 

[Mr.Phips]

Maybe they net 12-15. Tops.

This is my prediction.

I used to think 25 was possible, but redistricting was a cruel mistress

Pretty much. The MD and IL gerrymanders don't come remotely close to making up for the gerrymanders in GA, FL, TX, OH, PA, VA, and MI. And somehow NC ended up with a Republican gerrymander despite a Democratic governor. Meanwhile, blue states like CA, NY, and NJ had independent congressional redistricting.

I agree with these statements. While Ohio might get new maps via an independent redistricting initiative, the redistricting cycle as a whole has locked in many of the 2010 results. I don't think Democrats will net enough seats to take the House in 2012/2014 or even 2016.

They may fare better in the next redistricting cycle (2020) because it will take place after a presidential election as opposed to a midterm so turnout will be higher. Winning the governorships (PA, FL, etc) between 2018 and 2020 will be important if they want to undo existing R-gerrymanders/avoid new ones.

Democrats winning the Texas governorship in 2018 would really be interesting. They could probably net at least 6 seats in Texas with a neutralish map and new seats (another 4?) from the state's population gain between now and 2020.

Democrats need to start planning now to make 2018 a big Dem year.  They need to win governorships in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Texas in order to block and break apart current GOP gerrymanders. 

[Mr.Phips]

Depending on how bad Romney fails, the Dems could even face net loss from being boned in redistricting in several states. I think it'll be like D+3 or 4 myself but I do no see any scenario short of Obama winning in a decent landslide where they pick up a large amount of House seats.

If Democrats have a net loss in both the House and Senate, it will have been the first time in history that a President was reelected while his party lost seats in both Houses. 

[Mr.Phips]

Depending on how bad Romney fails, the Dems could even face net loss from being boned in redistricting in several states. I think it'll be like D+3 or 4 myself but I do no see any scenario short of Obama winning in a decent landslide where they pick up a large amount of House seats.

If Democrats have a net loss in both the House and Senate, it will have been the first time in history that a President was reelected while his party lost seats in both Houses. 

Not so. Republicans gained seats in both houses in 1916 while Woodrow Wilson won reelection.

96 years is still an awful long time. 

[Mr.Phips]

Depending on how bad Romney fails, the Dems could even face net loss from being boned in redistricting in several states. I think it'll be like D+3 or 4 myself but I do no see any scenario short of Obama winning in a decent landslide where they pick up a large amount of House seats.

If Democrats have a net loss in both the House and Senate, it will have been the first time in history that a President was reelected while his party lost seats in both Houses.  

Of course if Romney wins and the GOP gains seats in the Senate but loses seats in the House then it will just be another typical election.

That's what happened in 1992.