Polymarket says 78 percent likely. Is there a good case for that estimate?
What’s the Basis?
That’s the collective wisdom, or lack thereof, of the betting markets.
It’s impossible to say, but we can make an independent case.
2026 House Ratings
The Center for Politics, an independent organization discusses the 2026 House Ratings seat by seat as of December 10, 2025.
- Safe GOP Pickups: 3
- Safe Republican: 188
- Safe, Likely, or Lean Republican: 208
- Safe DEM Pickups: 2
- Safe DEM: 170
- Safe, Likely, or Lean DEM: 211
That does not tell us much.
If anything, it appears to tilt GOP. Republicans have 18 more safe seats, and only 3 fewer Safe, Likely, or Lean seats.
But check out the tossups.
Tossup Seats
- GOP Held Tossups: 14
- DEM Held Tossups: 2
Incumbent Party Curse
It is a consistent historical trend that the incumbent president’s party tends to lose seats during midterm elections. This phenomenon, sometimes called the “midterm curse,” is observed in the vast majority of cases in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Historical Trends
- House of Representatives: Since World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House. In fact, the president’s party has lost House seats in 20 of the past 22 midterm elections.
- Senate: The pattern is slightly less consistent in the Senate, but the incumbent party still tends to lose seats, with an average loss of four seats since WWII.
Explanations for the Losses
Two primary theories attempt to explain why the incumbent party typically struggles in midterms:
- Referendum Theory: This is the most common explanation, suggesting that midterm elections act as a referendum on the sitting president’s performance and the state of the economy. A president’s job approval rating is strongly correlated with the number of seats their party loses; those with approval ratings below 50% see significantly higher average seat losses.
- Surge-and-Decline Theory: This theory posits that the high voter turnout in a presidential election year is absent during midterms, and the core voters of the opposition party are more motivated to show up, leading to losses for the president’s party.
Notable Exceptions
- 1934: President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democratic party gained seats in both the House and the Senate during his first midterm, largely due to the widespread acceptance of his New Deal policies during the Great Depression.
- 1998: President Bill Clinton’s Democratic party gained House seats during his second midterm, which was unusual as he was facing impeachment at the time, but potentially due to high public approval ratings and a strong economy.
- 2002: President George W. Bush’s Republican party gained seats in both chambers in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, during a period of national unity and high presidential approval.
Gerrymandering Impact
Trump egged Texas to gerrymander Texas. At the time, I saw nonsensical posts that Republicans would never lose again.
However, California and Utah offset any Republican gains in Texas. The Republican gerrymander in Ohio might not accomplish anything.
Virginia and Maryland Democrats are pondering mid-cycle redistricting to counter GOP gains in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina.
Illinois backed off after Indiana backed off, the latter to the extreme consternation of Trump.
Politico reported Indiana GOP rejects Trump’s map in major blow to his gerrymandering push
Indiana Republicans withstood immense pressure from President Donald Trump, ignoring anonymous threats on their lives as they defeated his plan to redraw the state’s congressional map and dealt him one of his most significant political setbacks since his return to the White House.
The GOP-controlled state Senate on Thursday voted down 31 to 19 the map that would have gerrymandered two more safe red seats, imperiling the party’s chances at holding control of Congress next November.
The failed vote is the culmination of a brass-knuckled, four-month pressure campaign from the White House on recalcitrant Indiana Republicans that included private meetings and public shaming from Trump, multiple visits to the Hoosier State from Vice President JD Vance, whip calls from Speaker Mike Johnson and veiled threats of withheld federal funds. The hesitant local lawmakers held out in spite of pipe bomb threats, unsolicited pizza deliveries to their personal addresses and swattings of their homes.
Speaking Thursday night from the Oval Office, Trump lambasted [Indiana State Senator Rod] Bray, who oversaw the defeat of the remapping push.
“Bray, whatever his name is,” Trump said, threatening to “certainly support anybody that wants to go against him,” and reasoning that he had “done a tremendous disservice.”
Top MAGA allies sounded far more concerned.
“We have a huge problem,” said former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who simulcasted The War Room show live from a suburban Indianapolis hotel to boost support for redistricting. “People have to realize that we only have a couple opportunities. We’ve got a net five to 10 seats. If we don’t get a net 10 pickup in the redistricting wars, it’s going to be enormously hard, if not impossible, to hold the House.”
Democrats need only net three House seats next year in order to seize control of Congress’ lower chamber, and their party already neutralized a five-seat advantage Texas Republicans gave themselves by similarly redrawing California’s congressional lines.
Indiana officials whispered for weeks about fears that rejecting redistricting could result in a loss of federal funding—a fear that Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, made explicit in an X post Thursday. “President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state,” it read. “Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.”
Following the vote, Bray told reporters the state was not in danger. “I’ve had lots of conversations with folks in Washington, D.C.,” he said, when asked about those threats. “Indiana will continue to function.”
Net Zero
Total the redistricting wars up and it looks like somewhere between 0 and 2 Republican pickups, if that.
And if Virginia or Maryland get in the fight it might be a Republican loss.
Spotlight Virginia
On December 8, Cardinal News reported Virginia Democrats move toward a 10-1 map that would eliminate all but one Republican House seat
The immediate question is the state’s impending mid-decade congressional redistricting — gerrymandering, if you will.
Two things have happened in the past week to elevate this question.
We’ve known since October that Virginia Democrats intend to push to amend the state’s constitution to set aside the bipartisan commission that voters approved in 2020 to allow the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to draw lines more favorable to their party in time for the November 2026 congressional midterms — this in response to Texas Republicans setting off a nationwide tit-for-tat gerrymandering spree as each party tries to squeeze out some advantage.
Virginia’s congressional delegation is currently six Democrats, five Republicans, which generally matches the state’s overall politics in most statewide elections. The original chatter was that Democrats were looking at new maps that could produce a 9-2 split, although some maps showed that 10-1 was possible.
When former Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia Beach announced in November that she’d like to return to Congress, Lucas endorsed her and signed off her post on X with this: “Stay tuned next year for some new district lines as well which may be helpful. 10-1.”
That maximalist approach seemed to be in the minority until last week when House Speaker Don Scott told an audience at the University of Virginia: “10-1 is not out of realm to be able to draw the maps in a succinct, community-based way, but we’re going to take a look at it.” Scott is not one to speak lightly, so this seems a clear sign that 10-1 is very much a live possibility.
How to Start a War and Lose It
From 6DEM 5GOP to 10DEM 1GOP would be a loss of 4 Republican seats. From 6DEM 5GOP to 9DEM 2GOP would be a loss of 3 Republican seats.
If either happens, Trump will have lost the gerrymander war he started.
Texas Irony
This story is incredibly funny (or sad or both).
Please note After Trump Pardons Cuellar, TX-28 Moves to Leans Democratic
In what was a surprising bipartisan move last week, President Donald Trump pardoned Rep. Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28), who was indicted on corruption and money laundering charges.
Though the state’s new GOP-drawn House map faced some legal hurdles, the Supreme Court recently greenlit the mid-decade gerrymander for 2026.
Republicans will very likely net seats under the new Texas map, though Cuellar may have actually gotten a more favorable district.
Considering his pardon and the new lines, we are moving Cuellar from Toss-up to Leans Democratic.
After Trump pardoned Cuellar, Trump expected him to switch parties. But Cuellar stayed Democrat.
As a result, The Center for Politics switched the seat to Leans Democratic.
Trump may only get 4 pickups in Texas. Democrats get 5 in California. And as a result of a bipartisan commission, Democrats get a pickup in Utah.
Dave Wasserman
Dave Wasserman is the editor of the widely respected Cook Political report.
Indiana has opted out. The winner of the war (if any) will be determined by what Florida and Virginia do.
Nate Silver Chimes In
Nate Silver asks Is redistricting backfiring on Republicans?
In August, I outlined what was basically a Game Theory 101 take on the redistricting wars. I argued that it was a race to the bottom — or more formally, a prisoner’s dilemma. Even if Republicans “started it”, Democrats were only hurting themselves by failing to reciprocate. But now that Democrats have shown a willingness to fight back, especially with the passage of Prop 50 in California, we’re even closer to the inevitable-seeming equilibrium. Given the lack of constraints on districting likely to be enforced by the current Supreme Court, you might predict this involves a maximalist approach from both parties.
I also contended in that story, in contrast to the conventional wisdom at the time, that this equilibrium does not inherently favor Republicans. And I guess that looks smart, because even after the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s redistricting plan last week, the 2026 redistricting wars have pretty much been fought to a draw so far.
Furthermore, Republicans don’t necessarily hold an advantage in the long run either. Once Abigail Spanberger is sworn in as governor in Virginia next month, Democrats will hold state government “trifectas” (control of the governorship and all legislative chambers) in states commanding more U.S. House seats than Republicans have. While Republicans hold trifectas in more states, the Dem trifecta states tend to have higher populations. (To be fair, you could probably add North Carolina to the GOP side of the ledger because the governor doesn’t play any role in redistricting there.)
But that August article left out some of the complications you’re getting at, Scott; let’s address them here in SBSQ. One is that redistricting is not actually a zero-sum game. For one thing, excessively partisan gerrymandering is bad for democracy. But more self-interestedly, redistricting can threaten an incumbent’s job or force him to defend a district that spiders out to places beyond his home base where voters are less familiar with him, reducing his incumbency advantage.
Partly for these reasons, the state senate in Indiana has so far resisted Trump’s calls to redistrict, even as the state house has approved a 9-0 Republican map. Even in an era of exceedingly high partisanship, incumbents are generally pretty risk-averse when it comes to their own jobs. And last month’s elections, which went very well for Democrats, raise the possibility that next year’s midterms could be contested in something like a D +8 national environment in which even relatively safe Republican seats could be in play.
Indeed, the parties are not taking a truly maximalist approach. Indiana has been one example, but also consider California. Democrats are expected to gain an additional 4-5 seats as a result of their new Gavin Newsom-backed, voter-approved map. But that will still leave 4-5 Republicans in California’s congressional delegation, when in theory it would be possible to draw a legally-compliant 52-0 Democratic map.
In California, Prop 50 was framed by Gavin Newsom as a response to unfair treatment — it is formally named the Election Rigging Response Act. That framing was smart; the referendum passed by almost 30 points.
At some point between now and the midterms, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that courts have interpreted as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts. The Roberts court has already weakened the Voting Rights Act, and considering the court’s dislike for race-based requirements of any kind, Democrats are understandably nervous about the outcome. However, it’s not clear whether any ruling would come in time to affect the 2026 midterms.
So the mechanics of how these majority-minority districts fit into the redistricting math are tricky. On the one hand, they effectively guarantee Democrats at least some representation in states like Alabama or Mississippi, where they could otherwise be entirely gerrymandered out. On the other hand, they can also act as vote sinks for Democrats. If you have a D +65 district, like on the South Side of Chicago, that produces a lot of wasted Democratic votes that could, in principle, be spread out throughout the rest of the state, especially in a legal environment with few other constraints on partisan gerrymandering.
Republicans Control More States, Democrats More Seats
If the Supreme Court blasts the Voting Rights act out of the water, then expect to see California, Illinois, and New York to eliminate all Republican seats.
Is that what you want?
Personally, I find this all disgusting. So does Senator Rand Paul.
Gerrymandering Might Lead to Violence
Politico reports Rand Paul says partisan gerrymandering ‘might lead to violence in our country’
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that partisan gerrymandering will “lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country,” urging restraint in the ongoing redistricting wars playing out in more than a dozen states.
“I think there is the potential that when people have no representation, that they feel disenfranchised, that it can lead, it might lead to violence in our country,” Paul said in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Paul’s warning comes as state lawmakers across the country consider redrawing congressional lines at the insistence of President Donald Trump, with Democratic-led states like Virginia and Maryland weighing mid-cycle redistricting to counter GOP gains in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina.
The Kentucky Republican predicted that eliminating minority seats in Congress could lead to voters feeling disenfranchised and empowering them to “resort to other means.”
“I’m concerned if there are no representatives, like no Republican representatives in California or no Democrats in Texas, that it will be so thoroughly one-sided that people will feel like their vote isn’t counting,” Paul said, adding: “It’s a mistake of both parties.”
A Mistake or a Plan?
Is polarization a mistake or a plan?
Unfortunately, many want this war, and they want it now.
For now, it all roughly evened out. Depending on Florida and Virginia, it could tilt either way.
Back to Election 2026
In light of Trump’s popularity, special elections we have seen so far, political history, health care, and most importantly the economy, Republicans rate to lose the House in 2026.
Congressionally speaking, Trump would be an immediate lame duck. Presidentially, Trump is already a lame duck (meaning he cannot run again).
Loss of the House accompanied by impeachment could potentially result in god only knows what kind of executive orders by Trump hoping to get even.
Related Posts
December 3, 2025 : Small Businesses Drop 120,000 Jobs in November, ADP Total Down 32,000
It’s another grim month according to ADP.
December 4, 2025: Challenger Reports Employers Announced 71,321 Job Cuts in November
Announcements imply future, not immediate, layoffs and unemployment claims.
December 8, 2025: Health Care Inflation Bomb Makes the Fed’s 2 Percent Target Almost Impossible
Let’s discuss 2026 health care premiums and what they mean to the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.
December 21, 2025: House Reps Massie and Ro Khanna Announce Inherent Contempt Against Pam Bondi
I expect a majority will vote for this without compliance.
December 21, 2025: Republican Chip Roy Blasts Republicans on Health Care Plans
Chip Roy does not think much of Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan.
Meanwhile, please note Only 56 Percent of Republicans Say the Economy Is Good
If you don’t understand why, please click on some of the preceding links.
There is no solution for the Fed or the Administration.
