If Democrats fail to win the House in 2018...

[progressive85]

I say 2022.  Even if 2018 is a disappointment at the national level, Democrats will likely make badly needed gains in some states.  If Democrats can win where it counts in 2018 and do well in 2020, even if Trump is narrowly reelected, or if the Supreme Court places restrictions on gerrymandering, the new maps for 2022 can put the House in play in 2022 after 12 years locked into the minority.  Democrats also had a 12 year span from 1994-2006 in the minority.

[The Arizonan]

I'd say 2020 because of the high turnout during presidential election years. Why would the Democrats fail to take the House next year? The liberals are energized and ready to go to the polls. A lot of Republicans will likely stay home.

[JonHawk]

I see the Democrats failing to win the House and the Senate... As for 2020 really depends who the Dems put up

[Virginiá]

The most likely fail scenario I see is that Democrats come very close to flipping the chamber and in 2020 are able to build on their gains after Trump has worn on the electorate even more so than before. Democrats will at that point have a lot more incumbents that are able to hold their seats more easily, allowing the party to focus on a broader set of pickup opportunities.

As for the argument that "well Trump will probably bounce back, just like Obama did," I would argue that Trump is nothing like Obama. Obama was actually very popular when he first ran, whereas Trump was not, and has never been popular. He happened to luck out when the 2nd most unpopular candidate in modern history ran as his opponent. Further, Trump has been marred in far more scandal and it will only get worse by 2020. He won't be able to run as an outsider at that point, and he will have to own up to 4 years of limited legislative victories, numerous scandals and god knows what else. That being said, it's not even clear he will be on the ballot again in 2020. He's old and under quite a bit of pressure, legally as well as others.

[Del Tachi]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

[Virginiá]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

Maybe, but how Gill v. Whitford turns out will factor in quite a bit here. Should SCOTUS side with the plaintiffs and a test be developed, there will be a huge wave of partisan gerrymandering lawsuits starting next year. A lot of Republican-drawn maps will be softened up for 2020 if that is the case.

However putting that aside, coming up short in both 2018 and 2020 would require some exceptionally weak performances. We're talking about 24 seats here, and if Democrats couldn't win that many with both a favorable midterm and a favorable presidential election happening consecutively, well, I wouldn't even know what to say.

[Virginiá]

Likely as in conditional on Dems not winning the House, or likely as in Dems are slight underdogs in the House rn?

Just the likely scenario if they fail, but not to say I think it's what will probably happen in general. My opinion of the House changes semi-frequently, but for now I still think Democrats have reasonably good (>50%) odds of taking it. It's hard to say right now though - we really need more incumbent Republicans to retire. We'll see how that goes, as by looking at historical statistics they usually seem to announce en masse in the winter.

I am torn as to whether they are underdogs at this point in the House in 2018. One part of me thinks they have to win a lot of Trumpy turf to account for some suburban Clinton districts that they probably won't pick up (PA-6, PA-7, MN-3, IL-6, TX-32 and CA-45 are the only ones I am pretty doubtful they can pick up in 2018, but they'd have a better chance in a Presidential year I'd imagine). But the other Clinton/R seats shouldn't be nearly as hard for them to pick up (really, there's some low-hanging fruit like VA-10, FL-27, CA-49). But I'm pretty certain that at least some Trumpy seats will flip, but I'm not willing to bet on which ones those would be (but ME-2, IA-1, IL-12, and NY-22 would be among the top contenders).

I think it would be reasonable to assume that not all Obama-Trump districts are off the map either. Democrats so far have shown a relatively decent ability to claw back support among voters they lost. Also, as Wasserman stated: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2018-could-be-the-year-of-the-angry-white-college-graduate/

Part of the reason Democrats are making up ground could be because white college graduates are disproportionately represented in off-year elections, and not only are they more reliable voters, but white non-college voters are less likely to vote. Trump having terrible approvals among college graduates does not bode well for Republicans. This could make the map reasonably good for Democrats, assuming there are more lucrative retirements to come.

Investigations into his administration would certainly happen, and we're fooling ourselves if we think there's nothing to see there.

This is why it is so crucial for Democrats to capture any chamber of Congress. Not just to stall the Republican policy agenda, but to thoroughly investigate Trump's administration and hold them accountable. Republicans simply cannot be relied on to conduct oversight, as they have shown so thoroughly already.

Would be interesting to see how much dirt there will be after 4 years of Trump shenanigans in the executive branch

[Person Man]

No later than 2022, else I don't think its gonna happen.

[Skill and Chance]

No later than 2022, else I don't think its gonna happen.

Well, they could narrowly lose next year and then narrowly beat Trump in 2020 while falling short again.  If the new Dem president gets reelected and it's not a huge landslide, I would expect that Democrats don't pick up the House until the 2030 midterms.

[MarkD]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

Maybe, but how Gill v. Whitford turns out will factor in quite a bit here. Should SCOTUS side with the plaintiffs and a test be developed, there will be a huge wave of partisan gerrymandering lawsuits starting next year. A lot of Republican-drawn maps will be softened up for 2020 if that is the case.

However putting that aside, coming up short in both 2018 and 2020 would require some exceptionally weak performances. We're talking about 24 seats here, and if Democrats couldn't win that many with both a favorable midterm and a favorable presidential election happening consecutively, well, I wouldn't even know what to say.

I think you need to be prepared for a big let-down vis-à-vis Gill v. Whiford. Don't underestimate the party loyalty of the five Republican Justices -- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Don't forget what happened in Dec. 2000: Bush v. Gore.
Just substitute Roberts for Rehnquist, Alito for O'Connor, and Gorsuch for Scalia, and it's the same bunch who stole from Al Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost.

[Figueira]

2020 seems likely if 2018 is close. Beyond that, all bets are off due to potential new gerrymandering.

[Xing]

My guess is 2022. If Republicans have four decent cycles in a row, their sixth year itch will probably be especially itchy.

[darklordoftech]

If the new Dem president gets reelected and it's not a huge landslide, I would expect that Democrats don't pick up the House until the 2030 midterms.

In this scenario, the GOP will have controlled the House for 20 years.

[Person Man]

If the new Dem president gets reelected and it's not a huge landslide, I would expect that Democrats don't pick up the House until the 2030 midterms.

In this scenario, the GOP will have controlled the House for 20 years.

In general, I don't think its very likely that the Democrats beat Trump but lose the House. This isn't the 70s and 80s. If they don't have enough votes, they don't have enough votes. No one president was able to win without SOME  downballot succes since Nixon and he might be the only one.

[Figueira]

If the new Dem president gets reelected and it's not a huge landslide, I would expect that Democrats don't pick up the House until the 2030 midterms.

In this scenario, the GOP will have controlled the House for 20 years.

In general, I don't think its very likely that the Democrats beat Trump but lose the House. This isn't the 70s and 80s. If they don't have enough votes, they don't have enough votes. No one president was able to win without SOME  downballot succes since Nixon and he might be the only one.

While the effect of gerrymandering is often overstated, it does exist, and it takes a bigger PV margin to win the House than the EC.

[UncleSam]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

Maybe, but how Gill v. Whitford turns out will factor in quite a bit here. Should SCOTUS side with the plaintiffs and a test be developed, there will be a huge wave of partisan gerrymandering lawsuits starting next year. A lot of Republican-drawn maps will be softened up for 2020 if that is the case.

However putting that aside, coming up short in both 2018 and 2020 would require some exceptionally weak performances. We're talking about 24 seats here, and if Democrats couldn't win that many with both a favorable midterm and a favorable presidential election happening consecutively, well, I wouldn't even know what to say.

I think you need to be prepared for a big let-down vis-à-vis Gill v. Whiford. Don't underestimate the party loyalty of the five Republican Justices -- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Don't forget what happened in Dec. 2000: Bush v. Gore.
Just substitute Roberts for Rehnquist, Alito for O'Connor, and Gorsuch for Scalia, and it's the same bunch who stole from Al Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost.

First, Kennedy is far from a Republican justice. I think the odds Kennedy overturns the Wisconsin map at least in part are fairly good.

Second, you have no idea what the Bush v Gore decision was about. If the Supreme Court had decided in favor of Gore, then the Florida delegates would not have been able to vote in the electoral college, thus robbing Florida's citizens of the right to vote for president. The election would have gone to the house, where Gore almost certainly would have won. There had been two recounts already, and there was no legal standing for ordering a third. It was a blithering and pathetic partisan dissent that stands as by far Ginsburg's worst decision. Gore lost Florida either way but the issue at hand had absolutely nothing to do with 'allowing Gore to find out whether he won or lost'.

[Virginiá]

I think you need to be prepared for a big let-down vis-à-vis Gill v. Whiford. Don't underestimate the party loyalty of the five Republican Justices -- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Don't forget what happened in Dec. 2000: Bush v. Gore.
Just substitute Roberts for Rehnquist, Alito for O'Connor, and Gorsuch for Scalia, and it's the same bunch who stole from Al Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost.

I am fairly prepared, but this one of a few top issues for myself, so there is only so much I can steel myself for the continuation of what might as well be election theft.

If Kennedy intended (consciously or not) to make a partisan ruling on this, I don't know why he would have left the door open so long ago, and why the conservative majority doesn't just overturn the LC decision on standing or something of the sort (I guess they could still do that, no?). Given the circumstances of all of this, I believe there is a reasonable chance of success. However, my biggest fear is that Kennedy does feel he is open to a solution in theory but possibly has requirements so high that no test can ever really satisfy them. Then all of this is just a big tease.

We'll see!

[Mr.Phips]

If the new Dem president gets reelected and it's not a huge landslide, I would expect that Democrats don't pick up the House until the 2030 midterms.

In this scenario, the GOP will have controlled the House for 20 years.

 No one president was able to win without SOME  downballot succes since Nixon and he might be the only one.

Bush 41 did even worse than Nixon in that department.  While Bush was winning in 1988, Republicans actually lost seats in both the House and Senate while starting from an already low base (only 178 House seats and 46 Senate seats). 

[Person Man]

If the new Dem president gets reelected and it's not a huge landslide, I would expect that Democrats don't pick up the House until the 2030 midterms.

In this scenario, the GOP will have controlled the House for 20 years.

 No one president was able to win without SOME  downballot succes since Nixon and he might be the only one.

Bush 41 did even worse than Nixon in that department.  While Bush was winning in 1988, Republicans actually lost seats in both the House and Senate while starting from an already low base (only 178 House seats and 46 Senate seats). 

He wasn't really elected on his own. I am talking about a scenario where the WH switches parties but congress stays united against it.

[krazen1211]

The election would have gone to the house, where Gore almost certainly would have won. There had been two recounts already, and there was no legal standing for ordering a third.

Back then the Republicans controlled the majority of House delegations.

[Cashew]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

Maybe, but how Gill v. Whitford turns out will factor in quite a bit here. Should SCOTUS side with the plaintiffs and a test be developed, there will be a huge wave of partisan gerrymandering lawsuits starting next year. A lot of Republican-drawn maps will be softened up for 2020 if that is the case.

However putting that aside, coming up short in both 2018 and 2020 would require some exceptionally weak performances. We're talking about 24 seats here, and if Democrats couldn't win that many with both a favorable midterm and a favorable presidential election happening consecutively, well, I wouldn't even know what to say.

I think you need to be prepared for a big let-down vis-à-vis Gill v. Whiford. Don't underestimate the party loyalty of the five Republican Justices -- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Don't forget what happened in Dec. 2000: Bush v. Gore.
Just substitute Roberts for Rehnquist, Alito for O'Connor, and Gorsuch for Scalia, and it's the same bunch who stole from Al Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost.

Bush v. Gore would never have happened if the networks had not called Florida an hour early and supressed voting from the panhandle.

[Skill and Chance]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

Maybe, but how Gill v. Whitford turns out will factor in quite a bit here. Should SCOTUS side with the plaintiffs and a test be developed, there will be a huge wave of partisan gerrymandering lawsuits starting next year. A lot of Republican-drawn maps will be softened up for 2020 if that is the case.

However putting that aside, coming up short in both 2018 and 2020 would require some exceptionally weak performances. We're talking about 24 seats here, and if Democrats couldn't win that many with both a favorable midterm and a favorable presidential election happening consecutively, well, I wouldn't even know what to say.

I think you need to be prepared for a big let-down vis-à-vis Gill v. Whiford. Don't underestimate the party loyalty of the five Republican Justices -- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Don't forget what happened in Dec. 2000: Bush v. Gore.
Just substitute Roberts for Rehnquist, Alito for O'Connor, and Gorsuch for Scalia, and it's the same bunch who stole from Al Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost.

Bush v. Gore would never have happened if the networks had not called Florida an hour early and supressed voting from the panhandle.

I do believe this is true.  It's plausible that several thousand people in the central time zone didn't bother to rush out and get in line at the polls because of that TV announcement.  Those people would have presumably broken at least 2:1 R.

[MarkD]

They could fall short again in 2020 despite winning the White House, then could be going against strong headwins in 2022 and 2026.  I suppose they could win in 2024 to coincide with a Democratic President's reelection.

Maybe, but how Gill v. Whitford turns out will factor in quite a bit here. Should SCOTUS side with the plaintiffs and a test be developed, there will be a huge wave of partisan gerrymandering lawsuits starting next year. A lot of Republican-drawn maps will be softened up for 2020 if that is the case.

However putting that aside, coming up short in both 2018 and 2020 would require some exceptionally weak performances. We're talking about 24 seats here, and if Democrats couldn't win that many with both a favorable midterm and a favorable presidential election happening consecutively, well, I wouldn't even know what to say.

I think you need to be prepared for a big let-down vis-à-vis Gill v. Whiford. Don't underestimate the party loyalty of the five Republican Justices -- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Don't forget what happened in Dec. 2000: Bush v. Gore.
Just substitute Roberts for Rehnquist, Alito for O'Connor, and Gorsuch for Scalia, and it's the same bunch who stole from Al Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost.

First, Kennedy is far from a Republican justice. I think the odds Kennedy overturns the Wisconsin map at least in part are fairly good.

Second, you have no idea what the Bush v Gore decision was about. If the Supreme Court had decided in favor of Gore, then the Florida delegates would not have been able to vote in the electoral college, thus robbing Florida's citizens of the right to vote for president. The election would have gone to the house, where Gore almost certainly would have won. There had been two recounts already, and there was no legal standing for ordering a third. It was a blithering and pathetic partisan dissent that stands as by far Ginsburg's worst decision. Gore lost Florida either way but the issue at hand had absolutely nothing to do with 'allowing Gore to find out whether he won or lost'.

Of course Kennedy is a Republican. All of his life.

Krazen is correct that in Jan. 2001, a majority of House delegations were Republican. In fact, it was 28 states that had Republican majorities. Gore would not have won if the election had been brought to the House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court granted Bush's request for an injunction to stop the recounts because the Court agreed with Bush's claim that the method of counting during the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The lack of a statewide, uniform standard for determining the intent of each voter was a violation of the EPC. There was not enough time, the Court said, to correct the error, so that was why they granted the injunction.