The Democrats will have a House advantage in 2020 even if the PV is even.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Over the past few days, I've been making a house model for 2020, resulting in this map. Based on presidential margins and trends, Congressional margins in 2018, and continued macroeconomic conditions similar to today, the projected result is



228 Democrats to 207 Republicans. Which is a net gain for the GOP of four seats (I've made some assumptions about seat results in undecided seats, I'll modify the output when the time comes).

There are a lot of interesting things about this map. First, a bunch of the Democratic flips in 2018 will not be coming back under any circumstances. I have 12 of them rated as Safe D in 2020, which I use for seats where the projected margin is D+10 or greater.

Those seats are
11. CA-49
2. CO-06
3. FL-26
4. FL-27
5. IL-06
6. KS-03
7. MN-03
8. NJ-11
9. PA-06
10. TX-07
11. TX-32
12. VA-10

They also have, in theory, two safe flips in NC from the redistricting. For the NC and MD elections, I used the Daily Kos fair seat maps as a rough approximation.

In total, the projected 2020 margin for 2018 Democratic flips, in order, is
1. 1. VA-10 (17.53)
2. PA-06 (16.85)
3. MN-03 (16.17)
4. CO-06 (15.07)
5. FL-27 (13.73)
6. IL-06 (12.60)
7. KS-03 (12.12)
8. TX-32 (11.73)
9. TX-07 (11.58)
10. FL-26 (11.33)
11. NJ-11 (10.52)
12. CA-25 (9.40)
13. AZ-2 (9.03)
14. CA-45 (8.73)
15. PA-17 (8.58)
16. UT-04 (8.55)
17. CA-48 (8.40)
18. GA-6 (7.80)
19. MN-02 (7.12)
20. PA-07 (6.98)
21. WI-03 (6.85)
22. WA-08 (6.37)
23. IL-14 (6.25)
24. CA-10 (5.43)
25. VA-02 (4.17)
26. MI-11 (4.10)
27. VA-07 (3.82)
28. MI-08 (3.70)
29. IA-01 (3.23)
30. IA-03 (2.55)
31. NY-11 (2.38)
32. NJ-02 (1.62)
33. OK-05 (1.30)
34. NY-19 (1.25)
35. NJ-03 (.87)
36. ME-02 (-1.57)
37. SC-01 (-1.60)
38. NM-02 (-2.03)
39. NY-22 (-3.28)


Of the 39 gains, 4 should flip back, 1 is a tossup, 10 are Lean D, 13 are Likely D, and 11 are Solid D in 2020.

In total, I project 2 redistricting pickups in NC, 1 for Republicans in MD, and 6 actual Republican gains, 4 of which will reverse Democratic gains in 2018, and two of which, MN-07 and PA-08, will displace Democratic incumbents in R-trending districts.

A list of all competitive seats ordered according to projected 2020 Margin is below. The playing field in 2020 will have some substantial shifts, and thanks to this shifts and Democrat's incumbency, they should hold the house, even if they narrowly lose the popular vote, as the popular vote in this scenario is projected to be D+2.60, and the median seat (MI-08) is projected to have a D+3.70 margin.


Democratic seat Number, name, Margin

191: CT-05, D+9.42
192: CA-25, D+9.40
193: AZ-02, D+9.03
194: CA-45, D+8.73
195: NJ-07, D+8.58
196: PA-17, D+8.58
197: UT-04, D+8.55
198: CA-48, D+8.40
199: OR-05, D+8.27
200: FL-13, D+7.95
201: GA-06, D+7.80
202: NV-04, D+7.20
203: MN-02, D+7.12
204: PA-07, D+6.98
205: OR-04, D+6.93
206: WI-03, D+6.85
207: CA-07, D+6.63
208: NH-02, D+6.52
209: NV-03, D+6.43
210: WA-08, D+6.37
211: IL-14, D+6.25
212: NJ-05, D+5.77
213: NH-01, D+5.60
214: CA-10, D+5.43
215: VA-02, D+4.17
216: MI-11, D+4.10
217: VA-07, D+3.82
218: MI-08, D+3.70 (median)
219: IA-01, D+3.23
220: NY-18, D+3.13
221: IA-03, D+2.55
222: AZ-01, D+2.40
223: NY-11, D+2.38
224: IA-02, D+1.90
225: NJ-02, D+1.62
226: OK-05, D+1.30
227: NY-19, D+1.25
228: NJ-03, D+.87
229: TX-23, R+.20
230: CA-21, R+1.17
231: ME-02, R+1.57
232: SC-01, R+1.60
233: GA-07, R+1.77
234: CA-39, R+1.82
235: NM-02, R+2.03
236: PA-08, R+2.65
237: PA-01, R+3.00
238: NY-22, R+3.28
239: TX-24, R+3.50
240: NE-02, R+4.03
241: TX-22, R+5.05
242: NC-02, R+5.27
243: IL-13, R+5.37
244: TX-10, R+5.83
245: TX-31, R+6.80
246: NY-24, R+6.98
247: PA-10, R+7.22
248: MO-02, R+7.33
249: OH-01, R+7.88
250: TX-21, R+8.22
251: OH-12, R+8.90
252: MI-06, R+8.97
253: WA-03, R+9.15
254: KY-06, R+9.52

All told, it is difficult for the Democrats to lose the house, and virtually impossible for them to be in a worse position than they were in 2016. Some incumbents in Trumpy seats have to worry, but other than Petersen, most have a good shot at winning, and of course Democratic seat counts have upside potential in the event of a recession, which is a substantial possibility.

[Skill and Chance]

I expected this if the suburbs/small cities joined the 2016 megacity trend, which they did.  Between this and what remains of the incumbency advantage, Trump should have to win the PV meaningfully to get the House back.

[DataGuy]

Interesting work. Just as I was saying in another thread about the NPV, everything tends to balance. Republicans held their majority comfortably despite losing the popular vote in 2012, and it looks like Democrats would be favored to do the same in 2020.

There seems to be a very strong incumbency advantage for House members in presidential years that can result in a large gap between the NPV and seat share. Historically, wave elections have restored equilibrium and have resulted in roughly proportional outcomes.

[Vern]

I wonder how the NC CD map will change between now and then. If it does, it only will help the Democrats.

[Skill and Chance]

Interesting work. Just as I was saying in another thread about the NPV, everything tends to balance. Republicans held their majority comfortably despite losing the popular vote in 2012, and it looks like Democrats would be favored to do the same in 2020.

There seems to be a very strong incumbency advantage for House members in presidential years that can result in a large gap between the NPV and seat share. Historically, wave elections have restored equilibrium and have resulted in roughly proportional outcomes.

The electoral college advantage bounces around frequently (Obama had in his favor it both times), and House gerrymandering erodes over a decade, sometimes rapidly. To the extent there is a long term problem, it's in the Senate, where the more rural coalition has historically held onto power for an excessively long time.

*The 1955-95 Democratic US House majority stands out, but it effectively had a 3rd party in its coalition, which was needed for control for all but a few years in the late 1950's/early 1960's and late 1970's.

[Person Man]

Who was the last president to rewin the Houss after a reelection campaign? 1948 doesn't really count because Truman hadn't been elected yet.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Interesting work. Just as I was saying in another thread about the NPV, everything tends to balance. Republicans held their majority comfortably despite losing the popular vote in 2012, and it looks like Democrats would be favored to do the same in 2020.

There seems to be a very strong incumbency advantage for House members in presidential years that can result in a large gap between the NPV and seat share. Historically, wave elections have restored equilibrium and have resulted in roughly proportional outcomes.

The electoral college advantage bounces around frequently (Obama had in his favor it both times), and House gerrymandering erodes over a decade, sometimes rapidly. To the extent there is a long term problem, it's in the Senate, where the more rural coalition has historically held onto power for an excessively long time.

*The 1955-95 Democratic US House majority stands out, but it effectively had a 3rd party in its coalition, which was needed for control for all but a few years in the late 1950's/early 1960's and late 1970's.

Yup and many times during that period, while the Democrats may had actual control of the House, the Republicans had Effective Control.


Examples were 1967-1971 and 1981-1987

[Person Man]

Interesting work. Just as I was saying in another thread about the NPV, everything tends to balance. Republicans held their majority comfortably despite losing the popular vote in 2012, and it looks like Democrats would be favored to do the same in 2020.

There seems to be a very strong incumbency advantage for House members in presidential years that can result in a large gap between the NPV and seat share. Historically, wave elections have restored equilibrium and have resulted in roughly proportional outcomes.

The electoral college advantage bounces around frequently (Obama had in his favor it both times), and House gerrymandering erodes over a decade, sometimes rapidly. To the extent there is a long term problem, it's in the Senate, where the more rural coalition has historically held onto power for an excessively long time.

*The 1955-95 Democratic US House majority stands out, but it effectively had a 3rd party in its coalition, which was needed for control for all but a few years in the late 1950's/early 1960's and late 1970's.

Yup and many times during that period, while the Democrats may had actual control of the House, the Republicans had Effective Control.


Examples were 1967-1971 and 1981-1987

That's not happening in this new House.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Interesting work. Just as I was saying in another thread about the NPV, everything tends to balance. Republicans held their majority comfortably despite losing the popular vote in 2012, and it looks like Democrats would be favored to do the same in 2020.

There seems to be a very strong incumbency advantage for House members in presidential years that can result in a large gap between the NPV and seat share. Historically, wave elections have restored equilibrium and have resulted in roughly proportional outcomes.

The electoral college advantage bounces around frequently (Obama had in his favor it both times), and House gerrymandering erodes over a decade, sometimes rapidly. To the extent there is a long term problem, it's in the Senate, where the more rural coalition has historically held onto power for an excessively long time.

*The 1955-95 Democratic US House majority stands out, but it effectively had a 3rd party in its coalition, which was needed for control for all but a few years in the late 1950's/early 1960's and late 1970's.

Yup and many times during that period, while the Democrats may had actual control of the House, the Republicans had Effective Control.


Examples were 1967-1971 and 1981-1987

That's not happening in this new House.

Yes I know