Predict the number of House seats Dems will pick up in 2018 (May 2017 edition)

[mvd10]

I'll go for 15. The house is gerrymandered enough for Republicans to retain their majority even though the Democrats comfortably win the popular vote.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

And the Democrats now have an 8 point lead on the generic ballot.

[MATTROSE94]

I voted 30-40, which is roughly in line with the average mid-term since 1990 in which the president's party controlled the House (so 2010, 2006, 2002, and 1994). I think Trump's unpopularity will really hurt Republicans, but gerrymandering/clustering and increased polarization will limit Republican losses.

Edit:

But I could also see ~60 seats (like in 2010) if things just keep getting worse for Trump and the Republican Congress, or ~10 seats if Trump settles into 40% approval ratings and Republicans retain control of their base. But imo the latter scenario would be an historical anomaly.

I also agree that the Democrats have a 50-50  chance at regaining the House  in 2018 if they play their cards right. It is also possible that the Democrats will end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and end up losing the House barely as well. 

[JGibson]

As of now, I'd say the Dems get a narrow House majority for the 116th Congress.

[GlobeSoc]

~20 seats

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

30-35 seats (voted 30-40)

[Beet]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

[The Other Castro]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

There are like 4-5 competitive seats in California alone.

[Nyvin]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this...

[Beet]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this...

Simple. The Democrats currently have an 8% lead in the generic ballot. Let's be conservative and cut that to 4%. The Republicans won the House popular vote by 1% in 2016. So if the Democrats won it by 4% in 2018, that's a 5% swing.

A list of House battlegrounds is found here:
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2016

The ones won by Republicans by less than 5% are CA-49, MN-02, NE-02, and TX-23. That's four. Not that I think those will be the four, but it's a general rough proxy for what can be expected.

[Nyvin]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this...

Simple. The Democrats currently have an 8% lead in the generic ballot. Let's be conservative and cut that to 4%. The Republicans won the House popular vote by 1% in 2016. So if the Democrats won it by 4% in 2018, that's a 5% swing.

A list of House battlegrounds is found here:
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2016

The ones won by Republicans by less than 5% are CA-49, MN-02, NE-02, and TX-23. That's four. Not that I think those will be the four, but it's a general rough proxy for what can be expected.

lol,  that's....entertaining.

So explain to me how they won 6 seats while the Republicans won the popular vote by 1% last year.

[Beet]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this...

Simple. The Democrats currently have an 8% lead in the generic ballot. Let's be conservative and cut that to 4%. The Republicans won the House popular vote by 1% in 2016. So if the Democrats won it by 4% in 2018, that's a 5% swing.

A list of House battlegrounds is found here:
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2016

The ones won by Republicans by less than 5% are CA-49, MN-02, NE-02, and TX-23. That's four. Not that I think those will be the four, but it's a general rough proxy for what can be expected.

lol,  that's....entertaining.

So explain to me how they won 6 seats while the Republicans won the popular vote by 1% last year.

Because there was actually a 5% swing in their favor from 2014, when the Republicans won the popular vote by 6%.

I just noticed on the NY Times website that CA-10 was also within 5%, so I up my prediction to 5-6 seats.

[_]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this...

Simple. The Democrats currently have an 8% lead in the generic ballot. Let's be conservative and cut that to 4%. The Republicans won the House popular vote by 1% in 2016. So if the Democrats won it by 4% in 2018, that's a 5% swing.

A list of House battlegrounds is found here:
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2016

The ones won by Republicans by less than 5% are CA-49, MN-02, NE-02, and TX-23. That's four. Not that I think those will be the four, but it's a general rough proxy for what can be expected.

lol,  that's....entertaining.

So explain to me how they won 6 seats while the Republicans won the popular vote by 1% last year.

Because there was actually a 5% swing in their favor from 2014, when the Republicans won the popular vote by 6%.

I just noticed on the NY Times website that CA-10 was also within 5%, so I up my prediction to 5-6 seats.

Its doubtful there'd be a uniform swing nationally though...

[Beet]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

I'd love to hear an explanation for this...

Simple. The Democrats currently have an 8% lead in the generic ballot. Let's be conservative and cut that to 4%. The Republicans won the House popular vote by 1% in 2016. So if the Democrats won it by 4% in 2018, that's a 5% swing.

A list of House battlegrounds is found here:
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2016

The ones won by Republicans by less than 5% are CA-49, MN-02, NE-02, and TX-23. That's four. Not that I think those will be the four, but it's a general rough proxy for what can be expected.

lol,  that's....entertaining.

So explain to me how they won 6 seats while the Republicans won the popular vote by 1% last year.

Because there was actually a 5% swing in their favor from 2014, when the Republicans won the popular vote by 6%.

I just noticed on the NY Times website that CA-10 was also within 5%, so I up my prediction to 5-6 seats.

Its doubtful there'd be a uniform swing nationally though...

No, but who says the swing will be distributed in such a way as to guarantee maximum seat change? Take this year's special elections. The biggest swing was in Kansas, which mean Ron Estes had a narrow, but still decisive, win. One of the few negative swings was in a Virginia state legislative race where even a tiny D swing would have caused a pickup. So there's no guarantee that close seats will have a bigger swing.

[McGovernForPrez]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

Lol, why are you the worst poster here. I could name 15 competitive seats off the top of my head.

[Beet]

Given how few competitive House seats there are, 4 or 5 seats.

Lol, why are you the worst poster here. I could name 15 competitive seats off the top of my head.

Ironically, if we had proportional representation, a 4% popular vote victory would be a pickup of 32 seats. It's those rural voters you fetishize that make it more likely to be 5-6. They just aren't as Democratic as you think they are or would like them to be.

[Virginiá]

There isn't much point in arguing the fine details. No one knows what will happen, not even our prophet Beet.

We'll all probably be wrong, but some more than others. All I can say is I wouldn't want to be the one placing a bet on just low-mid single digit gains for Democrats. At least based on what is going on right now and how the environment for 2018 is shaping up.

[Badger]

I will revise my prediction down to 20 for now. But I could see it as few as 6 seats or as much as 42. The large range is due to so much uncertainly in recruitment, polarization and how partisan people have become compared to 2006.

It is not even out of question it will be a President Pence.

This. I voted 10-25. I suspect that due to gerrymandering the Democrats will fall short.

BTW to the OP, can you make the voting choices just a tad closer together? "10-25"? That's a massive difference between "Democrats disappointed by limited gains, flip less than a dozen seats", and "Democrats re-take the House! What next for the Trump (or Pence) White House?". It doesn't even force one to answer the penultimate question of who'll be in charge come 2019.  (rant off).

[Orser67]

I will revise my prediction down to 20 for now. But I could see it as few as 6 seats or as much as 42. The large range is due to so much uncertainly in recruitment, polarization and how partisan people have become compared to 2006.

It is not even out of question it will be a President Pence.

This. I voted 10-25. I suspect that due to gerrymandering the Democrats will fall short.

BTW to the OP, can you make the voting choices just a tad closer together? "10-25"? That's a massive difference between "Democrats disappointed by limited gains, flip less than a dozen seats", and "Democrats re-take the House! What next for the Trump (or Pence) White House?". It doesn't even force one to answer the penultimate question of who'll be in charge come 2019.  (rant off).

Yeah I should have done like 10-18, 19-23, and 24-30.

Though I'm somewhat worried that people are starting with the notion that Democrats will (or won't) win a majority and then are working back from there, which isn't how Congressional elections work.

[SWE]

They lose seats (defeatist).

What seats are left to lose?

[windjammer]

I will revise my prediction down to 20 for now. But I could see it as few as 6 seats or as much as 42. The large range is due to so much uncertainly in recruitment, polarization and how partisan people have become compared to 2006.

It is not even out of question it will be a President Pence.

This. I voted 10-25. I suspect that due to gerrymandering the Democrats will fall short.

BTW to the OP, can you make the voting choices just a tad closer together? "10-25"? That's a massive difference between "Democrats disappointed by limited gains, flip less than a dozen seats", and "Democrats re-take the House! What next for the Trump (or Pence) White House?". It doesn't even force one to answer the penultimate question of who'll be in charge come 2019.  (rant off).

To be honest, this GOP gerrymander never took into account a so big collapse in the suburbs, this gerrymander is much less effective than it was in 2010

[Virginiá]

I will revise my prediction down to 20 for now. But I could see it as few as 6 seats or as much as 42. The large range is due to so much uncertainly in recruitment, polarization and how partisan people have become compared to 2006.

It is not even out of question it will be a President Pence.

This. I voted 10-25. I suspect that due to gerrymandering the Democrats will fall short.

BTW to the OP, can you make the voting choices just a tad closer together? "10-25"? That's a massive difference between "Democrats disappointed by limited gains, flip less than a dozen seats", and "Democrats re-take the House! What next for the Trump (or Pence) White House?". It doesn't even force one to answer the penultimate question of who'll be in charge come 2019.  (rant off).

To be honest, this GOP gerrymander never took into account a so big collapse in the suburbs, this gerrymander is much less effective than it was in 2010

I wonder how effective the "check and balance" appeal will be to voters in various GOP-held suburban districts. Of all the targets, this is where Trump is weakest, and Republicans are making it very easy for Democrats to make the case that the GOP Congress is refusing to conduct proper oversight on Trump's administration.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump ethics sealed probably set the motion for a Democratic victory in 2018, and with census and redistriction a Democratic solid majority in 2020. 

[Badger]

I will revise my prediction down to 20 for now. But I could see it as few as 6 seats or as much as 42. The large range is due to so much uncertainly in recruitment, polarization and how partisan people have become compared to 2006.

It is not even out of question it will be a President Pence.

This. I voted 10-25. I suspect that due to gerrymandering the Democrats will fall short.

BTW to the OP, can you make the voting choices just a tad closer together? "10-25"? That's a massive difference between "Democrats disappointed by limited gains, flip less than a dozen seats", and "Democrats re-take the House! What next for the Trump (or Pence) White House?". It doesn't even force one to answer the penultimate question of who'll be in charge come 2019.  (rant off).

To be honest, this GOP gerrymander never took into account a so big collapse in the suburbs, this gerrymander is much less effective than it was in 2010

That may apply in places like the Philly burbs, but if you look at Ohio's map most of the seats are bulwarked by reaching deep into rural areas without having to seriously rely on suburban voters for survival. The 1st is perhaps an exception looking just at boundaries, but Warren County, though overwhelmingly suburban, is exactly the type of outer ring suburbs that remain devoutly Republican for the foreseeable future.

If Warren County suburbs ever become even close to competitive for Democrats, the Ohio GOP will at such point be weaker than California's. Don't hold your breath.

[Suburbia]

10-25 seats, 18 seats.