The Senate, right now, the GOP almost certainly keeps, but with respect to the House, there is a wide range of potential outcomes. As of this morning, betting at PredictIt has the House going Dem by about 2-1, and the more elaborate estimates from PredictWise essentially the same, with a tad more uncertainty. I'm a bit more uncertain than that, but the Dems have a slight edge.
Still, there is a high likelihood that, this time on Wednesday, Democrats will be engaged in a game of mutual recriminations. That will take the form of either, "why didn't we win the Senate? It's your fault!" Or, "why didn't we win anything?! It's your fault!" The general reasoning will be, "but Trump is so horrible!" Yes. He is terrible.
But the economy is great. And as I have written in a bunch of posts, there's no disconnect there. The point of capitalism is that the President isn't centrally planning the economy. Even when a corrupt dipshit like Trump is in the White House, the economy can work because he doesn't run it. We're screwed if there's a crisis while he's President, but him being President doesn't automatically turn the economy into 1929 just by virtue of ineptitude or venality. Have him switch jobs with Jerome Powell, and then the economy would be more subject to the problems of his venality and ineptitude, but as President, Trump doesn't run much of the economy.
What so many people misunderstand about politics, candidates and parties included, is that they expect elections to turn primarily, or even largely on strategic choices made by the candidates and parties. They don't. They turn primarily on fundamentals, like the economy. Which is doing great. And which seats are up in the Senate. Which benefit the GOP.
The Democrats aren't going to do as well as a lot had hoped. Could they have made strategic choices that would put them in a better position now? Try to shine more of a light on Trump's corruption? Talk more about Russia? Less? Do more to combat his constant lying?
As a point of historical reference, Democrats are likely to look back on the 2009-10 period, during which the GOP organized in staunch opposition to Obama, we saw the rise of the "Tea Party," (also known as the "angry white men" back in 1994, when we applied that moniker to them), and wonder why they couldn't manage the same. After all, mass protests started as soon as Trump won. So, why couldn't the Democrats recreate the 2010 election for themselves? After all, death panels and birtherism were all lies. So, why couldn't Democrats pull off a 2010-style victory by just running against the very real horrors of Trumpian authoritarianism, his collusion with Russia, etc.? Hey! Women and minorities! Help us out here! Combined, you're most of the population.
And the answers are fundamental. The economy in 2010 was technically out of recession, but that's because the technical definition of "recession" is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We got into positive growth in Q3 2009, but the recession was so horrendously bad that things didn't really start to feel better, economically, for a while. And yes, the House map benefits the Republicans anyway because Democrats cluster in cities, creating a natural partisan gerrymander. The Senate landscape in 2010 was also much easier for the Republicans than the Senate landscape is for the Democrats now. There was also the passage of Obamacare. Yes, that cost the Democrats seats. See Nyhan et al.'s paper in American Politics Research. The GOP didn't actually pass a "repeal-and-replace" bill. They repealed the individual mandate in their tax bill, and did a bunch of stupid sabotage, but while they are suing to remove protections for pre-existing conditions, they are a) lying about it, and b) haven't actually succeeded yet. That makes it harder for the Democrats to capitalize on it the way the GOP did in 2010.
What does all of this mean? It means that there just aren't the same kinds of opportunities for the Democrats in 2018 as there were for the GOP in 2010. Every once in a while, there is a reason to go back and reference Machiavelli, whose conception of success was that it depended on the combination of luck and "virtu," which doesn't quite translate from the Italian. (Also, there's supposed to be an accent over the "u," but I'm having trouble getting it into the text editor for the blog, not being very tech-savvy). Virtu (as I Jedi-mind-trick you into seeing an accent over the u) is sort of a talent for being able to take advantage of the opportunities that come your way. Luck alone is meaningless, and virtu without the opportunity gets you nothing. This year, the economy is doing great, the Republicans' stumbling failures on healthcare sort of saved them from themselves, and the Senate map is as safe for the GOP as possible.
The Democrats won't get the Senate. They are somewhat more likely than not to get the House. Could they have made different choices that would have improved their position now? Eh. I'm not convinced, but there's a high likelihood of recriminations within the Democratic Party very soon. Circular firing squads are a grand, old political tradition. I'm sure the GOP will be happy to lend the Democrats their guns for the event.