Can Dems win Back the House in 2014?

[Marnetmar]

I think the most likely situation will be a tossup.

[DC Al Fine]

It's very difficult for the Presidential party to gain seats during the midterms. The Dems gained 9 seats in 1934 and 5 in 1998. The GOP gained 8 seats in 2002. I think that's it for the modern era.

I'm not ruling out the Dems taking back the house, as all sorts of stuff can come up between now and Nov 2014, but it seems highly unlikely. Today's Democrats need to make double digit gains to take back the house. If FDR's New Deal and Bush's 9/11 afterglow weren't enough to make double digit gains, what do you think will be the impetus for Obama's Democrats to do so?

[barfbag]

not a chance

[Fritz]

No, because of the outstanding job the Republicans did in gerrymandering the districts.  I don't think Democrats will take back the House until 2022 at the earliest.

[Mechaman]

If they couldn't do it in 2012 I'm really failing to see the argument that they'll accomplish it in 2014.

[Blue3]

It will be close but they can do it.

It didn't happen in 2012 because the DNC was more focused on the White House (and to a less extent the Senate).


As for those saying it's gerrymandered... that makes it a little tougher, but not impossible. Republicans were able to win in 1994 despite the House being very gerrymandered to the Democrats.

[TNF]

No, the Republicans will hold the House at least until 2022.

[Torie]

Sure, the Dems can take back the House if they get from 52% to 53% of the House vote in 2014 (the precise number being dependent on how much the incumbency advantage holds for Pub incumbents in swing districts). Absent the incumbency factor, the swing point per the 2012 results, is about 51.7%. And not all of the advantage is due to gerrymandering. Maybe but a third is. The rest is due to geography (the Dems are packed in big cities), and the VRA.

The odds seem low, very low, at the moment, that the Dems will do that well, particularly with Obamacare out there, and going live. However, if a Pub takes the White House, the Dems could well be positioned to get control of the House in an off year election down the road prior to 2022.  

[Skill and Chance]

It's vanishingly unlikely in 2014.  The only plausible way it could happen is if the House GOP impeaches Obama on obviously trumped-up charges.  I do think Dems will have at least one clear shot at the House before 2022, though.  The best scenario would be in 2018 with an unpopular Republican president.  They also have a serious chance in 2016 if Hillary runs and wins, because she would create a major rural swing that would throw a wrench into a lot of the gerrymanders.

Also, everything else aside, a lot of those R+5 suburban Sunbelt districts will be Even by 2020 due to natural demographic drift.  Probably not the 30 or so they will need for control after the last Blue Dogs retire, though.   

[DC Al Fine]

Eh, it might happen if John Boehner and Eric Cantor sodomize a goat on the front lawn of the White House, but otherwise no.

[bedstuy]

It's possible. There aren't many vulnerable Democrats and they could pick up a bunch of seats in a wave year.  I think the recipe would be to really clean up in some of the Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic states. 

[barfbag]

I had a dream we gained enough to have 52 seats in the senate.

[TDAS04]

Very unlikely. 

[ElectionsGuy]

5% Chance. After all, they didn't do it in 2012 even though the won the House popular vote by 1%. The gerrymandering really secures the house for the rest of this decade with the republicans almost guaranteed to have at least 225 seats.

[barfbag]

Republicans will be anywhere from 217 to 251, but the likelihood of them actually losing the House with 217 is highly unlikely. We're living in an age with a Republican congress and a White House that goes back and forth every eight years with an occasional exception of Bush's second term. I like it.

[ElectionsGuy]

Republicans will be anywhere from 217 to 251, but the likelihood of them actually losing the House with 217 is highly unlikely. We're living in an age with a Republican congress and a White House that goes back and forth every eight years with an occasional exception of Bush's second term. I like it.

Having this...

White House: Republican
US House: Republican
US Senate: Republican

or this...

White House: Democrat
US House: Democrat
US Senate: Democrat

.... is the most dangerous thing that can ever happen in elections. In 2008, when democrats had complete control we got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). When Bush fist became president I was still a small child so I don't really know what Bush and his fellow republicans pushed through for one year (until the republican from Vermont switched to an Independent who caucused with the democrats) with their majority, but it was still dangerous to have one party control.

All political parties are lucky to have at least one chamber of congress or the presidency. America is lucky we aren't dominated by just democrats or just republicans right now. And furthermore America is lucky to have a a republican house for the next decade no matter how disorganized they are. It is completely dangerous for America to have complete one party control (especially for more than 2 years).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans will be anywhere from 217 to 251, but the likelihood of them actually losing the House with 217 is highly unlikely. We're living in an age with a Republican congress and a White House that goes back and forth every eight years with an occasional exception of Bush's second term. I like it.

Having this...

White House: Republican
US House: Republican
US Senate: Republican

or this...

White House: Democrat
US House: Democrat
US Senate: Democrat

.... is the most dangerous thing that can ever happen in elections. In 2008, when democrats had complete control we got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). When Bush fist became president I was still a small child so I don't really know what Bush and his fellow republicans pushed through for one year (until the republican from Vermont switched to an Independent who caucused with the democrats) with their majority, but it was still dangerous to have one party control.

All political parties are lucky to have at least one chamber of congress or the presidency. America is lucky we aren't dominated by just democrats or just republicans right now. And furthermore America is lucky to have a a republican house for the next decade no matter how disorganized they are. It is completely dangerous for America to have complete one party control (especially for more than 2 years).

Nothing, or not that much. The line from Fahrenheit 911 went, "He couldn't get his tax cuts passed, he couldn't get his judges through and he lost Republican control of the Seante (six months not a year in), so we went on vacation and caused the terrorist attack."

Okay maybe not the last bit, but that was basically his underlying theme.

Even before Jefford's switch, it was a 50-50 chamber and Lott had made a deal to split control with Daschle. The Republicans really only got complete control for four years between 2003 and 2007 and during that period the only thing they did domestically was cut taxes, pass NCLB, pass the Medicare Part D before the election, confirm two judges in 2005, and change the bankruptcy laws in 2005.

That is Bush's domestic legacy, aside from that first tax cut, Sarbox and the Patriot Act.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It will be close but they can do it.

It didn't happen in 2012 because the DNC was more focused on the White House (and to a less extent the Senate).


As for those saying it's gerrymandered... that makes it a little tougher, but not impossible. Republicans were able to win in 1994 despite the House being very gerrymandered to the Democrats.

Actually you could say that it was gerrymandered for them thanks to the VRA. You can see the first signs of this in the gains made in 1992 in spite of losing the White House. A lot of Democrats though got lucky in 1992 because of bad candidates or whatever but were doomed in their now much less diverse districts once the Republicans got serious at the NRCC.

[Cory]

This thread reminds me why next time Democrats have control of the House we should really stick it to the Republicans (assuming we have the White House & at least 51 votes* in the Senate)...

-Put the Public Option in the ACA. This is something the Republicans will never be able to repeal even if they have the chance. It will be the single most popular program since Social Security.

-Legalize Gay Marriage federally if we haven't already.

-Pass national anti-discrimination act for gays/transgendered/ect.

-Amend the Voting Rights Act to make every state need federal permission to change their voting rules (thus negating the Supreme Court's objection).

-Go back to Clinton-era tax rates, close ridiculous loopholes, heavily penalize outsourcing in the tax code.

-Federal law abolishing "right-to-work", make it illegal to fire an employee explicitly because they wanted to form a union.

-Reinstate Glass-Stegall.

-Legalize Marijuana federally.

Anything I'm forgetting? We would need to ram this through in two years.

* Nuke the filibuster if that's what it takes. We need to start playing hardball like the Republicans do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

With Obama? Of course not.

[Cryptic]

Not impossible, but looks unlikely right now. 

[MATTROSE94]

Probably not. While the Democrats will narrow the Republican House majority to a point in 2014 and 2016, I don't think that they will retake the House until 2018.

[barfbag]

Probably not. While the Democrats will narrow the Republican House majority to a point in 2014 and 2016, I don't think that they will retake the House until 2018.

It usually doesn't work like that. Normally there's a huge shift and the House changes drastically.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

heavily penalize outsourcing in the tax code.

Really and what happens when the domestic based companies lose out to the foreign competition? You lose not only the production (which is what you are probably trying to preserve), but the corporate headquarters and whatever tax revenue not sheltered already as well. Brilliant!

That is precisely why, as what stated previously, having one party rule is bad. You are being governed by ideas fully vetted in an echo chamber, I cannot imagine how that could possibly lead to problems.

[tik 🪀✨]

One party rule would be fine if the right checks and balances are there to upset that rule. You'd need several constitutional amendments to achieve that, though.

And no, I doubt the Dems can win in 2014. But it would be great if they did, and some hard pushes should take place to help motivate voters. The last two Obama years not lame ducking around would be fantastic.