Current House Rating?

[smoltchanov]

Tilt R. D+20

[smoltchanov]

For people who do not see Dems taking over the House, I am curious what circumstances you would consider required to believe Republicans would lose the House. It is hard for me to envision the situation getting much worse than this for Republicans, but it's also hard for me to imagine Republicans being the majority party in the House of Representatives for eternity.

It really comes down to the seat math. The circumstances for Republicans to lose the House are there and are probably about as bad as it gets, but 24 pickups is still a tall order. I am definitely trying to be cautious here rather than forecasting D+30 without knowing numerous paths to that number. No one party ever wins every single tossup race, even in 2006 or 2010, and it won't be enough to have 30 tossup races because Democrats most likely won't win all of those. By "getting worse for Rs" I mean in terms of more and more retirements like Reichert and LoBiondo, which I expect in the coming months. Once it becomes clear that those types of seats are Safe D and people like Denham, Knight and Issa are not only in trouble but DOA, then I will forecast Dems to win the House. I keep it Tilt R out of caution more than anything.

+100. Exactly my thoughts too. I would only add, that Democrats effectively waste an enormous number of Democratic votes in 80%+ urban districts, so, even with clear general preference of public for Democratic candidates now, the preference in swingy and slightly Republican districts (where most turnover must happen, i think no one thinks that Democrats will win TX-13 or AL-06) is, most likely, substantially smaller. Republicans have less "overwhelmingly Republican" districts then Democrats - "overwhelmingly Democratic", but - substantially more districts, "leaning" in their direction (usually) then Democrats. And second, preference for "generic Democrat" doesn't always correlate well with preference for specific candidate. People can generally prefer Democratic candidate for their district, but "this one" specific candidate can rub them the wrong way. So, polling for "generic" party candidate is, frequently, better then for real candidate.

[smoltchanov]

True, but if Democrats waste those votes in districts that already vote 90% Democratic... is it possible that the big swings in the generic ballot we are seeing are necessarily coming from less "packed" districts? Dems may not be maxed out in the urban districts because turnout was low in 2016, but it may well be that we will see larger swings in the moderate and R-leaning districts precisely because Dem districts were maxed out before the anti-Trump bump.

May be. And still - if, generally, Democrats have 10-18% advantage according to most polls then, naturally, in these very urban districts they may have 50-60% (and more) advantage. And because there are more such "uber-Democratic" districts then "uber-Republican" - these percentages are not completly cancelled by these "uber-Republican" districts. So, in other districts (considered separately), percentage will generally be lower.

An example of the same phenomenon: IIRC Hillary won over Trump by about 3%. But Trump won 230 districts, Hillary - 205. Why? Because of greater number of "super-Democratic" disitricts with astronomical percentages for Hillary and, generally, Democratic candidates. These votes go into general calculation, but district distribution still favors Republicans.

[smoltchanov]

True, but if Democrats waste those votes in districts that already vote 90% Democratic... is it possible that the big swings in the generic ballot we are seeing are necessarily coming from less "packed" districts? Dems may not be maxed out in the urban districts because turnout was low in 2016, but it may well be that we will see larger swings in the moderate and R-leaning districts precisely because Dem districts were maxed out before the anti-Trump bump.

May be. And still - if, generally, Democrats have 10-18% advantage according to most polls then, naturally, in these very urban districts they may have 50-60% (and more) advantage. And because there are more such "uber-Democratic" districts then "uber-Republican" - these percentages are not completly cancelled by these "uber-Republican" districts. So, in other districts (considered separately), percentage will generally be lower.

An example of the same phenomenon: IIRC Hillary won over Trump by about 3%. But Trump won 230 districts, Hillary - 205. Why? Because of greater number of "super-Democratic" disitricts with astronomical percentages for Hillary and, generally, Democratic candidates. These votes go into general calculation, but district distribution still favors Republicans.

Wtf that kinda proves that a 12% win on the GCB ballot would flip the House. Hillary won the PV by 2 points and would only need to win 13 more districts to have gotten a majority. 12% PV win would definitely finish the job and then some.

It proves nothing. A 12% PV win can consist of 50% PV win in already Democratic districts (zero flips), 20% loss in solid Republican districts (again - zero flips), and, say, 2% win in swingy districts (with modest number of flips), which are THE most important in seats distribution.

[smoltchanov]

It proves nothing. A 12% PV win can consist of 50% PV win in already Democratic districts (zero flips), 20% loss in solid Republican districts (again - zero flips), and, say, 2% win in swingy districts (with modest number of flips), which are THE most important in seats distribution.

smoltchanov You're talking theory here but you know that is not going to happen. Name one election where a party won a huge popular vote advantage but saw all of it get sunk into unwinnable districts, and thus didn't win nearly as many seats as it would suggest. It doesn't happen. The vote distribution is a lot more even in that.

Of course i present a morst extreme case. Just as it's possible theoretically to win 49 states by 1 vote each, lose 50th by million, and have overwhelming absolute majority in electoral college as a result. Real distribution is somewhat more uniform, but - still far from being uniform. And, as i said - there are considerably more uber-Democratic districts, then uber-Republican. So, Democratic advantage in swingy districts alone is, probably, about, say, 6%, not 12% (overall for country), the other 6% - coming from that big majority in safe districts and their relatively big number. This may be enough too, but still - there are variants here.

[smoltchanov]

It proves nothing. A 12% PV win can consist of 50% PV win in already Democratic districts (zero flips), 20% loss in solid Republican districts (again - zero flips), and, say, 2% win in swingy districts (with modest number of flips), which are THE most important in seats distribution.

smoltchanov You're talking theory here but you know that is not going to happen. Name one election where a party won a huge popular vote advantage but saw all of it get sunk into unwinnable districts, and thus didn't win nearly as many seats as it would suggest. It doesn't happen. The vote distribution is a lot more even in that.

And frankly there's not too much more for Dems to juice out of many of these Dem vote sinks. Not to mention the largest swings almost always happen in competitive seats, as several studies have found

Not only swing size, but absolute number and majority of advantage in non-swing districts is also important.... I agree that situation is very favorable for Democrats NOW, and if it remains this way by October - i will change my prediction to "Lean D" (at least). But last midterms of 2010 and 2014 convinced me, that Democrats usually underperfom their initial expectations (sometimes - severely) - hence my cautious forecast for now.

P.S. Brittain33 asked for a reasons i (and similar people) are so cautious in our predictions. I presented them. One can agree or disagree, but explanation is given at least..

[smoltchanov]

One small notice, guys. When you speak about 10, 12, 18% national advantage Democrats now have in the polls, it's not a swing size, it's an absolute size of advantage  (or disadvantage) in every district that matters. And this absolute percentage advantage is non-uniformly distributed: you may have even D+70 in Harlem or South Bronx-based districts, and, say, D-35  or 40 in TX-13 or AL-06. The "focus" is that Democrats have substantially more districts with "big pluses", and these "pluses" itself are substantially bigger, then "minuses" in corresponding Republican disticts. So, swing districts may be only "somewhat Democratic" (say, D+6) now, despite big national numbers. Mathematics allows it...

As i said: if i will see these numbers Oct. 1st - i will be sure in Democrats retaking the House. But - not yet.