The bad reputation of Republicans in 2018 is evident from previous cycles

One of the difficulties of evaluating the mid-term elections is that they are much more complicated than, for example, a presidential race. In a presidential race, there are two major party candidates vying for victory in 50 states. Or, in fact, in about 10 states, depending on the year. At mid-term, each of the 435 seats in the House is contested, with a maximum of 870 candidates from the two main parties. (This number is always lower, since some candidates run without opposition.)

As in the case of states in a presidential year, these 435 seats are not all likely to change hands. But the scores are going. In addition, during a presidential year, you can look at the polls of both candidates nationwide and get an idea of ​​how states might vote (but that's not a perfect system), guessing the winner on the vote in the National Chamber – the Generic Ballot of Congress – is a totally different beast.

Fortunately, there are sites that follow each race almost every day and assess the likelihood that each seat will be occupied by the same party after the close of the vote. One of these sites is the Cook Political Report, which regularly reports on home runs on a number of different parameters, which gives an idea of ​​the general aspect of the national situation after the ballot.

Cook's current ratings give a very clear idea of ​​how things might go in the 2018 elections. In short: bad for the Republican party.

We realized that the most effective way to show how bad things are is to compare this year to the last three cycles. Cook's notes are available from the last few months of the 2012 cycle, sorting the races into three categories: those that either party may hold, those that a party is in favor of holding, and those that who are waiting.

From darker (safer) to lighter (toss-ups), here's how Cook's odds have evolved over the last two months of the year.

(The slightly lighter colored sections are seats designed to promote a party organized by the other party).

Note that Republicans have had many more races at stake on Election Day than Democrats. The Democrats had 29 seats that were evaluated by Cook, eight of which were rejected. The Republicans had 47 seats in play, with 18 shots.

On election day, the Democrats won eight seats for a 16-seat swing. Republicans had more seats in danger and lost more seats.

In 2014, the image of the GOP was better.

On election day, the Democrats had 12 more seats, classified Cook, and 11 more seats, classified as being up. The Republicans won 13 seats for a 26-point swing.

The 2016 elections had to be bad for the Republicans again.

But he ended up being better than what he looked like. The Republicans had 30 seats more than the Democrats, including 14 others. However, they lost only six seats in an election cycle that revealed significant gaps in localized polls.

That's probably the good news that Republicans could pull out of the three charts above: A dark image of Cook does not necessarily mean a total eruption. It is good to keep in mind the current situation in 2018.

The Republicans, starting from Cook's Thursday update, have 57 more kitchen seats, including 26 other seats that are considered rollovers. If both parties lose all their races (which is usually not the case), the Democrats would see a 52-seat gap in their favor, which would be enough to take over the house.

In total, Cook sees more than a third of the seats held by Republicans in November. Most of these seats will be retained by the party. But this is not much consolation for a party that is considering losing power in the lower house.

The best hopes of the moment? A reversal of the Democrats' trend on the generic ballot that hints at some of these seemingly contested Republican seats. Or another surprise election that gives Republicans more success than anyone expected.

Both are possible. However, neither one nor the other is the most likely thing to expect.