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

[Gustaf]

I mean, it all depends on what you think the national environment will be by election-time. D candidate recruitment seems to be going well enough that they will be poised to exploit a wave if it happens, at least.

[smoltchanov]

No one thought Democrats would win all those upstate NY districts or Pennsylvania and Ohio districts in 2006 early on either.

Again, have you looked at the map? They'd have to do quite well to get 48, but you don't need any ridiculous seats.

Man...by March of next year you two will have shifted the conversation to whether or not the Dems will net gain 75 seats and then to 100 seats a few months later.

By October 2018 the only question left will be if the Democratic permamajority will reign for 1,000 years or 10,000 years. Oh and if Queen Harris (peace be upon her) will win by 30 points in 2020 or 70.


Sure anything can happen in politics but the Democrats right now are the Chicago Cubs of polticial Parties. They did win the World Series* last year so sure, anything is possible. Jerk off to your wildest fantasies.

CA-10
CA-21
CA-25
CA-48
CA-49
5

AZ-02
UT-03
WA-08
CO-03
CO-06
10

NE-02
KS-03
TX-07
TX-23
TX-32
15

MN-02
MN-03
IA-01
IA-03
MO-2
20

AR-02
MT-AL
FL-15
FL-16
FL-18
25

FL-26
FL-27
GA-06
NC-02
NC-09
30

NC-13
VA-02
VA-10
WV-03
IL-12
35

IL-13
WI-07
MI-07
MI-08
PA-06
40

PA-07
PA-08
PA-16
NJ-07
NY-19
45

NY-22
NY-24
ME-02
OH-01
OH-14
50

Fifty winnable seats. And I left several on the table.

Also: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=264008.0

"Winnable" doesn't mean that you will win them ALL. As a rule i assign 5% probablity to chance to win a seat, which falls into "likely opposite party" cathegory, 25 - to "lean opposite party" category, and 50% - to tossup seats. In addition Democrats may easily lose some seats (like MN-01) too. So, stick for time being to my forecast - 20!

[smoltchanov]

Here's my extremely broad range of Republican House seats that I can see potentially flipping (of course most of these probably won't happen, but I know someone on here will take that part of my qualifier out of context):

AK-AL, AZ-2, AZ-6, AR-2, CA-10, CA-21, CA-22, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CO-3, CO-6, FL-18, FL-25, FL-26, FL-27, GA-6, GA-7, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, IL-14, IA-1, IA-3, KS-2, KS-3, KY-6, ME-2, MI-6, MI-11, MI-7, MI-8, MN-2, MN-3, MO-2, MT-AL, NE-2, NJ-2 (if open), NJ-3, NJ-7, NJ-11, NY-1, NY-2 (if open), NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-22, NY-23, NY-24, NC-9, OH-1, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-16, TX-7, TX-32, TX-23, the new court-ordered Texas seat, UT-4, VA-2, VA-5, VA-10, WA-3, WA-8, WV-3, WI-7, WI-8.

I'm sure I'm missing more. EDIT: NM-2, NV-2, MI-1, IN-2

I will acknowledge though, Timmy, that I'm more bullish on Democratic chances of mitigating Senate losses (or even making a net gain) than most people, but I've already addressed that in excruciating detail. I guess we'll see!

Again - "chance to flip" and "guarantee to flip" are very different things. Only during biggest waves  second group begins remotely resemble first one, usually it's much smaller...

[smoltchanov]

Here's my extremely broad range of Republican House seats that I can see potentially flipping (of course most of these probably won't happen, but I know someone on here will take that part of my qualifier out of context):

AK-AL, AZ-2, AZ-6, AR-2, CA-10, CA-21, CA-22, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CO-3, CO-6, FL-18, FL-25, FL-26, FL-27, GA-6, GA-7, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, IL-14, IA-1, IA-3, KS-2, KS-3, KY-6, ME-2, MI-6, MI-11, MI-7, MI-8, MN-2, MN-3, MO-2, MT-AL, NE-2, NJ-2 (if open), NJ-3, NJ-7, NJ-11, NY-1, NY-2 (if open), NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-22, NY-23, NY-24, NC-9, OH-1, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-16, TX-7, TX-32, TX-23, the new court-ordered Texas seat, UT-4, VA-2, VA-5, VA-10, WA-3, WA-8, WV-3, WI-7, WI-8.

I'm sure I'm missing more. EDIT: NM-2, NV-2, MI-1, IN-2

I will acknowledge though, Timmy, that I'm more bullish on Democratic chances of mitigating Senate losses (or even making a net gain) than most people, but I've already addressed that in excruciating detail. I guess we'll see!

Again - "chance to flip" and "guarantee to flip" are very different things. Only during biggest waves  second group begins remotely resemble first one, usually it's much smaller...

Once-a-ing-gain, I clearly ing laid that out in my qualifier statement

I read it with great attention. I am simply very amused when someone uses list similar to your to "prove" that Democrats will win 50 seats next election. Except for utter collapse of Trump administration - they will not... But the attempts will, surely, continue..

[BuckeyeNut]

Here's my extremely broad range of Republican House seats that I can see potentially flipping (of course most of these probably won't happen, but I know someone on here will take that part of my qualifier out of context):

AK-AL, AZ-2, AZ-6, AR-2, CA-10, CA-21, CA-22, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CO-3, CO-6, FL-18, FL-25, FL-26, FL-27, GA-6, GA-7, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, IL-14, IA-1, IA-3, KS-2, KS-3, KY-6, ME-2, MI-6, MI-11, MI-7, MI-8, MN-2, MN-3, MO-2, MT-AL, NE-2, NJ-2 (if open), NJ-3, NJ-7, NJ-11, NY-1, NY-2 (if open), NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-22, NY-23, NY-24, NC-9, OH-1, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-16, TX-7, TX-32, TX-23, the new court-ordered Texas seat, UT-4, VA-2, VA-5, VA-10, WA-3, WA-8, WV-3, WI-7, WI-8.

I'm sure I'm missing more. EDIT: NM-2, NV-2, MI-1, IN-2

I will acknowledge though, Timmy, that I'm more bullish on Democratic chances of mitigating Senate losses (or even making a net gain) than most people, but I've already addressed that in excruciating detail. I guess we'll see!

Again - "chance to flip" and "guarantee to flip" are very different things. Only during biggest waves  second group begins remotely resemble first one, usually it's much smaller...

Once-a-ing-gain, I clearly ing laid that out in my qualifier statement

I read it with great attention. I am simply very amused when someone uses list similar to your to "prove" that Democrats will win 50 seats next election. Except for utter collapse of Trump administration - they will not... But the attempts will, surely, continue..

PNM didn't do that. You fail basic reading comprehension.

[Devout Centrist]

The swings aren't going to be clustered in cities. In almost every electin where there's a large swing against the ruling party, the largest swings are in areas controlled by the ruling party.

[smoltchanov]

Here's my extremely broad range of Republican House seats that I can see potentially flipping (of course most of these probably won't happen, but I know someone on here will take that part of my qualifier out of context):

AK-AL, AZ-2, AZ-6, AR-2, CA-10, CA-21, CA-22, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CO-3, CO-6, FL-18, FL-25, FL-26, FL-27, GA-6, GA-7, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, IL-14, IA-1, IA-3, KS-2, KS-3, KY-6, ME-2, MI-6, MI-11, MI-7, MI-8, MN-2, MN-3, MO-2, MT-AL, NE-2, NJ-2 (if open), NJ-3, NJ-7, NJ-11, NY-1, NY-2 (if open), NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-22, NY-23, NY-24, NC-9, OH-1, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-16, TX-7, TX-32, TX-23, the new court-ordered Texas seat, UT-4, VA-2, VA-5, VA-10, WA-3, WA-8, WV-3, WI-7, WI-8.

I'm sure I'm missing more. EDIT: NM-2, NV-2, MI-1, IN-2

I will acknowledge though, Timmy, that I'm more bullish on Democratic chances of mitigating Senate losses (or even making a net gain) than most people, but I've already addressed that in excruciating detail. I guess we'll see!

Again - "chance to flip" and "guarantee to flip" are very different things. Only during biggest waves  second group begins remotely resemble first one, usually it's much smaller...

Once-a-ing-gain, I clearly ing laid that out in my qualifier statement

I read it with great attention. I am simply very amused when someone uses list similar to your to "prove" that Democrats will win 50 seats next election. Except for utter collapse of Trump administration - they will not... But the attempts will, surely, continue..

PNM didn't do that. You fail basic reading comprehension.

No, i don't. I passed my English exam (including reading) few days ago with "flying colors"... But it makes no sense to try to convince you, so let's finish this "talk" and stick to our opinions. Slightly more then 1 year from now we will know who is right. I forgot the exact nunber of times when Democrats were bullish until almost the election day (including 2010, 2014, AND, of course, 2016) only to be greatly dissappointed in REAL results.

[smoltchanov]

Here's my extremely broad range of Republican House seats that I can see potentially flipping (of course most of these probably won't happen, but I know someone on here will take that part of my qualifier out of context):

AK-AL, AZ-2, AZ-6, AR-2, CA-10, CA-21, CA-22, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CO-3, CO-6, FL-18, FL-25, FL-26, FL-27, GA-6, GA-7, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, IL-14, IA-1, IA-3, KS-2, KS-3, KY-6, ME-2, MI-6, MI-11, MI-7, MI-8, MN-2, MN-3, MO-2, MT-AL, NE-2, NJ-2 (if open), NJ-3, NJ-7, NJ-11, NY-1, NY-2 (if open), NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-22, NY-23, NY-24, NC-9, OH-1, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-16, TX-7, TX-32, TX-23, the new court-ordered Texas seat, UT-4, VA-2, VA-5, VA-10, WA-3, WA-8, WV-3, WI-7, WI-8.

I'm sure I'm missing more. EDIT: NM-2, NV-2, MI-1, IN-2

I will acknowledge though, Timmy, that I'm more bullish on Democratic chances of mitigating Senate losses (or even making a net gain) than most people, but I've already addressed that in excruciating detail. I guess we'll see!

Again - "chance to flip" and "guarantee to flip" are very different things. Only during biggest waves  second group begins remotely resemble first one, usually it's much smaller...

Once-a-ing-gain, I clearly ing laid that out in my qualifier statement

I read it with great attention. I am simply very amused when someone uses list similar to your to "prove" that Democrats will win 50 seats next election. Except for utter collapse of Trump administration - they will not... But the attempts will, surely, continue..

I really don't have time to explain the definitions of every word I used, so I would recommend just not posting in response to other people if you can't comprehend things like "most of these probably won't happen, but I know someone on here will take that part of my qualifier out of context):" or "potentially flipping"

I have every right to comment what i want, so you may go to hell with all your "recommendations"....  I never give or accept such "advices" from anybody. And don't think that you are wiser then them, and your "forecasts" are better then theirs... Time will tell all... Rather soon.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Folks, you should ease up on the sniping this early in this game, or you'll completely wear yourselves out by the time the 2018 elections get here.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Here's the individual ratings DDHQ gives house races: https://decisiondeskhq.com/upcoming-races/ddhq-2018-house-midterm-race-ratings/

A lot of them in the Likely R category seems weird, like VA-06 and PA-05. I highly doubt those will be competitive next year.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No one thought Democrats would win all those upstate NY districts or Pennsylvania and Ohio districts in 2006 early on either.

Again, have you looked at the map? They'd have to do quite well to get 48, but you don't need any ridiculous seats.

Man...by March of next year you two will have shifted the conversation to whether or not the Dems will net gain 75 seats and then to 100 seats a few months later.

By October 2018 the only question left will be if the Democratic permamajority will reign for 1,000 years or 10,000 years. Oh and if Queen Harris (peace be upon her) will win by 30 points in 2020 or 70.


Sure anything can happen in politics but the Democrats right now are the Chicago Cubs of polticial Parties. They did win the World Series* last year so sure, anything is possible. Jerk off to your wildest fantasies.

Fifty winnable seats. And I left several on the table.

Also: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=264008.0

Do you understand how probability works when trying to calculate 50 seats flipping? You'd have to take into account the chances Democrats have to flip EVERY SINGLE one of those seats to spit out a number at the very end.

If you genuinely believe that th Demcorats have a good shot at flipping 50 seats this early on then I have some snake oil to sell you. What's the Democrats PV lead been fluctuating at 538 for the past month now? Plus 7-8 points right? I know it's gone up to 10 recently but 7-8 seems to be the monthly average so far. 7-8 points is also the bare minimum they need to just barely take back the House and win 25-26 seats.

50 seats would be what? A popular vote victory of 12+? You're hedging your bets that that'll happen this early on?

Where is the evidence for your assertion that democrats need a 7-8 point lead to flip the house? And I left out quite a few seats that could become competitive. These are just obvious ones.

[AtorBoltox]

Everything is pointing to a D+15 victory so this question about how many seats  the dems would gain if they win by 8 is moot

[mvd10]

Democrats will make gains in the House, but I don't think 40-50 seats is realistic. Currently the 242nd most Democratic district is an R+5 district. Picking up R+5 districts with entrenched incumbents is going to be extremely hard, even with an extremely unpopular president. In 2010 the 242nd most Republican seat was a seat with an even Cook PVI. The Democrats are at an enormous institutional disadvantage.

[Gustaf]

I think Smoltchanov's reading mistake lies more in interpreting PNM as defending Omegascarlet's claim that Democrats will win 50 seats with a fairly high probability. I don't think that was actually happening though.