Democrats Could Even Keep the House This November

[MarkD]

I've been saying for months that I do believe Dems will keep control of the House, with a net gain of 2-3 seats (beyond what they had won in 2020). I foresee that the economy will continue to improve and inflation rates will fall; Biden's approval ratings will improve as well. Most importantly, I think the Dobbs decision serves to significantly motivate pro-choicers to get to the polls like never before (look at what happened in Kansas), including the fact that many pro-choice Republicans might vote Democratic this year, perhaps for the first time ever in the lives of many of them. I foresee Democrats winning many open seats this year -- no incumbent running, or even lives in the district -- such as CA-13, CO-8, FL-15, IL-13, MI-13, NC-14, OR-6, TX-15, and TX-35; holding on to seats they currently do hold and which seem in trouble of flipping to R -- such as AZ-2, AZ-6, FL-7, IA-3, KS-3, ME-2, NH-1, NJ-7, NY-19, OH-9, PA-7, PA-8, and VA-2; and picking off some incumbent Republicans -- such as CA-22, CA-27, CA-40, CA-45, FL-27, either IA-1 or IA-2 (if not both), NE-2, and OH-1. Then there's even the prospect of winning some open seats currently held by GOP -- such as MI-3 and NY-22.

Even though there is one seat Democrats currently hold which they will obviously lose -- TN-5 -- I see plenty of opportunities for the Democrats to keep their majority and even expand it, by at least a little bit. I don't think winning 224 or 225 is unrealistic.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is a realistic scenario where 218RH and D's win 55 Senate seats which sets up 24 nicely and D's win back the H in 24, there is a range of 235RH to 210 Rs and 50/56D S but the idea we can't win OH, NC and FL as well as WI and PA even if Rs take the H is silly we did the samething in 2010/12 we won OH, MT, WVA and MO in 2012 while Rs won the H

Ryan, Beasley and Demings and Crist  are very well prepared for their R opponents and expect to win, obviously if DeWine or Abbott loses it secures the H but we can wind up with 220RH and 55 DSenator's  and then win back the H in 2024
.Demings, Ryan and BEASLEY are constantly on Act blue asking for Donations and I plan on donating to her and when Crist puts Fried on as LT Gov that will help him against DeSantis

They can call a numerical majority for Rs in the H and then say OH, NC, WI, GA, NV and FL are too close to call like they did in ,2012

[coloradocowboi]

I've been saying for months that I do believe Dems will keep control of the House, with a net gain of 2-3 seats (beyond what they had won in 2020). I foresee that the economy will continue to improve and inflation rates will fall; Biden's approval ratings will improve as well. Most importantly, I think the Dobbs decision serves to significantly motivate pro-choicers to get to the polls like never before (look at what happened in Kansas), including the fact that many pro-choice Republicans might vote Democratic this year, perhaps for the first time ever in the lives of many of them. I foresee Democrats winning many open seats this year -- no incumbent running, or even lives in the district -- such as CA-13, CO-8, FL-15, IL-13, MI-13, NC-14, OR-6, TX-15, and TX-35; holding on to seats they currently do hold and which seem in trouble of flipping to R -- such as AZ-2, AZ-6, FL-7, IA-3, KS-3, ME-2, NH-1, NJ-7, NY-19, OH-9, PA-7, PA-8, and VA-2; and picking off some incumbent Republicans -- such as CA-22, CA-27, CA-40, CA-45, FL-27, either IA-1 or IA-2 (if not both), NE-2, and OH-1. Then there's even the prospect of winning some open seats currently held by GOP -- such as MI-3 and NY-22.

Even though there is one seat Democrats currently hold which they will obviously lose -- TN-5 -- I see plenty of opportunities for the Democrats to keep their majority and even expand it, by at least a little bit. I don't think winning 224 or 225 is unrealistic.

I have Democrats at about 225 right now. I was born and raised in CO 8 - my dad was even an elected official in Adams County - and it's gonna be a v difficult district to win if pro-choice women turn out. It's a young district. It's a 40% Latino district. I think just plugging it into some algorithm as an R+1 PVI district does a disservice to forecasting it and most forecasters have it as a GOP pick up. Now, what would be really nice is if there was more public polling in races like this, OR 5, OR 6, CA 45, NM 2.... in general the West is where Republicans have the most to lose and we know nothing about their prospects there.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I am now convinced that my bearish predictions for Democrats are benefiting them. So I am still going to insist on a safe R House for only that reason now. Actually, safe R everything.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I am now convinced that my bearish predictions for Democrats are benefiting them. So I am still going to insist on a safe R House for only that reason now. Actually, safe R everything.

Naw, that kind of reverse psychology doesn't work on the Universe.  For example, washing your car to make it rain never works.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I am now convinced that my bearish predictions for Democrats are benefiting them. So I am still going to insist on a safe R House for only that reason now. Actually, safe R everything.

Naw, that kind of reverse psychology doesn't work on the Universe.  For example, washing your car to make it rain never works.

It can't hurt though. Just trust me on this.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

HOT TAKE:

Since coalitions have shifted since 2014, I think there is a reason why polls were right in 2018 and wrong in 2016/2020.

Polls have trouble adjusting for education in those years, but they seem to use the same formula when calculating turnout for each time. So naturally they'd be more accurate in years when educated people make up more of the electorate, such as the midterms.

Right now, the polls indicative of a neutral environment are matching with the special election results- and then some.

Republicans will be disappointed when educated people like scientists and doctors don't see them as the tax-cutting check on President Obama like in 2014 but as the people who don't believe in science and undercut the medical truth on vaccines and healthcare.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

HOT TAKE:

Since coalitions have shifted since 2014, I think there is a reason why polls were right in 2018 and wrong in 2016/2020.

Polls have trouble adjusting for education in those years, but they seem to use the same formula when calculating turnout for each time. So naturally they'd be more accurate in years when educated people make up more of the electorate, such as the midterms.

Right now, the polls indicative of a neutral environment are matching with the special election results- and then some.

Republicans will be disappointed when educated people like scientists and doctors don't see them as the tax-cutting check on President Obama like in 2014 but as the people who don't believe in science and undercut the medical truth on vaccines and healthcare.

This talking point needs to die. The polls have mostly underestimated Republicans from 2014 on. 2018 too. FL Gov, WI Gov, OH Gov, OH Senate, IN Senate, MO Senate, IA Gov, need I go on?

[ProgressiveModerate]

HOT TAKE:

Since coalitions have shifted since 2014, I think there is a reason why polls were right in 2018 and wrong in 2016/2020.

Polls have trouble adjusting for education in those years, but they seem to use the same formula when calculating turnout for each time. So naturally they'd be more accurate in years when educated people make up more of the electorate, such as the midterms.

Right now, the polls indicative of a neutral environment are matching with the special election results- and then some.

Republicans will be disappointed when educated people like scientists and doctors don't see them as the tax-cutting check on President Obama like in 2014 but as the people who don't believe in science and undercut the medical truth on vaccines and healthcare.

This talking point needs to die. The polls have mostly underestimated Republicans from 2014 on. 2018 too. FL Gov, WI Gov, OH Gov, OH Senate, IN Senate, MO Senate, IA Gov, need I go on?

I would argue in 2018, the polls didn't underestimate Rs but underestimated partisanship. It just so happened that a lot of the Senate battlegrounds were in deep R states, but polls in all the perennial swing states did quite well (NV, AZ, WI, MI, PA, VA, MN). The only swing state where the polls really struggled was FL.

I think a lot of polls struggle to pick up on turnout dynamics and voters who ultimately vote even if they weren't very engaged, which is why polling tends to get worse the redder the state.

What's also notable though is if the polls in PA and AZ continue to have Dems leading by 10, it'd be nearly unheard of for the kind of error that would allow Oz and Masters to win. Not saying it won't happen but you can't really use history to say they'd win cause "muh polling error"

My general rule is assuming polls are underestimating partisanship in most cases and that Rs will overperform nationally by about 2-4 points.

[Devils30]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/house/elections-map.html

LOL. NY-18 AND NY-19 at lean R.

[SWE]

Keep in mind Democrats were also polling very well at this time in 2014 as well

What? Around this time in 2014 the GOP had a 65% chance of taking the Senate?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html#polls

Look at polls in august for RCP

Now here is the senate:

IA : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990.html#polls

NC: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_tillis_vs_hagan-3497.html#polls

CO: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html#polls


But yes the senate map in 2014 was way way better for the GOP then 2022 since they had a path to a majority in 2014 by just winning the senate races in states Romney won while this the democrats do not . The fact is though the republicans have overperformed polling since like 2014 and even 2018 which polling nailed the house result did pretty badly in the senate races .



 

Republicans needed to gain 6 seats to gain the Senate, and polling by August indicated they would - SD, WV, MT, AR, and LA were basically long established as lost causes by then and Alaska looked like it had slipped away by then too. The three races you cherry picked would have only been a bonus icing on the cake.

If you were going off of polls at this point in 2014, to suggest that Democrats would squeak by with a 50/50 majority would have been irrationally optimistic. Your assertion that Democrats were polling very well in August of 2014 isn't true at all. Maybe the polls are off this year, but it makes no sense to me to look at a year where Democrats winning the house was never on the table and were at their peak heavy underdogs to take over the Senate and try to extrapolate that the current indicators, that Democrats are favored in the Senate and big, but not DOA, underdogs in the house are wrong.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Keep in mind Democrats were also polling very well at this time in 2014 as well

What? Around this time in 2014 the GOP had a 65% chance of taking the Senate?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html#polls

Look at polls in august for RCP

Now here is the senate:

IA : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990.html#polls

NC: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_tillis_vs_hagan-3497.html#polls

CO: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html#polls


But yes the senate map in 2014 was way way better for the GOP then 2022 since they had a path to a majority in 2014 by just winning the senate races in states Romney won while this the democrats do not . The fact is though the republicans have overperformed polling since like 2014 and even 2018 which polling nailed the house result did pretty badly in the senate races .



 

Polling was accurate in 2018 in Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania and even underestimated Democrats in Arizona and Nevada. Those are the states that matter this year for Senate.

No it wasn't accurate in Wisconsin. That's just revisionist history. Walker was supposed to lose by 7-8 points and he only won by 1-2

[wbrocks67]

Keep in mind Democrats were also polling very well at this time in 2014 as well

What? Around this time in 2014 the GOP had a 65% chance of taking the Senate?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html#polls

Look at polls in august for RCP

Now here is the senate:

IA : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990.html#polls

NC: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/north_carolina_senate_tillis_vs_hagan-3497.html#polls

CO: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/co/colorado_senate_gardner_vs_udall-3845.html#polls


But yes the senate map in 2014 was way way better for the GOP then 2022 since they had a path to a majority in 2014 by just winning the senate races in states Romney won while this the democrats do not . The fact is though the republicans have overperformed polling since like 2014 and even 2018 which polling nailed the house result did pretty badly in the senate races .



 

Polling was accurate in 2018 in Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania and even underestimated Democrats in Arizona and Nevada. Those are the states that matter this year for Senate.

No it wasn't accurate in Wisconsin. That's just revisionist history. Walker was supposed to lose by 7-8 points and he only won by 1-2

IIRC, the average for WI-SEN in 2018 was spot on with Baldwin winning by 10. The average for GOV was a little more wonky but Marquette for example nailed both races.