How many House seats will Republicans hold after the Midterms?
Short Answer
Both the model and the market expect Republicans to hold below 193 House seats after the Midterms, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.
1. Executive Verdict
- Presidential approval at 35-40% typically leads to significant midterm House losses.
- Democrats out-fundraised Republicans significantly in Q2 2026 battleground districts.
- Positive Real Disposable Personal Income growth (2.0%) is forecast for Q3 2026.
- No 2026 House retirements are reported in competitive districts.
- Only Utah has a court-ordered 2026 congressional map redraw.
Who Wins and Why
| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Below 193 | 39.0% | 31.1% | Historical evidence suggests Republican seat losses are highly improbable given the President's low approval ratings. |
| Above 237 | 2.0% | 14.2% | Historical averages for low presidential approval ratings suggest Republicans could make substantial seat gains. |
| 228-232 | 1.0% | 10.1% | Historical averages for presidential approval below 50% imply Republican gains likely exceed this range. |
| 223-227 | 2.8% | 7.2% | Historical data indicates presidential approval below 50% suggests more substantial Republican seat gains. |
| 218-222 | 3.7% | 5.8% | Historical evidence makes minimal Republican gains highly improbable considering current presidential approval. |
2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics
Historical Price (Probability)
Outcome probability
Date
This market exhibits a pronounced sideways or range-bound trend, indicating a stable and unchanging market consensus. Since its inception, the price has been confined to a narrow 4-point range, fluctuating between 37.0% and 41.0%. The market opened at 39.0% and is currently trading at the same level, reinforcing the lack of a directional trend. The 37.0% mark has acted as a consistent support level, where buying interest has emerged, while the 41.0% level has served as resistance, capping upward price movement. Given the absence of any provided news or external context, the price stability suggests that no significant events have occurred to shift trader sentiment or expectations about the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.
The trading volume of 12,754 contracts, while indicating some market participation, is not indicative of strong conviction when spread over the market's lifespan. The lack of significant price movement accompanying this volume suggests a well-balanced market, with buying and selling pressure remaining in equilibrium. This equilibrium points to a period of consolidation where traders are waiting for new information or catalysts before establishing a clear directional bias. Overall, the chart reflects a market sentiment of stable uncertainty; traders have settled on a roughly 39% probability for this outcome and have seen no reason to significantly adjust their forecasts in either direction.
3. Market Data
Contract Snapshot
This market resolves to Yes if the Republican Party holds below 193 House seats on February 1, 2027. Conversely, it resolves to No if they hold 193 or more seats, as the event is mutually exclusive. The count will include individuals caucusing with Republicans and will be verified from the United States Congress. The market closes and projected payout occur on February 1, 2027, at 10:00 AM EST and 10:05 AM EST, respectively.
Available Contracts
Market options and current pricing
| Outcome bucket | Yes (price) | No (price) | Last trade probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Below 193 | $0.39 | $0.62 | 39% |
| 193-197 | $0.15 | $0.86 | 15% |
| 198-202 | $0.13 | $0.88 | 13% |
| 203-207 | $0.13 | $0.88 | 13% |
| 208-212 | $0.08 | $0.93 | 8% |
| 213-217 | $0.05 | $0.95 | 5% |
| 218-222 | $0.04 | $0.97 | 4% |
| 223-227 | $0.03 | $0.99 | 3% |
| Above 237 | $0.02 | $0.99 | 2% |
| 228-232 | $0.01 | $0.99 | 1% |
| 233-237 | $0.01 | $0.99 | 1% |
Market Discussion
The discussion among traders primarily focuses on Republicans holding a lower number of House seats after the Midterms, with "Below 193" currently holding the highest probability at 39%. Traders supporting this outcome, such as "democratwinner" and "Holden.Caulfield," indicate an expectation of a poor Republican performance. While some participants like "mrschaller" lean towards the 193-197 range, they also note a large bid for "Below 193" and dismiss the likelihood of Republicans securing over 200 seats.
4. How Do Low Presidential Approval Ratings Affect Midterm Elections?
| Average House Seat Loss (Approval < 50%) | 36 to 37 seats [^] |
|---|---|
| Frequency of Party Losing House Seats Since 1946 | 18 out of 21 midterms, average 28 seats lost [^] |
| Current President's Approval Rating (April 2026) | 35% to 40% [^] |
Presidential approval strongly correlates with midterm House seat losses. Historically, there is a strong correlation between an incumbent President's approval rating and the performance of their party in midterm elections. When a President's approval rating is below 50% in a midterm year, their party typically experiences significant losses in the House of Representatives. Presidents with approval ratings below 50% have seen their party lose an average of 36 to 37 House seats [^]. More broadly, the President's party has lost seats in 18 out of 21 midterm elections since 1946, with an average loss of 28 House seats [^]. Only three times has the President's party gained House seats in a midterm election since 1934 [^].
Current President's approval has recently fallen to new lows. As of April 2026, the current President's approval ratings show a downward trend. A mid-April 2026 poll indicated his approval had fallen to 35% [^]. Other reports from April 2026 noted that his average job approval had hit new lows for his second term [^], with his net approval rating on the economy and overall falling to the lowest point of his two terms [^]. While current approval data is available from April 2026, the existing research does not explicitly offer projections for the current President's approval rating on October 1, 2026 [^].
5. Which States Have Court-Ordered Congressional Map Redraws for 2026?
| State with 2026 Court-Ordered Redraw | Utah [^] |
|---|---|
| Projected Net Partisan Change (Utah) | +1 Democratic seat [^] |
| Other States' 2026 Redraw Status | North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana maps not slated for court-ordered redraws for 2026 [^] |
Utah is currently the sole state confirmed to have a court-ordered congressional map redraw taking effect for the 2026 election cycle [^] . A judge adopted a new congressional map in November 2025, establishing a district projected to lean Democratic [^]. This court-ordered map was subsequently upheld by a federal panel, ensuring its use for the 2026 elections [^].
Other states' redistricting litigation will not lead to 2026 redraws by court order. For states previously involved in redistricting litigation, such as North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, court orders have not resulted in congressional map redraws for the 2026 election cycle. The U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, blocked an appeal of Alabama's maps and stayed lower court orders for Georgia and Louisiana, allowing their existing maps to be utilized in 2026 [^]. In North Carolina, the state Supreme Court reinstated the Republican-drawn map for the 2026 election [^].
Utah's new map is projected to yield one Democratic seat. The Cook Political Report projects that the newly mandated congressional map in Utah will lead to a net gain of one Democratic seat in the 2026 election cycle [^].
6. Are There Any Announced 2026 House Retirements in Key Districts?
| Announced 2026 US House Incumbent Retirements | 0 [^] |
|---|---|
| Republican Retirements in Toss-Up/Lean Districts | 0 [^] |
| Democratic Retirements in Toss-Up/Lean Districts | 0 [^] |
No 2026 House retirements are reported in competitive districts. As of late 2024 and early 2025, there are no reported incumbent retirements for the 2026 U.S. House elections within districts rated as 'Toss-Up' or 'Lean' by Sabato's Crystal Ball [^]. Incumbents typically announce their decisions not to seek re-election closer to their state's candidate filing deadlines. These deadlines are primarily scheduled between late 2025 and mid-2026 [^].
Absence of retirements results in a zero net difference. Sabato's Crystal Ball has provided preliminary ratings for the 2026 U.S. House elections, which include categories such as 'Toss-Up', 'Lean Republican', and 'Lean Democratic' [^]. However, with no incumbent retirements announced for the 2026 cycle in these competitive districts, it is not currently possible to identify open seats resulting from retirements [^]. Due to the complete absence of announced retirements from either major party, the net difference between Republican and Democratic incumbent retirements in districts designated as 'Toss-Up' or 'Lean' is currently zero [^].
7. What Was Democratic Fundraising Advantage in Q2 2026 Battleground Districts?
| Democratic Fundraising Advantage | $37 million (Q2 2026) [^] |
|---|---|
| Democratic Total Raised | $115 million (Q2 2026) [^] |
| Republican Total Raised | $78 million (Q2 2026) [^] |
Democrats significantly out-fundraised Republicans in key battleground districts during Q2 2026. During the second quarter of 2026, Democratic candidates achieved a substantial fundraising advantage over their Republican opponents in the 40 most competitive "battleground" districts, as identified by the DCCC and NRCC [^]. In these crucial districts, Democratic candidates collectively raised $115 million, while Republican candidates raised $78 million. This financial performance resulted in an aggregate Democratic fundraising advantage of $37 million for the second quarter of 2026 in these specific areas [^].
Democratic fundraising success reflects a broader financial strength in competitive races. This performance in battleground districts aligns with a broader pattern of Democratic financial strength across competitive House races [^]. The DCCC reported that, by the end of Q2 2026, Democrats held an overall cash-on-hand advantage of $38 million over Republicans across all competitive House races, highlighting their robust financial position [^].
8. How Might Q3 2026 RDPI Growth Impact Midterm Elections?
| Q3 2026 Real Disposable Personal Income Growth Forecast | 2.0% (Survey of Professional Forecasters [^]) |
|---|---|
| Forecast Source | Survey of Professional Forecasters (Philadelphia Fed [^]) |
| Significance for Midterm Elections | Key input for models predicting midterm seat changes [^] |
The Survey of Professional Forecasters projects 2.0% RDPI growth. The Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF), published by the Philadelphia Fed, projects a 2.0% year-over-year growth in Real Disposable Personal Income (RDPI) for the third quarter of 2026 [^]. This figure represents the median outlook from professional economists regarding the inflation-adjusted income available to households [^]. RDPI is a critical economic indicator, measuring consumer purchasing power and overall economic health [^].
Projected RDPI growth significantly impacts midterm seat change models. The forecasted 2.0% growth in RDPI for Q3 2026 holds substantial implications for models predicting midterm seat changes. Economic forecasting models, such as the Fair model, frequently incorporate RDPI growth as a key variable to project electoral outcomes [^]. Historically, robust positive RDPI growth is associated with positive voter sentiment regarding the economy, which typically benefits the incumbent president's party in midterm elections, potentially mitigating seat losses or even leading to gains [^].
This forecast suggests a moderately favorable economic climate for midterms. Conversely, weak or negative RDPI growth usually indicates economic hardship and can result in substantial seat losses for the president's party [^]. Therefore, the projected 2.0% growth suggests a moderately favorable economic environment leading up to the 2026 midterms. This factor will be incorporated into predictive models to estimate future changes in Congressional seats [^].
9. What Could Change the Odds
Key Catalysts
Catalyst analysis unavailable.
Key Dates & Catalysts
- Expiration: February 01, 2027
- Closes: February 01, 2027
10. Decision-Flipping Events
- Trigger: Catalyst analysis unavailable.
12. Historical Resolutions
No historical resolution data available for this series.
Get Real-Time Research Updates
Sign up for early access to live reports, historical data, and AI-powered market insights delivered to your inbox.
