What's the best *plausible* result for Democrats in 2018?

[Xing]

Since King Lear already made a thread about the worst imaginable result for Dems, here's the opposite one.

While it might be the case that if Democrats win every remotely competitive House race, they'd net close to 70 seats, and maybe lightning could theoretically strike in TX, TN, AND MS, it's hard to imagine that actually happening.

I think that the best plausible result for Democrats in the House would be a net gain of about 45 seats, or possibly 50 if it really is a wave. In the Senate, I think 52 total seats is the best that they could hope for (holding all of their seats while winning NV, AZ, and either TX or TN.)

Edit: For gubernatorial races, I'd say D+14, which would happen if they held all of their races, while picking up AZ, FL, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MI, NV, NH, NM, OH, WI, and one of GA/OK/VT.

[YE]

Senate: 53 seats or so realistically. One (both if it opens) AZ sea(s), NV, TN and/or possible MS special.

House: +55-60 seats.

[UncleSam]

+3-4 in the senate

+55 house

+10 governors races

[windjammer]

Best House scenario: picking 60 seats
Best Senate scenario: picking AZ-AZ special-MS special-TN-TX-NV +6 so 55-45 Dem

Of course that is not going to happen lol

[smoltchanov]

+3 D - Senate, +45 D - House. If everything goes in Democratic favor.

[King Lear]

My best plausible result for democrats is D+26 in the house and D+2 in the senate which would have them holding all their senate seats while flipping republican senate seats in Arizona and Nevada. This scenario would give them narrow majorities in both houses of Congress and would be a utter disaster for republicans, especially if trump still managed to win reelection in 2020 which would set them up for another midterm wipeout in 2022 followed by a landslide presidential defeat in 2024 and possibly decades in the electoral wilderness. The reason I don't believe democrats can have the massive house gains others are predicting is because their pathway back to the majority is heavily dependent on winning as many Clinton-Republican districts as possible (theirs 23 of them), holding on to all the Trump-Democratic districts (theirs 12 of them) plus winning a few marginal Trump-Republican districts. I just have a really hard time seeing democrats winning a bunch of districts trump won by double-digits with the exception of the few that are currently held by democrats.

[MM876]

In the House probably ~+70 or so, and in the Senate the absolute maximum would probably be +6 for a total of 55 seats: Nevada, 2 in Arizona (Class I and III), 1 in Mississippi (probably Cochran's old seat if he resigns, Wicker's too safe), Texas, and Tennessee.

[LimoLiberal]

In the House probably +15 and in the Senate -1. They're going to have a tough time.

[Brittain33]

I still don't see how the Dems win a MS seat under any circumstances. Yes, energized AA voters etc. but you don't have Roy Moore running.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I still don't see how the Dems win a MS seat under any circumstances. Yes, energized AA voters etc. but you don't have Roy Moore running.

Presley has a white base in Northern Mississippi that may cross over and support him. That plus the Delta and Jackson can get him over the line.

[windjammer]

I still don't see how the Dems win a MS seat under any circumstances. Yes, energized AA voters etc. but you don't have Roy Moore running.

MS is like 10 points less red than AL

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

In the Senate: D+5 probably - NV, AZ, TX, TN, AZ-special
Governors: Somewhere around D+15 - I'd say AZ, FL, GA, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MI, NV, NH, NM, OH, OK, TN and WI is the ceiling, maybe swap OK and TN with one of MA and VT.
In the House, the maximum is probably around 50.

[junior chįmp]

In the House probably +15 and in the Senate -1. They're going to have a tough time.

Hmm. Interesting. +15 is within the range your Roy Moore would f.u.c.k.

Lool

Sad, if true tho!

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Senate:

D+3

House:

D+48

Gov:

D+15

[Landslide Lyndon]

I still don't see how the Dems win a MS seat under any circumstances. Yes, energized AA voters etc. but you don't have Roy Moore running.

I'm always confident that Steve Bannon will find someone worse than Moore to run and win the primary.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Senate net gain 3, house gain 50-60. My guess for most realistic scenario is about a net gain of 1 for dems in the senate and a net gain of around 30 in the house.

[Gustaf]

This always boils down to one's definition of plausible. I don't think Bredesen winning in Tennessee and O'Rourke winning in Texas is particularly far-fetched. I don't expect either but it certainly seems like something that could plausibly happen if Democrats have a good night. They could also retain all seats. Arizona having a special and that also going Dem also seems like a fairly realistic chance. So I'd say +5.

Anything beyond that (i.e. MS) requires a bunch of specific things that aren't super likely to happen so I'd rule that out. So a 54-46 majority.

In the House I haven't gone over the numbers enough to say.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Gain 60 seats in the house, win control of the Senate 53-47.

[Orser67]

I'll say +5 in the Senate (up to 54). Defend all seats, then pick up NV, AZ, TX, TN, and one of AZ-special, MS-special, or some other seat.

In the House, I think the outside edge of what is plausible would be quite favorable to Democrats. In the last 3 midterm elections in which one party had unified control of Congress and the presidency (so 2010, 2006, and 1994), the average pickup was 49 seats. As the FiveThirtyEight article laid out, Trump is historically unpopular, and there are dozens of R+5 to R+10 seats that could go Democratic. So I'll say something like a 70 seat pickup is the upper-most range of what is plausible. TX-21 (Lamar Smith), NM-2 (Steve Pearce), and VA-7 (Dave Brat) are examples of seats that could go Democratic in this election.

The gubernatorial races could be a bloodbath of historic proportions. I think Democrats probably hold all their own seats then pick up NM, ME, IL, MI, and NV (D+5). FL, NH, WI, OH, MA, KS, MD, VT, and IA are all totally plausible as well (D+14 total). OK, GA, AZ, TN, TX, and even AL and SD are not completely safe, and I'll say at best Democrats pick up two of those states. So D+16 total.

[Hoosier_Nick]

I'll say +5 in the Senate (up to 54). Defend all seats, then pick up NV, AZ, TX, TN, and one of AZ-special, MS-special, or some other seat.

In the House, I think the outside edge of what is plausible would be quite favorable to Democrats. In the last 3 midterm elections in which one party had unified control of Congress and the presidency (so 2010, 2006, and 1994), the average pickup was 49 seats. As the FiveThirtyEight article laid out, Trump is historically unpopular, and there are dozens of R+5 to R+10 seats that could go Democratic. So I'll say something like a 70 seat pickup is the upper-most range of what is plausible. TX-21 (Lamar Smith), NM-2 (Steve Pearce), and VA-7 (Dave Brat) are examples of seats that could go Democratic in this election.

The gubernatorial races could be a bloodbath of historic proportions. I think Democrats probably hold all their own seats then pick up NM, ME, IL, MI, and NV (D+5). FL, NH, WI, OH, MA, KS, MD, VT, and IA are all totally plausible as well (D+14 total). OK, GA, AZ, TN, TX, and even AL and SD are not completely safe, and I'll say at best Democrats pick up two of those states. So D+16 total.

I think this is about where I'm at.

[Cynthia]

+4 in the Senate (NV, AZ, two of TX, TN, AZ-special, MS-special)
+60 in the House
+15 in the mansions
+30 in number of state houses

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

+4 in the Senate (NV, AZ, two of TX, TN, AZ-special, MS-special)
+60 in the House
+15 in the mansions
+30 in number of state houses

Basically this.

[Brittain33]

I still don't see how the Dems win a MS seat under any circumstances. Yes, energized AA voters etc. but you don't have Roy Moore running.

Presley has a white base in Northern Mississippi that may cross over and support him.

I just wonder if the Republican is going to be someone they will cross over to get away from. I know that Mississippi Republicans have crossed over for Travis Childers in my lifetime, but I won't believe it until I see a miserable candidate nominated by the Rs.

[Antonio the Sixth]

+2 seats in the Senate (pick up NV and AZ, and either lose no seat or lose one but win a longshot like TN or TX), +50 seats in the House.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

My best plausible result for democrats is D+26 in the house and D+2 in the senate which would have them holding all their senate seats while flipping republican senate seats in Arizona and Nevada. This scenario would give them narrow majorities in both houses of Congress and would be a utter disaster for republicans, especially if trump still managed to win reelection in 2020 which would set them up for another midterm wipeout in 2022 followed by a landslide presidential defeat in 2024 and possibly decades in the electoral wilderness. The reason I don't believe democrats can have the massive house gains others are predicting is because their pathway back to the majority is heavily dependent on winning as many Clinton-Republican districts as possible (theirs 23 of them), holding on to all the Trump-Democratic districts (theirs 12 of them) plus winning a few marginal Trump-Republican districts. I just have a really hard time seeing democrats winning a bunch of districts trump won by double-digits with the exception of the few that are currently held by democrats.

If democrats are winning back the senate, they will get far more than f'ing 26 house districts lol. Do you even know the difference between the house and senate maps? The house maps are far more favorable to dems than the senate maps. There's literally 23 house districts that voted for Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile dems have to defend a ton of senate seats that Trump won.

Dems probably need to gain at least 40 house seats before they can take back the senate.