What is more likely in 2026: Democrats winning the Senate or Republicans keeping the House?

[riverwalk7]

Seems like Republicans are favored in the Senate and Democrats are favored in the House for now.

[Virginiá]

Republicans would struggle to keep the House even with a split popular vote, and even with a historically good midterm for the in-party (low single digit PV loss), which is exceedingly unlikely under Trump, Democrats would most likely flip it.

Democrats winning the Senate is more likely than Republicans keeping the House.

[Talleyrand]

Republicans would struggle to keep the House even with a split popular vote, and even with a historically good midterm for the in-party (low single digit PV loss), which is exceedingly unlikely under Trump, Democrats would most likely flip it.

Democrats winning the Senate is more likely than Republicans keeping the House.

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that they'd need to win in at least two states Trump won by 11 points or more.

[Virginiá]

Republicans would struggle to keep the House even with a split popular vote, and even with a historically good midterm for the in-party (low single digit PV loss), which is exceedingly unlikely under Trump, Democrats would most likely flip it.

Democrats winning the Senate is more likely than Republicans keeping the House.

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that they'd need to win in at least two states Trump won by 11 points or more.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I think neither is likely to happen. But Republicans winning the House popular vote under Donald Trump, particularly with the controversial and inflationary agenda he has been very vocal about implementing, seems exceedingly unlikely. I have to give the odds to the party most likely to have a good election, even if the odds of it happening are still poor.

[Pericles]

The future is unknowable, but I can say with a high level of confidence that there will be a Democratic House in 2027, and likely with a large majority.

[Del Tachi]

Democrats have to flip 4 seats for a majority in the Senate.

The path to do that is to win the two specials in FL, OH (+2) and then defeat Collins (+1) and Tillis (+1). The next most likely pickup opportunities are AK, TX.

It's a steep climb.

[Talleyrand]

Democrats have to flip 4 seats for a majority in the Senate.

The path to do that is to win the two specials in FL, OH (+2) and then defeat Collins (+1) and Tillis (+1). The next most likely pickup opportunities are AK, TX.

It's a steep climb.

I think OH and even IA are more likely than TX, but otherwise agreed.

[Del Tachi]

Democrats have to flip 4 seats for a majority in the Senate.

The path to do that is to win the two specials in FL, OH (+2) and then defeat Collins (+1) and Tillis (+1). The next most likely pickup opportunities are AK, TX.

It's a steep climb.

I think OH and even IA are more likely than TX, but otherwise agreed.

Even without the FL/OH specials, there’s a clear albeit narrow path for Democrats to win back the Senate by 2028. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, they just have to flip 3 of these 4 seats:

•   Susan Collins in Maine (2026)
•   Thom Tillis in North Carolina (2026)
•   Ted Budd in North Carolina (2028)
•   Ron Johnson in Wisconsin (2028)

While this doesn’t require them to win in any Trump-leaning, non-swing states, it does mean Democrats have to play perfect defense for the next two cycles. That shouldn’t be that hard in 2026 assuming a friendly midterm environment where a party typically won’t lose its own swing state seats (GA, MI); however, 2028 has more downside risk because there’s more defense Democrats have to play (AZ, NV, PA, WI) coupled with the potential for a Republican overperformance at the top of the ticket. That’s mitigated if Democrats are on track to win the presidency, since they’d be likely favored to then keep their swing state senate seats in that case.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Democrats winning the Senate.

The House is going to be really rough for the GOP, like 2018.

And with a big enough blue wave Democrats maybe could gain two seats in reach states on addition to the low hanging fruit of Maine and North Carolina.

[Mr. Smith]

The House will be difficult for the GOP, but I don't see where Dems will get the 4th flip? Even beyond ME and NC will be difficult.

[Kalimantan]

The House will be difficult for the GOP, but I don't see where Dems will get the 4th flip? Even beyond ME and NC will be difficult.

Well, since I've been on here I remember the Republicans winning in Massachusetts and Illinois, and Democrats winning in Alabama and Alaska, so nothing is really off the table in midterms / specials

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans keeping the House. Democrats can realistically win the Senate in 2028 if things go well for them in both 2026 and 2028.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This far out is hard to say - I see credible arguments for both.

I'd say Rs with the House if Trump's admin goes smoother than many expect and he remains relatively popular (I think it's unlikely). Also consider in the House Dems already hold a ton of Trump-2024 seats whereas it seems like we may only get 2 or 3 Rs in Harris 2024 seats so there's not a ton of low hanging fruit (though to be fair Dems also don't need that many flips to win the House).

The issue for Dems in the Senate is they have to win not 1, but 2 seats in a state Trump carried by double digits this past cycle which seems like a fairly tall order, even in a 2018-style environment. Perhaps part of it is we just don't have any recent statewide success stories for Dems in places like IA and TX to point to.

This could definitely change though - let's see how things are headed, who Dems recruit for key Senate races, ect.

[Joe Biden 2028]

1. Hope Casey pulls off a miracle with the recount
2. Democrats win senate seats in AK, ME and NC

I think Mary Peltola can win a senate seat. She won 48% in the first round in 2022, 46% this year. Maybe higher. Yeah it sucks ranked choice voting is probably gone, but right now the results are 50.4-49.6.

Thats 49.6% of Alaska that probably would prefer a Mary Peltola

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

If Casey had won, I’d definitely say Democrats winning the Senate. I can see Democrats getting lucky in one state that Trump handily won. But two? That’s going to be very hard, even in a Trump midterm. I’d say both outcomes are about equally unlikely.

[Spectator]

If Casey had won, I’d definitely say Democrats winning the Senate. I can see Democrats getting lucky in one state that Trump handily won. But two? That’s going to be very hard, even in a Trump midterm. I’d say both outcomes are about equally unlikely.

Agreed. 48 Dems seats and I think Dems are looking at excellent odds at winning the Senate back. 47 probably requires a rural D resurgence in places like Iowa/Ohio with serious plays at Alaska and Kansas. Still possible, but the economy would prolly need to be BAD.

[EastOfEden]

Accidentally wrote a wall of text. Here we go. (tl;dr dems winning senate, but it's not much more likely)

Democrats winning the Senate. Which is not to say it's likely. It's certainly not. But currently it's really hard to see the House not flipping. (Please, election gods, may I not have to eat these words). Dems have far better geography than in the 2010s, and on far fairer maps. With perfectly uniform swing (which doesn't happen, but still), a D+1 environment would be more than enough. It could flip before then through specials, even.

The Senate is a much heavier lift. There are two relatively easy targets (North Carolina and Maine, the failures from 2020), potentially doable even with the D+1 flip-the-House environment, and very strong potential candidates for them, but after that, it's sort of unclear where to go from there. There's Alaska, where Mary Peltola might make it interesting. There's also Iowa, where Rob Sand might make it interesting. And there's the Ohio special, where Tim Ryan might make it interesting (or Sherrod Brown, which would be absolutely hilarious if he does that and somehow wins). So there is a theoretical path, but it's a very, very difficult one. I could easily see a heartbreaker scenario where Dems win ME and NC but lose all three of these heavier lifts by 2 points or something. But the path is (very faintly) there.

There's also a more distant possibility, Kansas. Marshall only won by 12 in 2020. His opponent, an exceptionally bland former Republican (switched parties in 2018) from Johnson County, outran Biden in every single county and outran the D candidates for House in all four districts. And, oh look, Kansas has a popular two-term Democratic governor...
I think it's unlikely to be truly competitive in the end, but you never know. Orman matched that margin in 2014, in a far worse environment. Uniform-swing it to 2020 and he loses by less than a point.

If we go even further out into the realm of theorizing (or, let's be honest here, blue-megawave fantasizing):

There's also Texas, and perhaps a Florida special with Rubio leaving to be Secretary of State, but those are looking pretty weak after this year. Texas less so, I could imagine Cornyn sleepwalking into a loss like Roy Blunt almost did in Missouri in 2016, but I would be pretty shocked to see Florida suddenly competitive again. Never say never - I mean, if a state can swing that far right that fast, then it can also swing that far left that fast - but still. This is Florida we're talking about. I'm very doubtful.

I guess there's also Montana, but it's not really worth any real attention unless Daines has a massive scandal or something.

[หมูเด้ง]

At this point, gun to my head, I'm expecting a D+7 electorate (not really a wave but a good year).

I see Democrats winning 25 seats, North Carolina and Maine.

239-196 D 49-51 R senate.

The confidence interval is probably 7 points to either side.
In an even electorate, Democrats probably retake the House by the same margins Republicans have and probably lose either Michigan or Georgia in the senate, but not both. Given trends, probably Michigan.

If we are talking about a 56-42 D electorate, I can see Democrats winning 40 seats, NC, Maine, Alaska, Iowa, and maybe Ohio and Kansas/Texas. 53-47 D senate, 254-181 D house.  

So yeah. I give a chance of a D sweep at like 10-15% and an R sweep of 1-10%.

[Accordion Hazard]

Relative to the current R+2 presidential popular vote
OH=R+9
FL=R+11
IA=R+11
TX=R+12
AK=R+12
KS=R+14
MT=R+18
NE=R+19

Relative to senate races and assuming house generic ballot is also R+2
OH=R+2
MT=R+5
NE=R+5
TX=R+7
FL=R+11
MO=R+12

The presidential numbers suggest pretty dismal chances, even in a wave. The senate numbers suggest though suggest that OH+TX would be competitive in a 2006 or 2018 type environment, with MT+NE suggesting that the right candidate could move other races into play.

[Orser67]

I think the House is Likely D and the Senate is Likely R; in both cases the ratings are closer to "Safe" than to "Lean". Those are stronger predictions than I would usually make this far out, but we all know Democrats will face a terrible Senate map (as per usual). I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Republicans to hold the House going into the mid-term with such a small margin, especially with a trifecta, Trump as president, and Democrats now seeming to have both mid-term turnout advantages and a more favorable House map.

I guess less has to go right for Republicans for them to keep the House as compared to Democrats winning the Senate, and we did see an extremely mild mid-term in 2022. So logically I should probably say Republicans keeping the House. But I just fundamentally believe in Trump's ability to screw up as president, so I will go with Democrats winning the Senate despite it being such a heavy lift.

[หมูเด้ง]

Relative to the current R+2 presidential popular vote
OH=R+9
FL=R+11
IA=R+11
TX=R+12
AK=R+12
KS=R+14
MT=R+18
NE=R+19

Relative to senate races and assuming house generic ballot is also R+2
OH=R+2
MT=R+5
NE=R+5
TX=R+7
FL=R+11
MO=R+12

The presidential numbers suggest pretty dismal chances, even in a wave. The senate numbers suggest though suggest that OH+TX would be competitive in a 2006 or 2018 type environment, with MT+NE suggesting that the right candidate could move other races into play.

It does suggest a senate dummymader situation if this is on the level of 2006 or 2018. That is, once you get the Democrats above 54%, they map opens up pretty much all at once.

[MillennialModerate]

Easily Republicans holding the house - we can’t count on logic to prevail anymore so it wouldn’t shock me if people are still under this trance.

And Casey’s lose dooms Dem Senate chances in 26.

[MargieCat]

Iowa could get interesting.

Ernst did underperform Trump by quite a few points. And that was in an election where Trump was generally underperforming downballot Republicans.

Things could also get messy if there were a bruising primary.

If there were a cycle for Democrats to give Iowa another try, it would be this one.