Dem house Majority unlikely my ass

[qochimodo]

First the numbers

Intrade
Democrats to retake the house   34.7%
Obama to win a second term       59.9%

2008
Obama wins the popular vote by              7.2%
House Dems win the popular vote by   10.8%

Now ponder the likely hood of these split ticket scenarios

A.   Obama for President / Republican Congressman
B.   Romney for President / Democratic Congressman

Now I’ll wait….





Now that you’re done laughing at the idea of a split ticket voter in this hyper partisan age you will probably agree with me that of what remains of split ticket voters B is more likely if not much likely than A.

And upon realizing that you now know that on Election Day win or lose house Democrats will receive a greater % of the vote than Obama will (just like they did in 2008)

 Yet right now on this forum and media analysts cling to the pre hyper partisan election patterns of the 80’s and 90’s people like Charlie Cook cite 1984 where Reagan had a landslide and the GOP only picked up 13 seats as evidence that an Obama two point win equals a ten seat pickup for the democrats.

Redistricting helped vulnerable Republicans immensely, but not to the point where their majority can survive losing the popular vote by a couple of points.

Yes Republicans only gained 13 seats in Reagans 1984 landslide win, but that’s because the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 5% and bipartisan elections like that simply have no relevance in forecasting 2012.

All I’m saying is if Obama wins by a point or more the Democrats will retake the house and it’s mind boggling to me that some people are pushing the idea that Obama could landslide and the Democrats could still fall short of a majority.

[Lambsbread]

what

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

[Torie]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

I suspect the Dems will need to win the popular vote in the House by about a 53%-47% margin for the odds to go their way that they will take control over the House. The tipping point is about a 2.75% GOP PVI CD, and in addition to that, you now have the Pub incumbency factor, which is typically worth about 3 more points if the incumbent is reasonably competent. It is going to be a very uphill climb for the Dems. The Pubs have been rather systematically building a firewall of some formidability in a coordinated national effort. It was a top priority of the RNC, and they had a whole team put together to coordinate with the Pub state legislatures.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

lol

[freepcrusher]

well I think all the republican gerrymandering is sort of like a dam. It might make it difficult to break past but if they do, it pretty much obliterates everything. What I mean by that it works well in a neutral environment but in a mildly bad GOP year, it could double the losses and the democrats could end up with the amount of seats they had in the mid to late 70s.

[Vosem]

First the numbers

Intrade
Democrats to retake the house   34.7%
Obama to win a second term       59.9%

2008
Obama wins the popular vote by              7.2%
House Dems win the popular vote by   10.8%

Now ponder the likely hood of these split ticket scenarios

A.   Obama for President / Republican Congressman
B.   Romney for President / Democratic Congressman

Now I’ll wait….





Now that you’re done laughing at the idea of a split ticket voter in this hyper partisan age you will probably agree with me that of what remains of split ticket voters B is more likely if not much likely than A.

And upon realizing that you now know that on Election Day win or lose house Democrats will receive a greater % of the vote than Obama will (just like they did in 2008)

 Yet right now on this forum and media analysts cling to the pre hyper partisan election patterns of the 80’s and 90’s people like Charlie Cook cite 1984 where Reagan had a landslide and the GOP only picked up 13 seats as evidence that an Obama two point win equals a ten seat pickup for the democrats.

Redistricting helped vulnerable Republicans immensely, but not to the point where their majority can survive losing the popular vote by a couple of points.

Yes Republicans only gained 13 seats in Reagans 1984 landslide win, but that’s because the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 5% and bipartisan elections like that simply have no relevance in forecasting 2012.

All I’m saying is if Obama wins by a point or more the Democrats will retake the house and it’s mind boggling to me that some people are pushing the idea that Obama could landslide and the Democrats could still fall short of a majority.

America is not a 'party list' democracy. America is a democracy where all elections are between candidates - not concepts or ideas, but actual real ideas. I might question how a voter can simultaneously vote for Joe Manchin and Barack Obama, since they have rather different ideas on so many topics. Yet both are members of the Democratic Party. How somebody could vote Romney/Manchin is obvious.

Incumbents -- in all elections -- are known quantities, and this gives them advantages in terms of fundraising, and also gives them a natural base of voters who will always vote for the incumbent unless (s)he has been a disaster -- "who knows what the other candidate might do? Have you heard of this congressman in Oregon who put on a tiger suit and then..."

Before these facts, there's that Obama is unlikely to win by a 7.2% margin (I'll grant you that he'll probably win, albeit not quite by that much). This is before the fact that gerrymandering has 'locked in' Republican gains in the 2010 election; about 50 years ago, Democrats managed to do something similar with their gains from 1958, which lasted almost continuously for 36 years.

The likeliest result of the 2010 election -- by far -- is an Obama victory, a Republican House victory -- and an extremely close Senate -- it seems very doubtful either the Republican or Democratic caucus will have 52 members. A few Republican Senate gains are inevitable even if Obama wins a landslide (though taking control of the chamber is not -- Republicans will have to fight for that).

Welcome to the forum

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gerrymandering certainly helps the Republicans.

There have been some solid wins in past that did not result in that party winning the House.
1956, 1972, 1984, and 1996 come to mind.

[Mr.Phips]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

The only marginal Republican seats that were put out of reach for Democrats are NC-02, TN-08, OH-01, OH-15, IN-09, NJ-07, and maybe PA-03.  The rest are still very winnable for Democrats. 

[Mr.Phips]

Gerrymandering certainly helps the Republicans.

There have been some solid wins in past that did not result in that party winning the House.
1956, 1972, 1984, and 1996 come to mind.

1956, 1972, and 1984 were a different time period where ticket splitting was much less common.  1996 was different as Clinton got only 49% and the overwhelming majority of Perot's voters went Republican downballot.  If you look carefully, in most competitive races, Clinton's percentage closely tracked the House or Senate Democrats' percentage.  I suspect that will happen again in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

I suspect the Dems will need to win the popular vote in the House by about a 53%-47% margin for the odds to go their way that they will take control over the House. The tipping point is about a 2.75% GOP PVI CD, and in addition to that, you now have the Pub incumbency factor, which is typically worth about 3 more points if the incumbent is reasonably competent. It is going to be a very uphill climb for the Dems. The Pubs have been rather systematically building a firewall of some formidability in a coordinated national effort. It was a top priority of the RNC, and they had a whole team put together to coordinate with the Pub state legislatures.

I think Democrats winning the House popular vote 51%-48% would be enough to swing it.  The average district only moved from R+1.8% to R+2.1%. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

The only marginal Republican seats that were put out of reach for Democrats are NC-02, TN-08, OH-01, OH-15, IN-09, NJ-07, and maybe PA-03.  The rest are still very winnable for Democrats. 

I'd add SC-05 to that list of marginal seats that were made safe.  Without redistricting, Mulvaney might have been a vulnerable freshman, if he faced a quality Democratic opponent (which sadly are hard to come by in this state as one-party rule is never good, no matter which party rules).  Not that the 2010 elections changed much here.  Possibly the Republicans would have made the 5th a bit more Republican to make certain they would defeat Spratt it he had survived for one last term.  But a 6-1 redistricting plan was a foregone conclusion.

[Mr.Phips]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

The only marginal Republican seats that were put out of reach for Democrats are NC-02, TN-08, OH-01, OH-15, IN-09, NJ-07, and maybe PA-03.  The rest are still very winnable for Democrats. 

I'd add SC-05 to that list of marginal seats that were made safe.  Without redistricting, Mulvaney might have been a vulnerable freshman, if he faced a quality Democratic opponent (which sadly are hard to come by in this state as one-party rule is never good, no matter which party rules).  Not that the 2010 elections changed much here.  Possibly the Republicans would have made the 5th a bit more Republican to make certain they would defeat Spratt it he had survived for one last term.  But a 6-1 redistricting plan was a foregone conclusion.

It was only made about two points more Republican.  Vincent Shaheen would have made it a real race against Mulvaney. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lot of Republican-held marginal seats that were shored up this year.

The only marginal Republican seats that were put out of reach for Democrats are NC-02, TN-08, OH-01, OH-15, IN-09, NJ-07, and maybe PA-03.  The rest are still very winnable for Democrats. 

I'd add SC-05 to that list of marginal seats that were made safe.  Without redistricting, Mulvaney might have been a vulnerable freshman, if he faced a quality Democratic opponent (which sadly are hard to come by in this state as one-party rule is never good, no matter which party rules).  Not that the 2010 elections changed much here.  Possibly the Republicans would have made the 5th a bit more Republican to make certain they would defeat Spratt it he had survived for one last term.  But a 6-1 redistricting plan was a foregone conclusion.

It was only made about two points more Republican.  Vincent Shaheen would have made it a real race against Mulvaney. 

Spratt hung on as long as he did solely because he was an incumbent.

Even without redistricting, Sheheen was likely to have been looking forward to a rematch with Haley. Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections are on alternating 4 year cycles, so he can run for Governor without ever risking his Senate seat.

[Lief 🗽]

House national vote and Dem presidential percentage have lined up pretty well since 2000. We'll see if things change this year, I suppose. But if Obama won by the margin he's currently polling against Romney, I'd be surprised if we didn't retake the House.