This article was originally published at FiveThirtyEight on June 21, 2016. Right now, most bettors foresee nine words that are the stuff of Republicans’ 2017 nightmares: “President Hillary Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.” But at least the House is safe for the GOP. It is, right? House Democrats probably need a Donald Trump loss of historic proportions to have any chance at a three-part sweep. But not even a Clinton rout would guarantee that scenario thanks to structural factors and because voters skeptical of both nominees could well anticipate such an outcome and respond to a Republican message of “checks and balances” — a tactic that’s worked before. Republicans hold their largest House majority — 247 seats to 188 for Democrats — since the 1928 election, in part because they have some tremendous built-in geographical advantages, both natural and engineered, that their counterparts in the Senate don’t share. First, Democratic voters have never been more concentrated in big urban areas than they are now. In 2012, President Obama won by 126 electoral votes while carrying just 22 percent
Subscribe Today
Our subscribers have first access to individual race pages for each House, Senate and Governors race, which will include race ratings (each race is rated on a seven-point scale) and a narrative analysis pertaining to that race.