Assume Hillary won in 2016, how many senate seats Dems will lose in 2018?

[ericpolitico]

Assume Hillary won in 2016, 278-260 (with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan) plus
Feingold and McGinty in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (Senate 50-50 with Kaine as the tiebreaker), No Doug Jones

How many Senate seats Dems will lose in 2018?
I think it will be brutal midterm, Manchin, McCaskill, Donnelly, Nelson, Tester, Heitkamp are confirmed gone, Brown and Menendez are vulnerable too, Baldwin, Casey, Kaine's Virginia seat and Stabenow are safe.
So likely loss of 6-7 seats with possible pickup in Nevada (Senate R=56 or 57, d-=43 or 44)

While for the House i guess Dems may lose 20-30 seats, leave them with 170-180 seats

[Sir Mohamed]

ND, MT, IN, MO, WV and FL are lost. The others (Brown, Baldwin, Kaine's replacement) survive.

NV may flip Dem. AZ stays GOP, probably with Flake.

House goes back to the 2014 level (247 seats), maybe 250-252. The GOP was pretty much maxed out at that point.

[UncleSam]

I think a supermajority in the senate would’ve been likely without those extra Senate flips in 2016. The five Romney states + Florida are givens (they all almost flipped in a Trump midterm), and James would’ve won in Michigan. Brown probably goes down in Ohio, and Menendez almost certainly goes down in NJ. Dems probably still gain Nevada but not Arizona. So I guess I think Rs win 58 senate seats?

Virginia would’ve been held by Dems though it would’ve been close vs Comstock.

In the house are gain around 15 for a 245-250 seat majority. Governors stay roughly the same as they were pre midterm, with Walker surviving, Schutte winning Michigan, Rs holding Kansas and probably winning Virginia in 2017.

[Skill and Chance]

It would basically be Republican 1958.

First of all the VA-SEN special in 2017 would be a toss up race, probably Tilt R given it's a special election with an unpopular president.  Then we get to 2018.  9 of the 10 real world Trump state Dems are underdogs from the beginning and Casey is probably too close to call in PA.  Menendez would lose in NJ if he still has the same scandals.  Some of the Sunbelt states may actually tighten by a point or 2 vs. 2016, but not enough to flip anything.  King could lose in Maine, but he probably still wins, although it could come down to RCV.  Given what we saw in NV in 2014, I don't think anything flips there, but it's not impossible.  The expected outcome is probably R+11 net.

The House is probably R+20ish with anyone in a remotely rural Trump district or Clinton +1-3 kind of district losing, e.g. Tim Ryan probably loses in an upset. 

The big question would be whether Republicans get the 34 state legislatures they would need to call a constitutional convention and preempt anything the liberal SCOTUS majority was doing. 

[Former President tack50]

Assuming Clinton is as popular as Trump is now, my guess is that republicans get a supermajority



Taking into account the extra flips in 2016 and no Doug Jones, it's 60R-40D. Net change for 2018: R+9

VA is flipped in the 2017 special election by the republicans, then flipped back in 2018 by democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Assuming it's a wave but not a tsunami, R+8, giving the Republicans 60. While our current timeline is really bad, we avoided a significantly worse timeline here.

[MT Treasurer]

This has been done to death. Also, no one who’s now saying that Republicans would have gained like 11 Senate seats would have actually predicted that had Clinton won the election, especially all the Democrats.

[Orser67]

My guess is Republicans would have 59 seats (including Jones's seat in AL, but not including Kaine's seat in VA, which I think Democrats would have retained). I could also see Democrats losing WI, MI, PA, NJ, MN, and MN-special, though there's a good chance Franken would never have resigned. I wouldn't completely write off NV for Dems (as a sort of reverse FL).



The implications for redistricting would have been even worse.

[Politician]