Will 2026 be seen as a bigger or smaller wave than 2018?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Like within the elections community, not necessarily the larger media.

2018 sets the bar pretty high.

In the House, Dems are starting from a much higher baseline than 2018 only a couple seats away from control. However, this also means it'd be pretty hard for Dems to get a D+40 gain, even on a good night. And honestly just looking at the maps Dems getting to 235 seems like a pretty big challenge given increased polarization and many gerrymanders being "reset" post-2020 (hence fewer realistic reach seats in states like TX/GA).

In both 2018 and 2026, Dems were generally seen as the underdogs in the Senate - however in 2018 Dems were defending a ton of seats in normally deep red states which isn't the case this cycle - a net loss of 2 like 2018 feels close to Democrats worst case scenario in the Senate in 2026. However, even if Democrats have a net gain in 2026, actually winning a majority seems tricky.

In terms of Governorships, Democrats are starting from a higher baseline and have quite a lot of incumbents in swingy and red states (some of whom are term limited), meaning it may be challenging for Democrats to actually flip much, and they could even lose some ground on an otherwise good night.

In the state legislatures, Dems are starting from a higher baseline but still don't have that many chambers in serious danger. Meanwhile, changes in maps give them more realistic shots in states like MI and WI than they had in 2018. However like the House because there's less low hanging fruit, they may flip fewer chambers than 2018.

All in all, do you think 2026 will be seen as a larger or smaller wave than 2018?

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Obviously, we aren't winning 41H seats no it won't be a bigger, but it will be a smaller wave

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

If we're talking about the number of House seats gained, then obviously smaller. If we're talking about GCB or how many seats the Democrats end up with, I think that's actually much less certain than many here seem to think.

[Samof94]

Susan Collins is basically the most endangered Sen. this time around.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Susan Collins is basically the most endangered Sen. this time around.

I actually think Tillis is, assuming Cooper runs. And Ossoff might be more vulnerable than her too, if Kemp runs. I’m rating her pretty strongly after her 2020 win, and the fat that Tester massively overperformed.

[Just Some Guy]

Susan Collins is basically the most endangered Sen. this time around.

I actually think Tillis is, assuming Cooper runs. And Ossoff might be more vulnerable than her too, if Kemp runs. I’m rating her pretty strongly after her 2020 win, and the fat that Tester massively overperformed.

This is probably a typo but don't correct it. LMAO!

[Atlas Force]

If we're talking about the number of House seats gained, then obviously smaller. If we're talking about GCB or how many seats the Democrats end up with, I think that's actually much less certain than many here seem to think.

This basically

[MarkD]

My guess is that it will be a smaller wave. There won't be as strong of a backlash against Trump as there had been in 2018.

[dw93]

At this time, once the effects of these EOs are felt, it'll be bigger on balance.

[Jumped off the American Sinking Ship]

Dems lost senate seats in 2018, I don’t think they will this time.

[Talleyrand]

Dems lost senate seats in 2018, I don’t think they will this time.

I don't think that's the best metric to measure their success. In 2018, they won senate seats in red states West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana, and swept all then-competitive states other than Florida. Does anyone expect them to match that performance in 2026?