If there’s an obsession afflicting Democrats and Republicans and pundits, it’s a focus on the number 38. If the Democrats lose more than 38 net House seats, they lose the House. If they contain their losses to 38 or less, they keep it.
For almost everybody who covers or participates in politics, this is the number that will determine whether or not Democrats “win” or “lose” on Tuesday.
But the prevailing dynamics don’t care about that benchmark, and, indeed, suggest that Democrats can lose the House and still do “well” given the speed of the wind in their face.
With such a large Democratic majority, the margins in the House could swing dramatically, even as the national vote shows a country divided closely between the two parties.
For instance, Democrats could win the majority of races and votes across the country but still lose 35 seats. Is that a defeat or a victory? Likewise, Republicans could win just a small majority of votes — and a small majority of districts — across the country, and it will look, from the perspective of the current alignment, like a 50-seat swing. In absolute terms, though, it would result in a very small margin of power for the GOP. (This is much like what happened when Democrats retook the House in 2006. When the results were in, President George W. Bush famously remarked, “if you look at race by race it was close. The cumulative effective, however, was not too close. It was a thumpin’.”)
Given all of these unfavorable dynamics, experts think Dems could lose up to 50 seats and still have a decent night.
“I think the two most relevant historical precedents are 1982 and 1994, the Reagan and Clinton first midterms, both occurring at times of economic distress,” says Norm Ornstein. “Under Reagan, the GOP lost back 26 of the 33 House seats it had gained in 1980, but held its own in the Senate. In 1994, of course, the Dems got killed, losing the House for the first time in 40 years, and losing a bundle in the Senate.”
By “killed”, Ornstein means 54 seats, more than enough to flip the House to a 230-204 Republican majority. Before the election, Democrats controlled 258 seats and Republicans 176 — numbers eerily similar to today’s Democratic 256-179 edge.
That may be the closest historical precedent: It was Clinton’s first term. He came in with large majorities in the House and Senate, and Democrats entered the midterm with the economy slumping (though not nearly as badly as it is now).
“This looks a lot like ’94,” Ornstein says, “but where a loss of eight Senate seats still means Dem control of the body.”
In 1994, Democrats lost eight seats, erasing their 56 seat majority.
Many of today’s circumstances are actually worse for Democrats. But the GOP is a narrower party than it once was, and so most forecasters are expecting Dems to lose 40-50 seats. “In 2010, several factors — the sheer number of seats that the Democrats control, the weak economy, and the middling popularity of the president — predict a substantial seat loss for the Democrats,” says John Sides, a political science professor at George Washington University. “Taking into account other factors, such as the apparent enthusiasm gap, only make matters worse for the Democrats. Most of those predictions are in the 40-50 seat range. If that’s what Democrats lose, then I’m not surprised. If they lose substantially less than the prediction, then I would call that a good showing — especially if they retained control of the House. If they lose substantially more, then one could call it a rout.”
To most experts, the dynamic driving this election is the economy. But another factor is likely to exacerbate Dem losses: They’re coming off not one, but two successive wave elections, meaning they have plenty of seats to lose, and many of their most vulnerable members are also their least seasoned, and least familiar to constituents.
“This suggests a bigger loss than otherwise,” Ornstein says. “Any outcome that preserves Dem majorities, or even one where their losses are under 45, I think now would be seen as a disappointment for the Republicans.”
All of this leaves open the possibility that Republicans could underperform, and still win the House — no small prize in its own right.
“Losing the majority in the House means a lot in terms of committee chairmanships, agenda control, and so on,” Sides says. “So even if the Democrats’ loss was predictable, that doesn’t mean it’s inconsequential.”
