Potentially 120 vulnerable GOP-held House seats

[cp]

Just imagine a party loses 100 seats in a midterm election. Not saying it is very likely to happen, but the reactions would be interesting.

The Democrats won 97 seats in 1930 and then lost 72 seats in 1938.

Yeah, and everybody is talking about 1994. But take a look at 1894: Democrats lost 127 (!) seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894

And they wouldn't again control either house of Congress until 1911. Now that's an election loss.

What irony it would be if the GOP suffers the kind of apocalypse that they were boasting they could inflict on the Democrats 8 years earlier.

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/04/boehner-100-seats-in-play-for-gop-036605

[Tintrlvr]

Just imagine a party loses 100 seats in a midterm election. Not saying it is very likely to happen, but the reactions would be interesting.

The Democrats won 97 seats in 1930 and then lost 72 seats in 1938.

Yeah, and everybody is talking about 1994. But take a look at 1894: Democrats lost 127 (!) seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894

And they wouldn't again control either house of Congress until 1911. Now that's an election loss.

Regional polarization is really striking in that election. Afterwards, the Democrats just two seats in the  Midwest (both in Ohio) and just one seat in New England (in Massachusetts) but held all of the seats in many states in the South.

[here2view]

If Democrats win the majority of these seats I'd be ecstatic. I think right now I'd say they have a net gain of 35.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I doubt that Democrats will win more than 35 districts, but these should absolutely all be contested!

[Orser67]

Just imagine a party loses 100 seats in a midterm election. Not saying it is very likely to happen, but the reactions would be interesting.

The Democrats won 97 seats in 1930 and then lost 72 seats in 1938.

Yeah, and everybody is talking about 1994. But take a look at 1894: Democrats lost 127 (!) seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894

And they wouldn't again control either house of Congress until 1911. Now that's an election loss.

Regional polarization is really striking in that election. Afterwards, the Democrats just two seats in the  Midwest (both in Ohio) and just one seat in New England (in Massachusetts) but held all of the seats in many states in the South.

Yeah it's crazy just how regionally polarized the parties were between the end of Reconstruction and the start of the Great Depression.

I don't think we'll see quite that level of polarization ever again, but House Republicans will probably lose a lot of seats in the Northeast and the West Coast.

[Adam Griffin]

The Three Individual Metrics:

D '16 > R '14 = Districts where 2016 Democratic vote exceeded 2014 Republican vote (raw #s). Areas that would be vulnerable with a 25-point spread in turnout between Dem/GOP as a share of the previous presidential election ('06 wave was 17-18 point spread in this regard).

Just wanted to point this out: the average spread across the 6 congressional elections where comparisons can be made (KS-4, MT-AL, GA-6, SC-5, UT-3 & PA-18) relative to 2016 is 17 points (Dems @ 72% of '16 turnout; GOP @ 55%).

The spread relative to 2014 is even greater, at 36 points (110% for Dems and 74% for GOP).

[Devout Centrist]

The Three Individual Metrics:

D '16 > R '14 = Districts where 2016 Democratic vote exceeded 2014 Republican vote (raw #s). Areas that would be vulnerable with a 25-point spread in turnout between Dem/GOP as a share of the previous presidential election ('06 wave was 17-18 point spread in this regard).

Just wanted to point this out: the average spread across the 6 congressional elections where comparisons can be made (KS-4, MT-AL, GA-6, SC-5, UT-3 & PA-18) relative to 2016 is 17 points (Dems @ 72% of '16 turnout; GOP @ 55%).

The spread relative to 2014 is even greater, at 36 points (110% for Dems and 74% for GOP).

This point is important. Much of the Republican gains from 2014 are still intact; I think we could see many more Republican incumbents lose than most pundits currently think.

Do we have any data on the turnout differential going back to 2010?

[Adam Griffin]

The Three Individual Metrics:

D '16 > R '14 = Districts where 2016 Democratic vote exceeded 2014 Republican vote (raw #s). Areas that would be vulnerable with a 25-point spread in turnout between Dem/GOP as a share of the previous presidential election ('06 wave was 17-18 point spread in this regard).

Just wanted to point this out: the average spread across the 6 congressional elections where comparisons can be made (KS-4, MT-AL, GA-6, SC-5, UT-3 & PA-18) relative to 2016 is 17 points (Dems @ 72% of '16 turnout; GOP @ 55%).

The spread relative to 2014 is even greater, at 36 points (110% for Dems and 74% for GOP).

This point is important. Much of the Republican gains from 2014 are still intact; I think we could see many more Republican incumbents lose than most pundits currently think.

Do we have any data on the turnout differential going back to 2010?

I have posted those figures going back to the 1990s I believe on the forum somewhere, but both 2010 and 2014 were approximately along the lines of GOP @ 70-72% and Dems @ 58-60% of 2008 and 2012, respectively. In 2006, Dems were around 73% and GOP was around 55% of 2004's totals.

[Devout Centrist]

The Three Individual Metrics:

D '16 > R '14 = Districts where 2016 Democratic vote exceeded 2014 Republican vote (raw #s). Areas that would be vulnerable with a 25-point spread in turnout between Dem/GOP as a share of the previous presidential election ('06 wave was 17-18 point spread in this regard).

Just wanted to point this out: the average spread across the 6 congressional elections where comparisons can be made (KS-4, MT-AL, GA-6, SC-5, UT-3 & PA-18) relative to 2016 is 17 points (Dems @ 72% of '16 turnout; GOP @ 55%).

The spread relative to 2014 is even greater, at 36 points (110% for Dems and 74% for GOP).

This point is important. Much of the Republican gains from 2014 are still intact; I think we could see many more Republican incumbents lose than most pundits currently think.

Do we have any data on the turnout differential going back to 2010?

I have posted those figures going back to the 1990s I believe on the forum somewhere, but both 2010 and 2014 were approximately along the lines of GOP @ 70-72% and Dems @ 58-60% of 2008 and 2012, respectively. In 2006, Dems were around 73% and GOP was around 55% of 2004's totals.

Oh thank you that’s really helpful

[Adam Griffin]

Oh thank you that’s really helpful

Here we go:

In raw numbers/as a comparison, what percentage of Clinton/Trump's 2016 vote will show up to vote in 2018 for their respective parties? The past three midterm elections have been:

2014: 56.72% of 2012 D, 69.67% of 2012 R
2010: 56.08% of 2008 D, 74.77% of 2008 R
2006: 71.72% of 2004 D, 57.79% of 2004 R

2006 is the only election in the modern era where Dem share outpaced GOP share compared to the previous presidential election - depending on how you look at 1988/1990, it could be argued that the last "normal" election (i.e. not a blow-out) before that where Dems > GOP in this regard was 1978.

For reference, here are the percentages from 1962-2014 (obvious outliers are obvious, for obvious reasons):



Right now, I'm banking on Dems breaking 70% and the GOP being around 60%.

[Adam Griffin]

Also looks like I mistakenly referenced 2010's spread in OP for the 2006 spread; in '06 it was a mere 14-point spread.

[Adam Griffin]

Old news I suppose, but DCCC has increased its target list from 90 to 101 seats in 2018.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/dccc-expands-targets-2018

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mike Thick]

This is a very dorky thing to say, but this whole situation matches KingSweden's descriptions of the 2026 midterms in EOTNM to a T

[Doimper]

Nice bump. I was thinking of this post as all the "LOOK AT THE 119 DISTRICTS THAT ARE MORE COMPETITVE THAN PA-18" maps were circulating around Twitter.

[KingSweden]

This is a very dorky thing to say, but this whole situation matches KingSweden's descriptions of the 2026 midterms in EOTNM to a T

I’d kill for a President Sandoval right now, though

[Mike Thick]

This is a very dorky thing to say, but this whole situation matches KingSweden's descriptions of the 2026 midterms in EOTNM to a T

I’d kill for a President Sandoval right now, though

Or a Governor Seth Moulton tbh

[Adam Griffin]

Just thought I'd point out that 270toWin's House map now has exactly 100 House seats ranked as anything other than safe: only 2 are currently held by Democrats (MN-1 & MN-8).

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ It's worth noting that of the three hyped-up special elections (KS-4, MT-AL & GA-6), two of those three (MT & KS) didn't even meet one of the three criteria to be included in the 120, and GA-06 only checks the box for two of them.

Weeew boys PA-18 wasn't even one of these 120

And neither was AZ-8

[KingSweden]

Just thought I'd point out that 270toWin's House map now has exactly 100 House seats ranked as anything other than safe: only 2 are currently held by Democrats (MN-1 & MN-8).

All credit to you - this post last year was very prescient

[Xing]

Very nice work with the maps. Obviously Democrats aren't going to win all of these districts, but if they target a great number, at least of couple of seats thought to be safe for Republicans could end up flipping.

I was curious, is Trump's approval rating under 50% (not necessarily negative, just under 50%) in any of the dark blue districts? If not, in which one(s) is his approval rating the lowest?

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ It's worth noting that of the three hyped-up special elections (KS-4, MT-AL & GA-6), two of those three (MT & KS) didn't even meet one of the three criteria to be included in the 120, and GA-06 only checks the box for two of them.

Weeew boys PA-18 wasn't even one of these 120

And neither was AZ-8

FTR, OH-12 met 2 of the 3 criteria