Why Republicans Will (Likely) Still Be Happy about Dobbs in November

We have, over the past few weeks given a lot of the sunnier aspects for the Democrats in the midterm elections.  It is very clear at this point that a few things are emerging.  First, Democrats have a clear shot at the Senate (though not one that can't be derailed), and have a plausible path to the House, albeit a steep one.  It's also clear that Democrats have over-performed in special elections in New York & Alaska, and that is likely driven by the Dobbs Supreme Court decision.  One of the questions, though, that pundits have put out was: given that the Dobbs decision was a critical win for the conservative movement, if the Republicans lose some seats as a result of it, was it worth it?

We tend to think of politics as a situation where you have to win all of the marbles or you have to lose all of the marbles, but that's not really how it works.  Occasionally, policy victories are worth losing seats over, though it's up to the viewer to say whether or not it was worth it.  The Affordable Care Act, for example, lost the Democrats the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.  It was also the largest expansion of healthcare in the United States since the 1960's, and one of the biggest landmark victories for economic progressives this century (if not the biggest victory for progressives, period, give or take gay marriage).  Was it worth it...were it not for the Merrick Garland of the equation (losing the Senate cost us that seat), I'd say wholeheartedly yes.  We likely won't know for a decade whether or not losing the House and/or Senate was worth it for the Republicans, if indeed they lose one or both.

What I can say with confidence is that if the Democrats get 52 Senate seats and a House majority, the Dobbs decision was not worth it.  Codifying Roe would essential mean the end of the filibuster, so not only would Democrats codify Roe, but they would also have access to changing a host of other public policies.  Even assuming a bare minimum (52 Democratic senators & 218 House Democrats), you could likely get not just abortion codified, but also gay marriage, same-sex relations, & contraception, as well as pass the Equality Act & the John Lewis Act.  You would also get some version (how progressive would depend on the size of that House majority and if you are sitting at 52 senators or possibly 1-2 more) of the Green New Deal, prescription drug reform, Medicare reform (potentially including lowering the eligibility age and expanding benefits to include Dental/Vision/Health), DACA, & some version of tax reform that would likely impact student loan debt.  Combined, that would be enough significant change to American life that the risk of Dobbs wouldn't have been worth it, even if the Republicans would keep the Supreme Court (I see no world where major court reform comes out of the next Congress, even if holding the Senate would mean dozens more judges are confirmed, and the slim chance of a Supreme Court vacancy).

Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D-WI)

But that is still an extremely steep climb, and since I've been sunny about Democrats' for the past few weeks, I want to underscore why a 52 seat Senate caucus with a House majority still is a big reach.  The Senate is simple.  While polls have closed in recent days (this was expected), I would argue that we are currently sitting at 47 Senate seats at Likely Democrat or better for the left and 46 Senate seats at Likely R or better for the right.  The seven sets in the middle include two seats I have as Lean Democrat (Arizona & Pennsylvania), three that Lean Republican (Ohio, North Carolina, & Wisconsin),  and two true Tossups (Nevada & Georgia).  It's easy to see why Democrats are favored to get to 50 seats-they have less exposure in the Leans categories (one less seat), and they just need one of the Tossups.  But in order to get 52 Senate seats, they need to not only hold all of their Lean seats AND sweep the Tossups (a lift, but not impossible), they also have to take at least one of the Lean Republican seats, which at this point would amount to a proper upset.  Every cycle has at least one upset, and despite liberal protestations, occasionally those upsets favor the Democrats (just ask Jon Ossoff), but getting to 52 seats would involve a seriously good poker hand for Chuck Schumer.

But it's the House that remains the biggest road block for Democrats.  Most of the time articles like this come out with historical reasoning or trends as to why the Democrats are favored, and those are certainly valid.  But I'm going to just show you very basic math as to why the House is a challenge, so bear with me as you're going to get some numbers for the next couple of paragraphs.  The first thing to remember is that in 2020 Joe Biden won 226 House districts while Donald Trump won 209.  As a result, in 2022 the Republican Party needs to win at least nine districts that went to Joe Biden.

While historically this wouldn't be an issue, this has become a heavier lift in recent years, which is where a lot of Democratic hope stems from.  In fact, coming out of the 2020 elections, that was the exact number of districts where Republicans represented districts held by Joe Biden.  While Republicans have seen a bit of momentum this week in Senate races thanks to Republican voters coming home in places like Pennsylvania & Wisconsin, the reality is that if Democratic turnout is high enough that 2022 is a "neutral" year or one that only favors one side a little, that should still leave a lot of room for seats that would've gone for a Republican in a wave to stay blue this time around.

But Republicans have an advantage in part because they have several Biden districts with very strong incumbents.  I'm going to break out into three groups Biden seats that are part of the easiest math for the Republicans getting to 218 seats: the Unbreakables, the Challenges, and the Unknowns.

Rep. Young Kim (R-CA)

The first group of Unbreakables are three districts that, by my calculations, the Democrats simply cannot win: California-40, Pennsylvania-1, & New York-1.  Two of these districts, CA-40 and PA-1 have Republican incumbents (Young Kim in CA, Brian Fitzpatrick in PA) that are too hard to beat.  Kim's district went for Biden by 1.9 points, but she well fits the historically conservative Orange County roots of her district, and has strong roots with her district's large Asian community that her opponent will not be able to match.  Fitzpatrick's district went to Biden by 4.6-points, and will be a prime takeover target if he ever retires or loses a primary, but he fits this district like a glove (his brother used to represent it), and he is arguably the most moderate member of the House Republicans, so he's hard to paint as a MAGA conservative (because he isn't one).  Add in New York-1, which is open but was represented by gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin (R), so he'll help turn out & also the fact that this district barely went to Biden (he won it by two-tenths of a point), and you have three districts that will surely stay red even if Biden could win them again in 2024.

The last six would most likely come from the following nine districts, our Challenges: AZ-1, AZ-6, CA-45, NC-13, NE-2, NM-2, OH-13, PA-7, & PA-17.  These districts are a challenge for a variety of reasons.  There are several that host sitting Republican incumbents, most of which have histories of getting crossover votes even if they aren't all "moderates": David Schweikert (AZ-1), Michelle Steele (CA-45), Don Bacon (NE-2), & Yvette Harrell (NM-2).  A couple have tough demographics for Democrats even if Biden won them (NC-13, OH-13, PA-17), and many of them are open seats (AZ-6, NC-13, OH-13, PA-17), which is tough to land in a midterm in seats your party won by less than 5-points.  In a good night for the Democrats, they probably take a couple of these, but in order to take the majority they would likely need over half of them, and if the election was held today, even if I was leaning optimistic for the left, I'd still predict the Republican nominee in all of these races.  I've been talking a lot on social media of where your best bang-for-your-buck is for donations-if you're obsessed with the idea of Democrats pulling off the House majority, I'd give to the Democrats in these nine districts, because you need them to gain in their races to take the House majority.

The last group (the Unknowns) includes seven seats that I can't get a good read on at all, and consider all seven right now to be tossups of some fashion: CO-8, KS-3, NJ-7, NY-19, OH-1, OR-5, & VA-2.  Some of these districts are open seats where I can't quite tell how strong the Biden love from 2020 is (CO-8 and NY-19 specifically).  Some feature Democratic incumbents whose strength I can't gage (are they strong enough to beat a mild advantage to the GOP?): KS-3, NJ-7, & VA-2.  Ohio's 1st is actually pretty blue (Biden won it by 8.6-points), but has a strong Republican incumbent and a somewhat underwhelming Democratic challenger (if Ohio's maps last until 2024, this will be a surefire seat for Democrats to try again in), and one I think the Democrats' overplayed their hand going for a progressive over a moderate, and are now hoping that they don't pull a Katie Arrington situation (that would be Oregon's 5th district where Jamie McLeod-Skinner beat an incumbent in the primary but has struggled in the months since to solidify her district).  These are all tossups, and I am confident in a few weeks when we finalize my predictions I'll pick at least some of them to stay blue...but if the Democrats were to win the House, they'd have to take pretty much all of them.  Sweeping seven pure tossups borders on the impossible.

Jamie McLeod-Skinner (D-OR)

There are other factors here, of course.  We talked about this last week, but obviously there are at least a couple of Trump seats where Democrats could make a play, though I will note none of them are remotely as safe as Young Kim & Brian Fitzpatrick are.  Every single one of those seats that Democrats take, even if by just a couple of votes, means the Republicans have to pickup one more Biden seat.  If we're looking at a 2020 environment where no side gets past 230 House seats, that count starts to matter.  In a world where Democrats pull off the miracle, it's likely not because they stopped nine Biden seats from converting, but more because they kept a few Trump seats to make up the difference.  

But conversely, I only profiled Biden seats that have a clear advantage to the GOP or are true tossups.  There are plenty of other seats that are vulnerable & the Democrats can't afford to lose all across the map, including in places like California & Texas that feature Republican incumbents.  In reality (and not just where I'm showing an environment where Democrats have a "good" night), there's a decent chance the GOP peels off a couple of those seats, even if you look on an individual basis & would predict they stay blue.  As I said above, winning Trump seats helps, but in a world where the Democrats keep the House I can't fathom more than 12-13 Biden seats elected House Republicans.

So, to conclude, yes, there is a possibility that the Democrats win the House and get 52 Senate seats.  It's not a good chance, but it's not a pipe dream.  It would require a few upsets, and honestly a better environment than we have in polling as of today.  But the reality is that the Republicans remain heavy favorites to hold the House for the reasons I've just outlined, and honestly getting a majority of any kind would be an ending that Democrats should be happy with in the Senate.  Without that clear victory of a House and filibuster-busting Senate majority for the Democrats, at least for the time being, it's obvious that, like the ACA, Dobbs was a risk that the Republicans were happy to take.  Whether that lasts, we will have to wait & see.