Midterms - How Many House Seats Will The GOP Lose?

[r3volution 3.0]

The GOP currently has 235 seats, the Dems 193, with 7 vacancies.

218 are needed for a majority.

Vote and comment.

Below, for your viewing pleasure, are the latest polling data, trend chart, and forecast, compliments of RCP.

[r3volution 3.0]

For the record, since this is not a public poll, I'm going with 10-17.

I think the GOP will come close, losing maybe 15 or 16, but just barely keep the majority.

[RonZeplin]

Gridlock = MAGA

The more candidates Trump endorses, the more certain MAGA becomes.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't take part in polls or questions like this, since 2016.

It was a sure thing, as positive as the sun coming up in the morning, that Hillary would be next.

I thought so and said so, and ended up looking foolish.

It will be whatever it will be, polls and the voting process are so monkey $#@!ed as to not be credible.

[KEEF]

I believe there was a meeting of the Neocon minds during today’s McCain ceremony to assure that the Machine can still keep power. Evidence in the number of jabs taken at MAGA during everyone’s eulogy speech while the media gushing over getting bipartisanship back into our country.

[oyarde]

Less than 11 1/2 .

[Swordsmyth]

I can only say that I don't believe the GOP will lose the house, I can't guess any more precisely than that, they might barely hold on or they might gain seats.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't take part in polls or questions like this, since 2016.

It was a sure thing, as positive as the sun coming up in the morning, that Hillary would be next.

I thought so and said so, and ended up looking foolish.

It will be whatever it will be, polls and the voting process are so monkey $#@!ed as to not be credible.

The polls in 2016 were pretty accurate, as they usually are.

What happened was that they tightened a lot in the last few weeks, having previously shown pantsuit a clear favorite.

The actual election results were mostly within the MoE of the final polls; remember, Trump barely squeaked it out.

Likewise, it's reasonable to assume that if the midterms were held today, the results would be close to the current polls.

Of course, the polls may change (though I personally doubt they'll change much, at least in a pro-GOP direction).

Apart from the polls, there's a very long-standing trend of the in-power party suffering in the midterms.

[Anti Federalist]

The polls in 2016 were pretty accurate, as they usually are.

It wasn't reported that way.

First things first: Hillary Clinton has a 70 percent chance of winning the election, according to both the FiveThirtyEight polls-only and polls-plus models. That’s up from a 65 percent chance on Sunday night, so Clinton has had a good run in the polls in the final days of the campaign. Clinton’s projected margin of victory in the popular vote has increased to 3.5 percent from 2.9 percent.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ally-converge/

[r3volution 3.0]

It wasn't reported that way.

538's odds =/= polls.

Look at the actual polls on Real Clear Politics.

Nationally, and in almost every state, the polls were within the MoE.

[nikcers]

It could change at any moment, at the moment the GOP should gain seats. Especially if they use John McCain's death to guilt people into voting in the mid terms.

[UWDude]

LOL

Pugs gonna take it all.

then 11/11 parade.

[Anti Globalist]

Idk how many seats are going to be lost but I'm sure the republicans will keep the house.

[timosman]

It could change at any moment, at the moment the GOP should gain seats. Especially if they use John McCain's death to guilt people into voting in the mid terms.

rev 3.0 will be very unhappy.

[timosman]

I will vote if Rev 3.0 promises to change his avatar to a donkey for a year if None is the actual outcome in November.

[Grandmastersexsay]

The actual election results were mostly within the MoE of the final polls; remember, Trump barely squeaked it out.

304 to 227 electoral college votes. That's a lot better than barely squeaking by.

[timosman]

304 to 227 electoral college votes. That's a lot better than barely squeaking by.

But he lost the popular vote.

[TheCount]

More than none.

[Cleaner44]

I don't take part in polls or questions like this, since 2016.

It was a sure thing, as positive as the sun coming up in the morning, that Hillary would be next.

I thought so and said so, and ended up looking foolish.

It will be whatever it will be, polls and the voting process are so monkey $#@!ed as to not be credible.

Their polls are useless. This idea of a generic ballot is meaningless. People won't be voting on a generic ballot, they will be voting for their specific local representative. I chalk this whole the thing up to the media pushing a "fake it till you make it" mentality.

I suspect the Democrats will be disappointed when they fail to take back the House. Personally I am hoping the Republicans gain even 1 seat, just to destroy them mentally.

It seems to me that Democrats not only have been failing in their elections since 2010, but that they are even more out of step with the public than ever before.

• They gave away the working class vote

• They gave away being champions of the 1st Amendment

• They appear to care more about foreigners than Americans

They have nothing to sell to the public beyond guilt and that has a very limited market. The African-American vote is eroding and former Democrats everywhere are choosing to #WalkAway.

I see the media selling the dream, just as they did for Hillary. Reality was harsh in 2016 and I suspect it will be again in 2018. People like having jobs and more money in their paychecks. Calling Republicans Nazis for 3 years isn't going to get the job done for the left... in my opinion.

[Anti Federalist]

538's odds =/= polls.

Look at the actual polls on Real Clear Politics.

Nationally, and in almost every state, the polls were within the MoE.

I understand your point and don't contest it, you're right, it was a squeaker.

But it wasn't being reported that way.

I could clog the board with 10,000 more headlines just like 538's that were reporting Hillary as a "sure thing".

And that kind of "reporting" swings polls.

[TheTexan]

My GOP sources tell me we are going to gain 11 seats this cycle. The MAGA wave is going strong

[oyarde]

My GOP sources tell me we are going to gain 11 seats this cycle. The MAGA wave is going strong

That is just as likely as losing a dozen .

[spudea]

I think they could lose ~10-15 due to the midterm curse but think Republican voters aren't gonna treat this like a midterm, more like a presidential election and turn out more than in the past.

[nikcers]

I think they could lose ~10-15 due to the midterm curse but think Republican voters aren't gonna treat this like a midterm, more like a presidential election and turn out more than in the past.

I could be wrong but -it looks like the mid terms will probably be rigged if you look at all the different narratives they are pushing they will blame Russia if they don't get the outcome they desire and might even blame Russia if they get the outcome they desire. Here are just a few that i found in 10 seconds, I am sure there are probably more on every political echo chamber and fake news outlet there is promoting this idea. I am just glad I don't have to think for myself, that would be stressful.

Facebook: warns of midterms election interference, fingers point to Russia

Homeland Security:Every US state must prepare for Russian election interference in midterms

CNN: More than half of American adults say they believe it's likely there will be Russian interference in November's midterm elections, (according to poll)

Trump: "I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!"

[Krugminator2]

https://www.predictit.org/Market/270...-2018-midterms

Democratic DEM.HOUSEMAJ.2019	68¢	68¢	67¢	33¢	32¢
Republican REP.HOUSEMAJ.2019	38¢

The Dems are the betting favorites.

[nikcers]

https://www.predictit.org/Market/270...-2018-midterms

Democratic DEM.HOUSEMAJ.2019	68¢	68¢	67¢	33¢	32¢
Republican REP.HOUSEMAJ.2019	38¢

The Dems are the betting favorites.

Does that mean the end of tax cuts?

[Krugminator2]

Does that mean the end of tax cuts?

Doubt it. Repubs are favored to win the senate and Trump still can veto.

[TheCount]

I understand your point and don't contest it, you're right, it was a squeaker.

But it wasn't being reported that way.

I could clog the board with 10,000 more headlines just like 538's that were reporting Hillary as a "sure thing".

And that kind of "reporting" swings polls.

70% is not a sure thing.

[Krugminator2]

70% is not a sure thing.

538 and Nate Silver were outliers and by far the most accurate. As a side not it is ridiculous the ridicule Silver got from conservatives when his work was so much closer to correct than anyone else's. But AF's point was true for the prognosticators in general. Huffington Post's polling thing has Hillary Clinton at 100%. So many of those forecasters had it at 95% Hillary like Sam Wang. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/1...ats-gop-house/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

[nikcers]

538 and Nate Silver were outliers and by far the most accurate. But his point was true for the prognosticators in general. Huffington Post's polling thing has Hillary Clinton at 100%.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

That really begs the question because I like to gamble- if you have ever gambled before you know that $#@! happens no matter how improbable. That's why with polling i think there is a margin of error that basically says that the percentage is always approximate. Doesn't that mean that 100% isn't always 100%?