Josh Kraushaar makes some points worthy of consideration in a piece at National Journal. The TL;DR version is that
- Republicans are pretty likely to hold the majority of seats in the House in 2023 and
- A net gain of 35 seats or more is pretty unlikely.
Here’s his conclusion:
Just how dismal could things get for Democrats? That’s where measuring the wave the right way is important. It’s not the number of House seats that Republicans pick up that’s the relevant measure, but the overall number of seats won. So mark the number 248 (or +35 net) on your scorecards as a sign of a true political tsunami. Simply winning 242 seats (+29 net) would match the GOP’s 2010 standing. And anything at 233 or higher (+20 net) would give Kevin McCarthy enough breathing room to manage his caucus effectively, without having to fear the most extreme House Republicans would disrupt his best-laid plans.
Given that Republicans are very close to a majority now (Democrats 220; Republicans 208; vacant 7), by historical standards they’re likely to pick up seats in the midterm, the president’s approval rating is quite low, gaining a majority should not be unexpected. All of Larry Sabato’s updates in the national standings over the last several months have been in the Republicans’ favor. The Cook Political Report’s House ratings show Republicans with 209 seats Safe, Likely, or Lean and Democrats with 188 seats Safe, Likely, or Lean, and 32 toss-ups. IMO the more President Biden’s RCAP spread goes below -15, the more of those toss-up seats are likely to be captured by the Republicans. As things stand Democrats need to hold onto nearly two-thirds of those toss-ups to retain their House majority. If they split even, Republicans have that 233 or higher majority Mr. Kraushaar mentions.
Again, my figures for “big”.
> 257; “true political tsunami”. 257 is what Democrats got in 2008; largest majority for either party since 1992.
242-248; “standard Presidential rebuke”. What Republicans got in 2010, 2014 (if Republicans won it less then 10 years ago, it doesn’t look out of the ordinary).
233; “Republican disappointment”
< 230; "Republican civil war"
"A net gain of 35 seats or more is pretty unlikely".
I personally held that opinion a year ago; but I am finding the possible outcomes increasingly murky. One could make a plausible outcome for <230 (Russia is forced to sue for peace, a rapid lowering of inflation with a steady job market) all the way to 257+ (Russia wins or a "Crimean" missile crisis develops, inflation reaches 10% while a recession occurs and rapid layoffs bring unemployment to 7%).
What should give one pause is how fast things are moving — like the Federal Reserve just raised interest rates 75bps, when they seemingly ruled out such a raise only 2 months ago. Or companies in full hiring mode 2 months ago suddenly laying off 18% of staff. Or what was sold 2 months ago as a beaten Russian war effort suddenly has Ukraine in dire straights.
With the amount of lying going on (Ukraine lying to its own people and its allies; Russia lying to everybody, the U. S. lying to itself) I have no idea how to distinguish the truth. IMO an outright Ukrainian victory is vanishingly unlikely; more likely is an utter Ukrainian collapse.
Definition of Ukrainian victory: restoration of 2014 borders
Definition of Ukrainian collapse: complete end to hostilities in eastern Ukraine
Question: what do you mean by “Republican civil war”? Intraparty conflict? It’s already there.
What do you mean by “complete end to hostilities in Eastern Ukraine” — I could see the loss of Ukrainian held Lugansk and Donetsk oblast; but that isn’t likely to bring an end to the hostilities.
“Republican civil war” — a split along the lines of the Whig party; and creation of another party(ies?)
I guess voting concerns never stop but I think it is too early. Too much could change.
Steve
Republicans haven’t won 248 seats since the 1920s, so that would be a political tsunami. We would or should then be reading stories about what happened to the New Deal coalition, and whither the Democratic Party. Have no idea how likely that is.
A “red tsunami” in Nov 2022 doesn’t imply anything about the health or doom of the Democratic Party.
One could only talk about a hypothetical Republican House majority that mattered if Republicans win the Presidency in 2024, if Republicans win a majority in the Senate in 2024, if Republicans have a coherent agenda, if Republicans figure out a way to run the Federal Government where the nomenklatura have their own agenda. That’s a lot of ifs.
From 2022, a hypothetical Republican House would have the practical implication that House Republicans get a bit more say on the budget; stops any new Democratic reconciliation bills; and a veto on any nominee to a Vice-Presidential vacancy. Not nothing but not too much either.
Indeed a Republican House majority would be welcomed in some ways by Biden; an actual foil to blame and a reminder how dysfunctional Republicans are.
It depends on how angry and radical the hypothetical incoming Republican caucus is.
It’s as if democrats aren’t aware how dysfunctional, peevish, hypocritical, and injurious their policies have been to the working and middle classes to think many are not hardened against them. I have no crystal ball, however, in my lifetime I don’t remember such a time where we fell so fast under one party’s set of rules and policies, as we have in the last 18 months under Biden and the establishment politicians. I’m fed up. Many people I know feel the same way. My hope is that we will have an election broom sweeping lots and lots of unworthy people out of office!
Don’t be surprised when the newcomers are as or even more “unworthy” than those they’re replacing.