Is this the path to a Democratic House majority?

[wesmoorenerd]

This is missing a couple of seats seen as tossups that I'm a little more skeptical of (MI-07, VA-02, NY-19, CO-08) but other than that it obviously necessitates a pretty clean sweep. Is this the Democrats' easiest path to a bare majority?

[Woody]

Yup. I would swap NC-13th and MI-07th.

Luckily this isn't happening though.

[Sir Mohamed]

Kind of, though very unlikely we even retain the House.

I suspect the speaker election would be a hot mess in any 218-217 House, regardless of which party actually comes out on top.

[Devils30]

Yup. I would swap NC-13th and MI-07th.

Luckily this isn't happening though.

I think any Dem majority would have Slotkin surviving and an unexpected suburban Dem hold. NC-13 with Apex and part of Raleigh in the district seems well suited for that. CO-8 probably goes blue if Dems win and NJ-7 fits the high-education/suburbia theme. Always a chance something funky happens in a FL-27 with a less working class midterm electorate.

[MillennialModerate]

If Ohio, NY and Florida went Dems way in the courts - and Biden could get to even a 40-45% approval - I think Dems would have won the house. But alas ….GOP at 230 is the absolute floor

[coloradocowboi]

Yup. I would swap NC-13th and MI-07th.

Luckily this isn't happening though.

Lol getting nervous, so you’re getting started early huh?

[ProgressiveModerate]

If Ohio, NY and Florida went Dems way in the courts - and Biden could get to even a 40-45% approval - I think Dems would have won the house. But alas ….GOP at 230 is the absolute floor

Tbf, redistricting wins and Ls split pretty evenly between both sides and I’d argue the replacement NY map is still pretty good for Dems anyways.

Every domino falling Dems way wasn’t going to happen

[Gracile]

I know Kean is seen is seen as a "strong candidate" or whatever, but I thing NJ-07 voting to the right of several Trump seats/marginal Biden seats with a worse trendline (specifically ME-02, OH-09, PA-07, PA-08).

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think Slotkin would be part of a Dem majority this cycle, given she's a decent incumbetn facing a weak challenger and the dynamics in Michigan seem to be good for Dems relative to a lot of places. Dems also won the primary vote in her district thanks to solid Lansing turnout which is a good sign.

[2016]

I think Democrats have destroyed their very marginal chance retaining the House by passing this Socialist Spending Spree and New Green Deal Crappola.

You wonder how those folks in Western PA feeling when their jobs get taken away.

[Tekken_Guy]

I think Slotkin would be part of a Dem majority this cycle, given she's a decent incumbetn facing a weak challenger and the dynamics in Michigan seem to be good for Dems relative to a lot of places. Dems also won the primary vote in her district thanks to solid Lansing turnout which is a good sign.

Tom Barrett is not a weak challenger.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think Slotkin would be part of a Dem majority this cycle, given she's a decent incumbetn facing a weak challenger and the dynamics in Michigan seem to be good for Dems relative to a lot of places. Dems also won the primary vote in her district thanks to solid Lansing turnout which is a good sign.

Tom Barrett is not a weak challenger.

His fundraising has been dreadful relative to Slotkins, though that's not the end all be all.

[Torie]

The Pub base is doing all it can to make it happen, nominating one kook after another, almost without abatement. The latest iteration is likely WA-03.

[Mr.Phips]

The Pub base is doing all it can to make it happen, nominating one kook after another, almost without abatement. The latest iteration is likely WA-03.

Republicans will still easily win WA-03 this year with Kent.  It’s still a district Trump won by five.

[Progressive Pessimist]

While I do think that MI-7 and NY-19 would be part of most winning Democratic district maps too, I think you're pretty close to what a winning path would be. However, the likelihood of this path happening at all this year is very, very slim.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I also think this map exposes a bit of a fallacy. Individually, none of the seats you have Dems winning seem like stretches at all and seem very realistic. Yet collectively, it seems like Dems shot at retaking the House are slim to none.

People act like tossups are seats that are bound to split down the middle with about half going to Dems and half going to the GOP. However, that doesn't tend to happen, especially on the House level where tossups almost universally break for the party who outperforms expectations (see Dems in 2018, GOP in 2020). Dems CAN still win the House if most all tossups break their way which isn't as unlikely as it may seem, however, tossups splitting even or for the GOP instantly means a GOP House majority which can be why it feels inevitable the GOP will win the House.

In the Senate where the number of tossups in smaller, a path to a Dem majority feels more tangible since one can justify Democrats winning each tossup race individually.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I also think this map exposes a bit of a fallacy. Individually, none of the seats you have Dems winning seem like stretches at all and seem very realistic. Yet collectively, it seems like Dems shot at retaking the House are slim to none.

People act like tossups are seats that are bound to split down the middle with about half going to Dems and half going to the GOP. However, that doesn't tend to happen, especially on the House level where tossups almost universally break for the party who outperforms expectations (see Dems in 2018, GOP in 2020). Dems CAN still win the House if most all tossups break their way which isn't as unlikely as it may seem, however, tossups splitting even or for the GOP instantly means a GOP House majority which can be why it feels inevitable the GOP will win the House.

In the Senate where the number of tossups in smaller, a path to a Dem majority feels more tangible since one can justify Democrats winning each tossup race individually.

That's a good distillation of this year's dynamics.

For me though, the House is safe R in my thinking simply because they won't require too many seats to reach a majority, benefited more redistricting, and have the environment on their side. The question is how big their majority could be, and it's looking like it might be dwindling. Something like MI-3 becoming a real pickup opportunity for Democrats is huge in offsetting Republicans' potential gains.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I also think this map exposes a bit of a fallacy. Individually, none of the seats you have Dems winning seem like stretches at all and seem very realistic. Yet collectively, it seems like Dems shot at retaking the House are slim to none.

People act like tossups are seats that are bound to split down the middle with about half going to Dems and half going to the GOP. However, that doesn't tend to happen, especially on the House level where tossups almost universally break for the party who outperforms expectations (see Dems in 2018, GOP in 2020). Dems CAN still win the House if most all tossups break their way which isn't as unlikely as it may seem, however, tossups splitting even or for the GOP instantly means a GOP House majority which can be why it feels inevitable the GOP will win the House.

In the Senate where the number of tossups in smaller, a path to a Dem majority feels more tangible since one can justify Democrats winning each tossup race individually.

That's a good distillation of this year's dynamics.

For me though, the House is safe R in my thinking simply because they won't require too many seats to reach a majority, benefited more redistricting, and have the environment on their side. The question is how big their majority could be, and it's looking like it might be dwindling. Something like MI-3 becoming a real pickup opportunity for Democrats is huge in offsetting Republicans' potential gains.

I think Safe R is a bit too confident though it's hard to argue Rs aren't favored given everything we know.

Yes, Republicans don't have to net that many seats to gain a majority but that can be a bit misleading in a redistricting cycle since both sides are going to have a handful of "isnta-flips" that dillute that picture a bit. In many ways, you're kind of starting from scratch cause of redistricting rather than building off an existing House delegation.

Redistricting really had no net impact for either side in terms of their ability to win a majority; it basically just meant both sides shored up a lot of their own seats meaning opportunities that existed before are now gone with fewer to replace them. The bias is still about R + 2 (meaning a NPV of D + 2 should be about the inflection point).

The most important thing is looking at the national environment which seems on track to be a few points redder than D + 2 on average. it's not *impossible* to see something like a D + 3 national environment that allows Dems to narrowly flip the House, but it's def pretty far from the median outcome.

[sg0508]

It's hard to follow the House seats closely, but I do believe if the Democrats do well at the top of the ticket in the Senate and Governorships, there could be a trickle-down effect to the House that potentially saves them 10-15 seats. Who knows? I always believe it's those suburban collar seats that are the wildcards to watch.

[MT Treasurer]

My biggest problem with this is that it does not allow for a Democratic underperformance in majority-minority districts or seats with a large share of non-white/Anglo groups and instead necessitates a clean sweep of districts like CA-27, NM-02, NV-03, TX-34, etc. In an 'atypical' midterm election in which Democrats stand a good chance of holding Congress & most governorships, those places would probably be the shakiest part of the D coalition. While Democrats could still win most of those districts (esp. the more urban ones), it’s not that hard to see some of them (including TX-34 — I really don’t think it’s wise for Democrats to write off Flores or to act like the Biden margin is the be-all and end-all here, esp. since uniform swing never actually occurs) bucking the trend of the more liberal, affluent, and suburban districts which would be the main catalyst behind Democrats defying traditional midterm headwinds in this scenario.

On your map, Democrats are winning (a) most of the districts in which they are reliant on 2020 trends among certain minority groups not continuing this cycle, (b) some of the most competitive/swingy-ish seats which tend to be very susceptible to shifts in the environment (e.g. MI-8, MN-2, PA-7) and (c) even some districts in which they need to delay trends among rural/small-town white voters (e.g. PA-8 and OH-9) — and yet, all of this still only yields a bare House majority of one vote. It just goes to underscore how much of an uphill battle the House actually is for Democrats, as way too many moving parts need to be in place for it to happen and each part of their coalition has to perform (this is also true in the Senate, just to a lesser extent because of very poor R candidates, fewer competitive races, and a friendlier map).

[S019]

I'm very skeptical that Luria loses while Golden wins. Golden strikes me as one of the most overrated candidates on this site, he only barely won in 2018 and clearly with hindsight, Republicans made a massive mistake by triaging his seat in 2020. "Candidate quality" matters somewhat, but acting like Poliquin is an absurdly weak candidate is frankly absurd (given he's won this seat multiple times before).

[Torie]

I also think this map exposes a bit of a fallacy. Individually, none of the seats you have Dems winning seem like stretches at all and seem very realistic. Yet collectively, it seems like Dems shot at retaking the House are slim to none.

People act like tossups are seats that are bound to split down the middle with about half going to Dems and half going to the GOP. However, that doesn't tend to happen, especially on the House level where tossups almost universally break for the party who outperforms expectations (see Dems in 2018, GOP in 2020). Dems CAN still win the House if most all tossups break their way which isn't as unlikely as it may seem, however, tossups splitting even or for the GOP instantly means a GOP House majority which can be why it feels inevitable the GOP will win the House.

In the Senate where the number of tossups in smaller, a path to a Dem majority feels more tangible since one can justify Democrats winning each tossup race individually.

You put your finger on it, and then deus ex machina, dismissed it. The path to a Dem hold on the House is the tossups almost universally breaking their way, along perhaps getting a few seats where the Pub candidate's kook/incompetence quotient is just too high. There is a non-negligible chance of that happening now.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My biggest problem with this is that it does not allow for a Democratic underperformance in majority-minority districts or seats with a large share of non-white/Anglo groups and instead necessitates a clean sweep of districts like CA-27, NM-02, NV-03, TX-34, etc. In an 'atypical' midterm election in which Democrats stand a good chance of holding Congress & most governorships, those places would probably be the shakiest part of the D coalition. While Democrats could still win most of those districts (esp. the more urban ones), it’s not that hard to see some of them (including TX-34 — I really don’t think it’s wise for Democrats to write off Flores or to act like the Biden margin is the be-all and end-all here, esp. since uniform swing never actually occurs) bucking the trend of the more liberal, affluent, and suburban districts which would be the main catalyst behind Democrats defying traditional midterm headwinds in this scenario.

On your map, Democrats are winning (a) most of the districts in which they are reliant on 2020 trends among certain minority groups not continuing this cycle, (b) some of the most competitive/swingy-ish seats which tend to be very susceptible to shifts in the environment (e.g. MI-8, MN-2, PA-7) and (c) even some districts in which they need to delay trends among rural/small-town white voters (e.g. PA-8 and OH-9) — and yet, all of this still only yields a bare House majority of one vote. It just goes to underscore how much of an uphill battle the House actually is for Democrats, as way too many moving parts need to be in place for it to happen and each part of their coalition has to perform (this is also true in the Senate, just to a lesser extent because of very poor R candidates, fewer competitive races, and a friendlier map).

I agree with you that this map assumes Democrats don't have a huge dropoff with minority support, particuarly more culturally conservative and rural Hispanics in the Southwest.

However, this thread is talking about IF Democrats are winning a majority in which case there probably isn't a national dropoff large enough to cost them TX-34, unless the party is experiencing significant gains in other communities which seem unlikely.

If it were me, I would exchange a few of the seats such as NM-02, MI-08, and PA-07 for NY-19, IA-03, or MI-07 where Democrats aren't fighting the same sort of losing battle with political re-alignment plus the hope that strong turnout in these more educated liberal cities could offset the GOP matching Trump's nubmers in rural areas.

As I said before, in order for Dems to win the House virtually all the current tossups have to break in their favor and those set of tossup seats are pretty diverse. In reality, a Dem win would probably mean overperforming expectations nationally (causing most tossups to break their way) but also having a clear theme of seats in which they are outperforming the most; in 2018 it was suburban seats for instance, and possibly win a few lean R seats in upsets that match that theme well. Good examples would be in 2018 where Dem wins in seats such as GA-06, TX-07, and even OK-05 fit the theme quite well and weren't as much of upsets looking back.

Say for instance a theme of Dems having strong turnout/margins in midsized cities relative to rural areas it what delivers for them in 2022 (similar to what we've seen in the NE-01 and MN-01 special elections), seeing a seat such as MI-04, OH-13, or IA-04 going D which many have written off may not be as strange.

The same logic works in reverse. Say massive inroads with minority voters is really what delivers for Rs, seats such as TX-34, TX-28, or even CA-13 flipping would seem quite fitting in hindsight even though most have them as leaning Dems way.