I think we have a good chance at winning the Senate and their poor candidate quality and Dobbs and Trump and the anti-democracy MAGAts are stronger factors than some pundits realize. The Senate seems less vulnerable to the mood of the country politically. It is driven by the partisan lean of the state and candidate quality and which seats are up for re-election or open. In terms of the House of Representatives, I suspect that pundits are over-relying upon historical trends and partisan lean for congressional districts.
.
.
Politifact
And in 1998, President Bill Clinton gained five seats in the House and stayed even in the Senate.In fact, the 1998 election -- when voters were widely believed to be punishing a Republican overreach in their impeachment of Clinton -- represents the only time since the Civil War that a president has survived a sixth-year election with anything close to gains in both chambers.
We initially thought we'd have to add 1902 to 1934 and 2002 as a year in which the president gained seats in both chambers. On Election Day 1902, Theodore Roosevelt's Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and seven in the House -- but we found the Democrats also gained seats in the House, 25 to be precise. How was that possible? It was because Congress had enlarged the House to account for population growth, from 357 seats before the election to 386 seats after. (The House didn't reach its current 435 seats until 1913.) So because of this oddity, we'll leave 1902 out.
.
.
They aren’t asking themselves why the trend existed and they aren’t looking at individual elections closely enough. If a trend existed, but you don’t know why it existed or you don’t investigate and determine if the reasons for the trend still apply, then you are blindly following a trend that may no longer hold. The trend under consideration is that the political party which just took over the White House from the other party tends to lose Congressional seats in the first midterm with 2 exceptions since WW2. FDR’s first midterm was an exception because he was combatting the Great Depression. GWB was an exception because of 9-11.
A successful presidential candidate may campaign on an agenda that has the support a strong majority, but because of the anti-majoritarian nature of the Senate, it can’t be passed. Therefore, the supporters of the president are not only complacent because they won, but they are irritated because the campaign promises weren’t kept. The other side is motivated because they lost.
.
They aren’t taking into account several factors: candidate quality and extremism and the anti-democracy fascist nature of the Trump Republican MAGAt party and Trump’s bigfoot presence and the Republican Supreme Court makes it seem like the Democratic Party is not actually really in power. There is only so much that can be gained in gerrymandering for the Republicans because they have already gerrymandered the maps so much. The republicans are hurt because their voters are such extremists. As a result, it’s difficult or even impossible in many cases for a more mainstream republican to win the primary. If they pick an extreme enough candidate, then gerrymandering may not be enough to save that candidate.
Analysts / pollsters/pundits have to decide what they think that the electorate for 2022 will look like. If you pick the wrong electorate, then your polls and your conclusions will be worthless. The only protection from that is the generic ballot, but that may be affected by the demographics expected. And that may be based upon the “historical trend”. Special elections are important.
I think there is a good chance that we retain the House and make a gain of 2 seats in the US Senate.