Predict the House Makeup After 2016

[Mr.Phips]

the democrats need to throw everything they've got at the HOR. I had always thought the 230-odd seats the republicans held after 1994 should be a highwater mark. There's no reason the dems shouldn't be holding as many seats as they did after 1994.

I'm starting to think that the DCCC is turning into the way the RNCC was under Guy Vanderjagt.

Yeah.  Just seeing what happened in NY-11 confirms that thinking.  You don't leave a seat that your party won in the last Presidential election basically uncontested. 

If Dems can't win some key governorships in 2018 and force fair maps in PA, MI, WI, VA, and OH in 2021, next decade will be just like this one for Dems in the House.

This all goes back to the DNC's decision under Obama in 2009 to abandon focus on the grassroots level and simply turn the organization into an Obama reelection organization.  This led to Democrats not having any support at the grassroots level and they lost many state legislative chambers that they should have been able to hold even in 2010.

It seems like a lot of Dems in Washington are OK being a White House only party like the Republicans were from 1968-1992.  It seems to suit them.just fine.

Except they literally did leave a seat they won uncontested in Florida.

They sure did.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I remember Dems were in a similar position in 2010 going into 2012; and Dems made up sufficient ground; the over under in 200D-235R make up the seats lost in midterms

[OSR stands with Israel]

the democrats need to throw everything they've got at the HOR. I had always thought the 230-odd seats the republicans held after 1994 should be a highwater mark. There's no reason the dems shouldn't be holding as many seats as they did after 1994.

I'm starting to think that the DCCC is turning into the way the RNCC was under Guy Vanderjagt.

Yeah.  Just seeing what happened in NY-11 confirms that thinking.  You don't leave a seat that your party won in the last Presidential election basically uncontested. 

If Dems can't win some key governorships in 2018 and force fair maps in PA, MI, WI, VA, and OH in 2021, next decade will be just like this one for Dems in the House.

This all goes back to the DNC's decision under Obama in 2009 to abandon focus on the grassroots level and simply turn the organization into an Obama reelection organization.  This led to Democrats not having any support at the grassroots level and they lost many state legislative chambers that they should have been able to hold even in 2010.

It seems like a lot of Dems in Washington are OK being a White House only party like the Republicans were from 1968-1992.  It seems to suit them.just fine.

Except they literally did leave a seat they won uncontested in Florida.

They sure did.

Winning Congress might be better then winning then winning the White House if you have the right leaders in congress. For example Republicans held the White House 20-24 years from 1968-1992 and had total controll for 6 years from 2000-2006. So what was the time period that most conservative was it the presidency of Reagan who got elected both times with landslides nope. It was from 1994-2000 after the 1994 Republican Revolution and they passed Welfare Reform, Shrunk the Government(Even Reagan couldnt do that) , Cut Capital Gains Taxes, More Deregulation then ever(Good until 1998 bad after that though). The Democrats might need to lose in 2016 or in 2020 and need to find their own Newt Gingrich to steer the country to the left.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dont plan on Dems needing to lose; we enjoy the presidency too much. And winning senate seats ang govs mansions are still plausible; despite minority status in House.

[Mr.Phips]

Dont plan on Dems needing to lose; we enjoy the presidency too much. And winning senate seats ang govs mansions are still plausible; despite minority status in House.

What's good about the Presidency if you can't do anything with it?  Sure, the President can issue executive orders, but congress can just chose not to fund to enforce them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dont plan on Dems needing to lose; we enjoy the presidency too much. And winning senate seats ang govs mansions are still plausible; despite minority status in House.

Dont forgot that the Dems wont stay in power forever and knowing that 2018 will likely be a bloodbath for Democrats and in 2020 everthing will be blamed on the Dems due to being in power for 12 years just like everything was blamed on the Repubs in 1992 so they will likely lose in 2020 due and Republicans may have a fillibuster proof majority in 2020 which is hard to overturn in one election.  Due to this the Dems should plan to make 20-25 seat gain in the house and 7-8 gain in the senate in 2016 or the Dems will be in a very very bad position after 2020.

[Nyvin]

the democrats need to throw everything they've got at the HOR. I had always thought the 230-odd seats the republicans held after 1994 should be a highwater mark. There's no reason the dems shouldn't be holding as many seats as they did after 1994.

I'm starting to think that the DCCC is turning into the way the RNCC was under Guy Vanderjagt.

Yeah.  Just seeing what happened in NY-11 confirms that thinking.  You don't leave a seat that your party won in the last Presidential election basically uncontested. 

If Dems can't win some key governorships in 2018 and force fair maps in PA, MI, WI, VA, and OH in 2021, next decade will be just like this one for Dems in the House.

This all goes back to the DNC's decision under Obama in 2009 to abandon focus on the grassroots level and simply turn the organization into an Obama reelection organization.  This led to Democrats not having any support at the grassroots level and they lost many state legislative chambers that they should have been able to hold even in 2010.

It seems like a lot of Dems in Washington are OK being a White House only party like the Republicans were from 1968-1992.  It seems to suit them.just fine.

Except they literally did leave a seat they won uncontested in Florida.

They sure did.

Winning Congress might be better then winning then winning the White House if you have the right leaders in congress. For example Republicans held the White House 20-24 years from 1968-1992 and had total controll for 6 years from 2000-2006. So what was the time period that most conservative was it the presidency of Reagan who got elected both times with landslides nope. It was from 1994-2000 after the 1994 Republican Revolution and they passed Welfare Reform, Shrunk the Government(Even Reagan couldnt do that) , Cut Capital Gains Taxes, More Deregulation then ever(Good until 1998 bad after that though). The Democrats might need to lose in 2016 or in 2020 and need to find their own Newt Gingrich to steer the country to the left.

The 1994 election was a realignment election though, it was when social/southern conservatives were freaked out by Bill Clinton being leftwing and having majorities in both chambers.   They started voting Republican for Congress and not just the Presidency.  

The Democrats don't really have any group like that on the Republican side that will switch over.    

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems want the Presidency and Senate; new senators like Strickland and Cortez-Masto will fight the Republican obstruction in the House.

Unlike Reid; Schumer is much more combative, and as Senate Dem Leader will not sit by in instances that Reid did.