DDHQ early forecast for 2018 House: D's gain 12 seats

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/ddhq-2018-house-midterm-forecast/

[Dr. Arch]

Not enough, right? We need 23 I think.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Not enough, right? We need 23 I think.

24.  It's currently 240R, 194D, with one vacancy (Chaffetz, which is certain to be filled by another R.)

[Hindsight was 2020]

Bs that Katko survives

[_]

I think that it's at least 14 seats.

Also I don't think Hurd goes down.

[BudgieForce]

Seems they're underestimating the weakness of Republican incumbents in Clinton Districts.

[Nyvin]

Seems pretty modest.   But I suppose it's fair...sort of.

[The Other Castro]

Models are good starting points but obviously there are some factors that aren't an exact science, like candidate quality.

[Mr.Phips]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems.

[Mr.Phips]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems given the hole that they are starting in.

[Gass3268]

Models are good starting points but obviously there are some factors that aren't an exact science, like candidate quality.

Giving Democrats only ~22% change to hold MN-01 is laughable.

[Virginiá]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems.

Yes, this is only marginally better in terms of seats than what Democrats got when they won the House PV by ~1% in 2012. I'm not sure if DDHQ wrote on any projected House PV win margin in this article, but the idea that it would be just 2% or so (which is what a +12 seat gain might suggest) seems laughable right now. Democrats have consistently been up 8 - 10 points on the generic ballot for months.

I get that it's just a projection, but it seems pretty weak given all the other evidence we are seeing of a possible wave next year.

[windjammer]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems.

Yes, this is only marginally better in terms of seats than what Democrats got when they won the House PV by ~1% in 2012. I'm not sure if DDHQ wrote on any projected House PV win margin in this article, but the idea that it would be just 2% or so (which is what a +12 seat gain might suggest) seems laughable right now. Democrats have consistently been up 8 - 10 points on the generic ballot for months.

I get that it's just a projection, but it seems pretty weak given all the other evidence we are seeing of a possible wave next year.

Yes, it is like if winning the House by 1 or by 8 makes no difference in this model. That is ridiculous lol.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems.

Yes, this is only marginally better in terms of seats than what Democrats got when they won the House PV by ~1% in 2012. I'm not sure if DDHQ wrote on any projected House PV win margin in this article, but the idea that it would be just 2% or so (which is what a +12 seat gain might suggest) seems laughable right now. Democrats have consistently been up 8 - 10 points on the generic ballot for months.

I get that it's just a projection, but it seems pretty weak given all the other evidence we are seeing of a possible wave next year.

They were basing this projection based on a PV advantage of 8.4% (the current HuffPo average).

[Mr.Phips]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems.

Yes, this is only marginally better in terms of seats than what Democrats got when they won the House PV by ~1% in 2012. I'm not sure if DDHQ wrote on any projected House PV win margin in this article, but the idea that it would be just 2% or so (which is what a +12 seat gain might suggest) seems laughable right now. Democrats have consistently been up 8 - 10 points on the generic ballot for months.

I get that it's just a projection, but it seems pretty weak given all the other evidence we are seeing of a possible wave next year.

They were basing this projection based on a PV advantage of 8.4% (the current HuffPo average).

Lol, I'll eat a cockroach if Dems get 54% of the House vote, but only 46% of the seats. 

[Virginiá]

They were basing this projection based on a PV advantage of 8.4% (the current HuffPo average).

Seriously? That is even worse! I mean, what kind of PV margin does their model need to forecast a Democratic takeover? 20 points? 25?

I'd bet the farm that such a prediction will be woefully lacking come election day. I'd hope so too, because if winning the national PV by over 8 points doesn't even get you close to a House majority, we might as well just abolish House elections altogether.

[Nyvin]

This would be pretty pathetic for Dems.

Yes, this is only marginally better in terms of seats than what Democrats got when they won the House PV by ~1% in 2012. I'm not sure if DDHQ wrote on any projected House PV win margin in this article, but the idea that it would be just 2% or so (which is what a +12 seat gain might suggest) seems laughable right now. Democrats have consistently been up 8 - 10 points on the generic ballot for months.

I get that it's just a projection, but it seems pretty weak given all the other evidence we are seeing of a possible wave next year.

They were basing this projection based on a PV advantage of 8.4% (the current HuffPo average).

That's nuts....how in the heck do they not win a majority if they win by that kind of margin??   What kind of margin would a dem majority require?   

Are they just thinking all the GOP incumbents in R+2 districts are just completely unbeatable or something?

[UncleSam]

The number of competitive seats is at an all-time low, and if you project a net 6% swing nationally to all races the Dems get only like +12 from where they are right now iirc

I really think some people are underestimating just how self-packed Democrats have become (and of course map imbalances that compound that factor / arise from that factor - chicken and egg etc.).

Still though I think Dems will do a better job of fighting for swing districts vs just relying on a universal swing, and should pick up 20 or so if these PV totals end up being close to right. It'll be a nail-biter imo, or at least it would be right now

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

DDHQ is a joke, we've known this since the Michigan and Missouri mishaps in March '16. That being said, the Republicans will keep the house, even if only by a seat or two. GA-6 Special showed us that dems lack the skill needed to gain 24 seats.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

One reasonable criticism is that it shows seats that were uncontested in 2016 as virtually impossible to predict.  Pete Sessions and Ron Kind should both be fine, but they won't win by the landslide margins (~80%) that the model suggests.

[mcmikk]

Seems they're underestimating the weakness of Republican incumbents in Clinton Districts.

You're underestimating the Democratic Party's incompetence at winning elections.

[krazen1211]

Our Gerrymanders form an amazing and wonderful Red Wall.

[krazen1211]

Lol, I'll eat a cockroach if Dems get 54% of the House vote, but only 46% of the seats. 

Link

[DrScholl]

That site is at least in part run by a Republican, which would explain why their forecast is so weak for Democrats.

[_]

TX-23 will not flip, Hurd is too good a fit imo.