Poll: Chances Dems win control of the House in 2018?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now I'm going to have to say it. lmao.

State House seats in the district are split roughly 50/50 so it's not a completely ridiculous notion, actually. Of course they would have to find a decent candidate, amongst other things.

[Gass3268]

Now I'm going to have to say it. lmao.

State House seats in the district are split roughly 50/50 so it's not a completely ridiculous notion, actually. Of course they would have to find a decent candidate, amongst other things.

Some rumblings former Governor Earl Ray Tomblin is considering.

[The Other Castro]

Not terribly high, but rising by the day.

[pikachu]

20%, though this is primarily because of the map moreso than the idea that Democrats will struggle in midterms forever. The party of a president with ~40% approvals is not going to have a good midterm, and not that it matters but I'd give the Democrats a greater than 50% chance of winning the popular vote in the House.

[smoltchanov]

20%, though this is primarily because of the map moreso than the idea that Democrats will struggle in midterms forever. The party of a president with ~40% approvals is not going to have a good midterm, and not that it matters but I'd give the Democrats a greater than 50% chance of winning the popular vote in the House.

With Democrats extremely concentrated in relatively few 75-95% districts, popular vote in the House is of minimal importance, IMHO..

P.S. As last election has shown popular vote becomes useless even in Presidential election too. Distribution of votes is far more important...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think a lot of people think that the fact that midterms were bad for Democrats when Obama was in office means that midterms are always bad for Democrats. Kind of a bizarre assumption.

The Democrats tend to not do well in midterm elections in the House, period. Their 3rd best midterm since 1974 was only a gain of 7. 1982's +26 and 2006's +30 really pale in comparison to 1994's +54 and 2010's +63.

[Young Conservative]

It's becoming increasingly possible since Trump's inauguration. I give it 50% odds. I haven't seen this much enthusiasm on the left since Obama's '08 campaign.

I'm excited to see the middle American backlash continue in 2018. Constantly attacking Trump won't help you win states like Iowa or Ohio again.

[PMHub]

Pretty good odds considering Trump's unpopularity and the midterm effect. Just because Trump won Ohiowa doesn't mean his party will win there forever; in 2010 the GOP used a strategy of "attack and obstruct Obama on everything 100% of the time" and they picked up a governorship and a senate seat in a state that went Obama by nearly 14 points in 2008.

[Virginiá]

The Democrats tend to not do well in midterm elections in the House, period. Their 3rd best midterm since 1974 was only a gain of 7. 1982's +26 and 2006's +30 really pale in comparison to 1994's +54 and 2010's +63.

They do pale in comparison, but in 2010 Democrats were significantly overextended. Same for 1994, although that was the dawn of a new playing field. The GOP getting those large blowouts doesn't mean all that much. They have an advantage in the House that has increased somewhat over the past 6 years, that's it.

[Chief Justice Keef]

It's becoming increasingly possible since Trump's inauguration. I give it 50% odds. I haven't seen this much enthusiasm on the left since Obama's '08 campaign.

I'm excited to see the middle American backlash continue in 2018. Constantly attacking Trump won't help you win states like Iowa or Ohio again.

These protests already have a labor component. It's coming.

[PMHub]

The Democrats tend to not do well in midterm elections in the House, period. Their 3rd best midterm since 1974 was only a gain of 7. 1982's +26 and 2006's +30 really pale in comparison to 1994's +54 and 2010's +63.

They do pale in comparison, but in 2010 Democrats were significantly overextended. Same for 1994, although that was the dawn of a new playing field. The GOP getting those large blowouts doesn't mean all that much. They have an advantage in the House that has increased somewhat over the past 6 years, that's it.

Dems were also overextended in 1986 and 1990, leading to few gains.

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats tend to not do well in midterm elections in the House, period. Their 3rd best midterm since 1974 was only a gain of 7. 1982's +26 and 2006's +30 really pale in comparison to 1994's +54 and 2010's +63.

They do pale in comparison, but in 2010 Democrats were significantly overextended. Same for 1994, although that was the dawn of a new playing field. The GOP getting those large blowouts doesn't mean all that much. They have an advantage in the House that has increased somewhat over the past 6 years, that's it.

Dems were also overextended in 1986 and 1990, leading to few gains.

Yes, having such a big majority already in those years meant that there were not a lot of Republicans left in winnable seats for Democrats.  In 1990, Democrats actually held a substantial number of seats that Bush had not only won in 1988, but got over 60% of the vote in.  There even were a few like FL-01 (Earl Hutto), FL-09(Bill Nelson), GA-09(Bill Jenkins), GA-07(Buddy Garden) that Bush got over 70%(!!!!!) In.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It is funny now looking at Trumpers act as arrogantly about the midterms as Dem were after Obama big difference being Obama wasn't hated 11 days into his presidency. Seriously if you think the dems have little to no shot at the house an that the GOP will pick up a super-majority in the Senate then please proceed

[Frodo]

My how times have changed.....

[Hindsight was 2020]

It is funny now looking at Trumpers act as arrogantly about the midterms as Dem were after Obama big difference being Obama wasn't hated 11 days into his presidency. Seriously if you think the dems have little to no shot at the house an that the GOP will pick up a super-majority in the Senate then please proceed

I know midterms are still 10 months away but man I was calling it

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

60%

[Dr. MB]

65–70% by now.