House elections are really fun to write about, but I have no idea how people who don’t cover elections for a living keep up with them. There are 435 different races with different candidates in districts that shift around periodically (and not always on the regular schedule—see the recent shake-ups in Pennsylvania). And on top of that, a lot of the polling data in these districts comes from campaigns, political groups or people who have an incentive to put their thumb on the scale in some way.
So I’ve decided to take a step back, not focus on any one district, but try to put together some data (and a visual) that will help us look at the broad playing field and what both parties would have to do to have control over the chamber next year.
This visual might look like the world’s largest, weirdest game of Connect Four. But it’s actually a map of almost all of the details you’ll need about the upcoming House elections.
Each dot represents a House race, and they’re laid out from right to left based on the presidential lean in the 2012 and 2016 elections (with districts getting more Republican as you go right). There are two colors in each dot – one in the middle and one on the outside. The middle of each circle tells you how competitive the race is – a dark blue dot means Democrats are favored, a lightly colored or white dot means the race is competitive and a darker red dot means the race looks safe for the GOP (these ratings are based on an average of expert handicapper ratings – a system I used here). And the dot’s outline tells you if an incumbent is running — a black outline means the seat is open, a red outline means there’s a Republican and a blue outline means there’s a Democratic incumbent.
Most of the dots are all blue or all red—meaning that most Congressmen are running for re-election in friendly, highly red or blue districts where they aren’t facing a serious challenge. In fact, there are about 188 races where all three major handicappers agree that the Republican will almost assuredly be safe (the average rating being higher than “Likely Republican”).
But the remaining 30 wins are tougher sledding and they require somewhat more thorough analysis. So I’ll use the big board to talk about what both parties need to do to earn control of the House for the next two-year term.
The name of the game for Republicans: Damage Control
The Big Board drives home a key point about the 2018 House Elections—the GOP basically needs to do damage control. And you can get to that conclusion by reading the graphic from left to right.
If you look at the left hand side of the graphic, you’ll notice that there are almost no opportunities for Republicans to pick up a seat in blue territory. A few strong Republican incumbents (e.g. John Katko, David Valadao, Carlos Curbelo) will probably manage to hold their seats despite the fact the Democrats are leading in the national polls. But if you look at the left hand-side of that center line, you mostly see Democratic holds, a couple Republican holds, and a few endangered Republican incumbents (like Iowa’s 1st, Minnesota’s 3rd and Colorado’s 6th).
If you move toward the center line and past it to the right a bit, you’ll notice a bunch of seats where the middle of the dot is white or lightly red or blue. That’s the most competitive part of the map. Many of those districts leaned toward Trump, Romney or both but are in danger during a more Democratic year like 2018. In some of those districts, a Republican retired and put the district more in play (e.g. Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ-11, Dave Reichart in WA-08). But in most of these districts, there’s a Republican incumbent who is in more trouble than usual because of Trump. In some cases, Trump’s national unpopularity plus his changes to the GOP (trading college-educated whites for blue-collar whites) are hurting their chances (e.g. Mimi Walters in CA-45, Pete Roskam in IL-06). Other districts moved toward the GOP between 2012 and 2016, but the race is still competitive (e.g. ME-02, MI-08). There are other categories and types of races, but the middle part of the visual communicates a simple message— the GOP is playing defense.
And moving past that area, there’s the less-eventful right side of the playing field where Republicans are mostly safe. You’ll notice that there are some retirements (points outlined in black) and we might see some upsets out there, but many of those seats seem will stay red.
So how does this all add up?
The president’s party almost always loses seats during the midterm. Right now, Trump’s Republican Party doesn’t look like an exception to this rule. But there’s a real chance that they lose a few but manage to hold the chamber. FiveThirtyEight gives Republicans a roughly 15 percent chance of holding the House—which isn’t so far off the odds of rolling a one on a six-sided die. That’s not impossible—you could imagine some combination of polling error (in this case, polls underestimating Republicans) and solid performances by individual House members letting the GOP hold the chamber.
But the odds are definitely against that happening. Republicans basically need to focus on damage control—trying to keep as many of those middle seats as possible while putting out any unexpected fires on the right side of the map. And even if Republicans do everything right, a win isn’t guaranteed. Campaigns can only do so much and some of this will be out of their control.
A Bigger Playing Field Means a Better Night for Democrats
Democrats are in a bit of a different position. As you can see on the big board, they aren’t playing defense in many places. There are a couple seats that Republicans could take (e.g. Minnesota’s 1st and 8th districts), but overall Democrats are playing offense—and it’s best to play offense on a large playing field. That is, Democrats should make sure that they’re making an effort in some of the tougher-to-win GOP seats because upsets there would allow them to make up for some losses in true toss-up districts.
I won’t belabor this point too much—Nate Silver had a great item on this earlier this week that you can read for more details, and I’ve talked about the importance of playing field size in other articles. But I will emphasize that parties do well by playing in a demographically diverse set of districts.
Many of the toss-up races feature districts with well-educated, suburban and/or wealthy white voters. But that’s not everywhere Iowa’s 1st District, Maine’s 2nd, Minnesota’s 1st and Minnesota’s 8th District are just a few of the battleground districts that are less well-educated than most other congressional districts. And if Democrats really try to stretch beyond their normal bounds, they’ll likely hit districts that are even less Clinton-y (think of all the noise being made about West Virginia’s 3rd District). So a good Democratic strategy is one where they can appeal to multiple different type of districts and expand the playing field.
So when you’re watching the results on Election Night, don’t just look at the margins in the marquee races. If Republicans manage to confine Democratic gains to a narrow type of district, their odds of holding on will go up. And if Democrats are playing everywhere, the GOP House Majority will be in serious danger.
