Democratic Majority in the House

[J.R. Brown]

Does anybody think the Democrats will be able to take back the House by 2008, possibly even 2006? Say why if you think they will or won't be able to, and also which districts are the most vulnerable for both parties.

[Joe Republic]

I vote yes - it is possible, just highly unlikely given the current state of things.  What the Democrats need is a Newt Gingrich-style person and an equivalent of the "Contract with America".  Unfortunately for them, what they currently have instead is Nancy Pelosi, and not much of a plan so far for the next elections.

[Jake]

Not 2006, but it is possible in 2008.

Why not in 2006

1) In 2006, the Democrats won't have the presidential race to bring out the voters they need to knock off those GOP incumbents.

2) There are just to many seats to take back in one go. Unless their is a major scandal that takes President Bush's campaign advantage out of the picture, Democrats can't make big enough gains.

3) Their leadership sucks.  If Nancy Pelosi got hit by a tour bus tommorrow, their chances of 5-10 seat pickup in '06 go up considerably.

Why in 2008,

1) There will be a presidential race to bring out the voters. If not for the Texas gerrymander, the Democrats would've picked up seats this year.  They most likely will in '08.

2) The key states are already pretty gerrymandered. The GOP got all they will get in 2002/2004, except maybe a Georgia seat this time around.

[Frodo]

with the districts gerrymandered as they are in Texas (21 or 22 Republicans to 12 or 11 Democrats) and elsewhere by Republicans, i do not dare be optimistic.

i have more hope of taking the Senate in 2006 and/or the presidency in 2008.  here is some advice -if you really want to take back the House, focus on the institutions that draw their boundaries first -the governors' mansions and state legislatures.

let's talk about those before even contemplating taking back the House. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For the Dems to win the House in 2006 will require Iraq to get a lot worse than it is now and quickly.  I don't see that happening.  With more Dem seats than GOP seats up in 2006, I see no chance that the GOP will lose the Senate in 2006, tho the Dems might be able to pick up a seat or two if things go right for them.  2008 is far enough away politically that while it is likely that the GOP will retain control of both Houses, it would not be totally improbable for the Dems to gaine either or both Houses in 2008.  Given the circumstances the country would likely need to be in for that to happen, I hope that the  Dems won't have a shot at regaining control in 2008.

[AuH2O]

The Senate is structurally advantaged to the GOP. It's almost impossible for Democrats to take and hold the Senate in the next 20 years.

The House... well, with the limited number of competitive races, it's basically impossible for that to switch either. It would take a variety of circumstances including judicial intervention to draw fair districts. Not possible until at least 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The main problem is gerrymandering. Essentially all of the competitive House races have to break to the Democrats under the current system. Florida has 18 Republicans and 7 Democrats, that's just sick.

[J.R. Brown]

Can anyone name any specific Republican held districts that could switch in 2006?
I think Iowa's 1st district could go to the Democrats if Jim Nussle runs for governor in 2006.

[bgwah]

Can anyone name any specific Republican held districts that could switch in 2006?
I think Iowa's 1st district could go to the Democrats if Jim Nussle runs for governor in 2006.

Washington's 8th district has been becoming more Democratic, but unless Reichert decides not to run again the Republican swill probably keep that seat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can anyone name any specific Republican held districts that could switch in 2006?
I think Iowa's 1st district could go to the Democrats if Jim Nussle runs for governor in 2006.

Iowa, Connecticut, New Mexico have vulnerable Republicans.

Theres one Republican in Illinois that's vulnerable, I think.

There's an Indiana district where a Dem incumbent lost by almost no votes.

There's John's seat in Louisiana.

[Smash255]

Can anyone name any specific Republican held districts that could switch in 2006?
I think Iowa's 1st district could go to the Democrats if Jim Nussle runs for governor in 2006.

Something that hasn't been discussed, bbut I will throw aroud for the hell of it.  If Pataki doesn't run for re-election and Rudy doesn't run Peter King could run for Govenor (or possibly Senate) he would lose in both, but he just seems o be someone looking for a bigger office, so if that happens (or he just decides to retire) it opens up NY-03 (my district) in a region (Long Island) that has gradually shifted leftward

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are actually a hell of a lot more competative districts than people think... thing is most of 'em have popular and/or longserving incumbents and if said incumbents runs for re-election the district in't competative (although it would be if he retired).

Gotta wait for the retirements before you can predict anything with the House IMO.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There are actually a hell of a lot more competative districts than people think... thing is most of 'em have popular and/or longserving incumbents and if said incumbents runs for re-election the district in't competative (although it would be if he retired).

Gotta wait for the retirements before you can predict anything with the House IMO.

Total bullsh**t.

Of the 403 unchanged House districts (Screw Texas),  the Democrats gained
NY-27
PA-13
GA-12
CO-3
LA-3
The Republicans gained
KY-4
IN-9
LA-7

That's a turnover of 2.0%.

Of the Senate had 34 seats up
Dem pickup:
Colorado, Illinois
GOP pickup:
NC, SC, GA, FL, LA, SD

That's a turnover of 23.5%

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you actually read what I posted?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did you actually read what I posted?

Plenty of House members retire all the time. Senators tend to serve longer. Last year, Senate seats were 11.5 times as likely to switch parties (which is almost 4 times as likely even if you take into account length of terms).  Most House districts aren't competive regardless of whether it's an open seat or not. A lot of Senate seats switched hands in 2000 and 2004.

The gerrymandering problem is getting worse due to
1. Increased polarization of the country
2. Increased computational power available for maximizing gerrymandering

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Plenty of House members retire all the time. Senators tend to serve longer.

If you had at least half a brain left in that pot-addled head of yours, you'd have noticed that less Congressmen in potentially competative districts retired than is normal last time round and that big turnovers in the House tend to be accompanied by one side being very unlucky in retirements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but's always been the case. It's not the result of gerrymandering (although it's true that there's less of 'em than there were in Rayburn's or even O'Neill's day).

You may or may not have noticed, but several longserving Congressmen in potentially competative districts had only a paper candidate running against them. If that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullsh**t

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Know what? You don't need computors to draw a really foul partisan gerrymander. It just saves you a little bit of time. That's all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Plenty of House members retire all the time. Senators tend to serve longer.

If you had at least half a brain left in that pot-addled head of yours, you'd have noticed that less Congressmen in potentially competative districts retired than is normal last time round and that big turnovers in the House tend to be accompanied by one side being very unlucky in retirements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but's always been the case. It's not the result of gerrymandering (although it's true that there's less of 'em than there were in Rayburn's or even O'Neill's day).

You may or may not have noticed, but several longserving Congressmen in potentially competative districts had only a paper candidate running against them. If that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullsh**t

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Know what? You don't need computors to draw a really foul partisan gerrymander. It just saves you a little bit of time. That's all.

1. This is by far the most polarized election for as far back as the exit polls go (1972)

2. A good gerrymander requires a lot of computer power. The Pennsylvania gerrymander involved a $400,000 CMU computational project, paid for by Pennsylvania taxpayers, of course

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. This is by far the most polarized election for as far back as the exit polls go (1972)

Exit polls? You're basing you're entire theory on exit polls? Look at the actual results you eejet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. A "good" gerrymander just needs some people who are good with maps and a lot of statistics on voting patterns, demographics etc.
Now, what computers have done is make it easier to doodle incumbent protection gerrymanders, which isn't entirely the same thing

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. This is by far the most polarized election for as far back as the exit polls go (1972)

Exit polls? You're basing you're entire theory on exit polls? Look at the actual results you eejet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. A "good" gerrymander just needs some people who are good with maps and a lot of statistics on voting patterns, demographics etc.
Now, what computers have done is make it easier to doodle incumbent protection gerrymanders, which isn't entirely the same thing

1. Look at what actual results?  The exit polls show an increasing polarization, with 2004 the most polarized, and 2000 the 2nd most.

2. A gerrymander is a minimization/maximization problem. If you get a list of the voter rolls and precinct data, you may want to decide which houses should be in the district one at a time. There are continuity requirements. This all works much better with a computer. That $400,000 wasn't for a couple of people to draw some random lines on a map. You really don't seem to realize how much a problem gerrymandering is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Look at what actual results?  The exit polls show an increasing polarization, with 2004 the most polarized, and 2000 the 2nd most.

Um... I mean the results of all the elections held in early November 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Listen, to get a "good" gerrymander all you need to use is townships and (in some cases) precincts. You do not need to go down to houses and stuff.
The PA gerrymander was part partisan and part incumbent protection. Incumbent protection costs a lot more. The really fancy work in the PA map (PA-13 and PA-17) backfired.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do actually. You seem to be paranoid and prone to exaggerating everthing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Look at what actual results?  The exit polls show an increasing polarization, with 2004 the most polarized, and 2000 the 2nd most.

Um... I mean the results of all the elections held in early November 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Listen, to get a "good" gerrymander all you need to use is townships and (in some cases) precincts. You do not need to go down to houses and stuff.
The PA gerrymander was part partisan and part incumbent protection. Incumbent protection costs a lot more. The really fancy work in the PA map (PA-13 and PA-17) backfired.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do actually. You seem to be paranoid and prone to exaggerating everthing.

The exit polls showed that Presidential vote / Congressional vote and Presidential vote / Party correlated stronger than ever before.

Even if you're not gerrymandering, you have to split up townships, since each district requires the same number of people (+- 1 or something).  When you gerrymander, your parties districts are going to be something like 55-45 or 60-40, and the other parties are going to be like 80-20. Obviously that didn't work out too well with PA-13.

Appearnatly a lot of the work was in predicting how each precinct would vote, based upon past voting history, census information, and perhaps other sources of data. Again, computers help a lot there.

2% vs. 23% speaks for itself, I don't need to exaggerate anything.  Anyways, don't throw stones in glass houses.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Look at the actual results, *please*... this includes finding out how many congressmen is potentially competative districts had only paper opponents.

2. I don't see why this matters so much to you. Certainly computers make anything to do with maps easier, but the idea that you can't draw a gerrymander without computorised stuff is idiotic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Look at the actual results, *please*... this includes finding out how many congressmen is potentially competative districts had only paper opponents.

2. I don't see why this matters so much to you. Certainly computers make anything to do with maps easier, but the idea that you can't draw a gerrymander without computorised stuff is idiotic.

$400,000 worth of computational power for the 2002 redistricting would have been an unfeasable amount of computation power for the 1982 redistricting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Um... and? I never said gerrymandering hasn't got worse, it has, but I'm going to repeat this:

The idea that you can't doodle a gerrymander without fancy equipment is absurd.

[J. J.]

1. Look at the actual results, *please*... this includes finding out how many congressmen is potentially competative districts had only paper opponents.

2. I don't see why this matters so much to you. Certainly computers make anything to do with maps easier, but the idea that you can't draw a gerrymander without computorised stuff is idiotic.

$400,000 worth of computational power for the 2002 redistricting would have been an unfeasable amount of computation power for the 1982 redistricting.

You can analyze the data more quickly, but you had people in both parties that could basically do the same things in their heads in 1982, or with just a little help from pencil, paper, and pocket calculator.  I would argue that the 1982 PA-4 was a far worse gerrymander than anything out there now in PA. 

I also disagree with the idea that it's solely political.  It was possible in 1982 and 2002 to have created a GOP district largely from Westmoreland, Somerset, and parts of Cambria Counties (probably running into Bedford and Indiana Counties).  Both times, the GOP legislature used this to knock off an incumbent Democrat, but both times they could have used it to knock off two incumbents and elect a Republican in the place of one.

Basically, the plans, both times, were used to protect John Murtha (D-12).  In 1982, he was part of the majority party, close to the Speaker, and was more senior than his opponent (Don Bailey).  In 2002, he was about two decades senior to his opponent (Frank Mascara) and now the ranking Democrat on several committees.  The GOP legislature did not want to lose that clout in DC in either case.

There are other motives in the politician's mind than raw numbers of House members when they re-district.