Dems: Save Senate, ditch House

[RogueBeaver]

POLITICO stating the obvious, that Senate triage is in order. Pelosi probably won't retire either.

[IceSpear]

POLITICO stating the obvious, that Senate triage is in order. Pelosi probably won't retire either.

Good. Pelosi needs to stick it out until Hoyer is too old to succeed her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

POLITICO stating the obvious, that Senate triage is in order. Pelosi probably won't retire either.

Good. Pelosi needs to stick it out until Hoyer is too old to succeed her.

Who would get it, then? Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, and Lewis, are all 73 or 74.

[morgieb]

POLITICO stating the obvious, that Senate triage is in order. Pelosi probably won't retire either.

Good. Pelosi needs to stick it out until Hoyer is too old to succeed her.

Who would get it, then? Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, and Lewis, are all 73 or 74.

Van Hollen and Becerra seemed to be the two most talked about as future House leaders.

[badgate]

^Outside this forum though?

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Good. Pelosi needs to stick it out until Hoyer is too old to succeed her.

If Hillary runs (and wins) in 2016, and Democrats take back the House (....HAH!), I would love to see Hillary at the rostrum and Pelosi in the Speaker's chair at the future State of Union. Two women up there would be a sight to see. But that's just my fantasy.

Hoyer is a year older than Pelosi, she'll outlast him not to worry.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They had no chance at House anyways. Minimize loses and gain Governors to control the next redistricting map.

[LeBron]

That's a bad idea for a few reasons. Out of the House Democrats, the House GOP, the Senate Democrats, and the Senate GOP, the House Dems are raising more money than any of them which is pivotal especially when you look at 2010 and then we also have this problem that their are Senators in vulnerable seats like in Alaska with Begich or North Carolina with Hagan who don't want any help from the President and the same would likely apply to Pryor and Landrieu since their states don't want anything to do with President Obama either. Helping out in SD or MT won't do him much good either and WV is lol. Besides, Republicans pretty much gave up any chance they have of taking down Hagan anyways and judging from the recent polls and money figures in AK, Treadwell isn't as vulnerable as I thought so if we easily hold both of those, the Senate will be under Democratic control.

So b/c of that, we should really target the House. Assuming we win FL-13, we'll only need about 20-25 seats (depending on how many seats the Democrats lose themselves), and those can be found in a multitude of states with retirees or straight-out vulnerable Republicans in Atlasian red states. Also, if we hold the Senate and Republicans hold the House, that will still make President Obama be a lame-duck President considering Boehner wants nothing to do with gun safety or a minimum wage. We're better off playing the lottery here in a win-it-all (Democratic control of House & Senate) or lose-it-all (Republican control of House & Senate) scenario.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So the Democrats are really abandoning the 50-state strategy now...*

*That's not to say I think the Democrats will win the House this year, but conceding half the legislative branch sounds unwise to me.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

So b/c of that, we should really target the House. Assuming we win FL-13, we'll only need about 20-25 seats (depending on how many seats the Democrats lose themselves), and those can be found in a multitude of states with retirees or straight-out vulnerable Republicans in Atlasian red states. Also, if we hold the Senate and Republicans hold the House, that will still make President Obama be a lame-duck President considering Boehner wants nothing to do with gun safety or a minimum wage. We're better off playing the lottery here in a win-it-all (Democratic control of House & Senate) or lose-it-all (Republican control of House & Senate) scenario.

That actually makes a lot of sense. As much as I hate to admit it, if Dems don't pick up the House (they really have no chance of doing that as of now), Obama's second term is basically just as useless as the last three years have been. Especially because I can't really see the GOP picking up more than five Senate seats already (which would leave Senate under Democratic control), they are basically guaranteed control of the Senate after the 2016 elections, even if the GOP makes it to 51 seats in 2014.

The House is just so badly gerrymandered that even if all the focus is put on the House in 2014, they really aren't likely to pick it up before new district lines are drawn again unless there's another 2006/2008 wave. So I guess they can minimize the losses in the Senate there, but they are likely to get it back likely no matter what.

[smoltchanov]

That's a bad idea for a few reasons. Out of the House Democrats, the House GOP, the Senate Democrats, and the Senate GOP, the House Dems are raising more money than any of them which is pivotal especially when you look at 2010 and then we also have this problem that their are Senators in vulnerable seats like in Alaska with Begich or North Carolina with Hagan who don't want any help from the President and the same would likely apply to Pryor and Landrieu since their states don't want anything to do with President Obama either. Helping out in SD or MT won't do him much good either and WV is lol. Besides, Republicans pretty much gave up any chance they have of taking down Hagan anyways and judging from the recent polls and money figures in AK, Treadwell isn't as vulnerable as I thought so if we easily hold both of those, the Senate will be under Democratic control.

So b/c of that, we should really target the House. Assuming we win FL-13, we'll only need about 20-25 seats (depending on how many seats the Democrats lose themselves), and those can be found in a multitude of states with retirees or straight-out vulnerable Republicans in Atlasian red states. Also, if we hold the Senate and Republicans hold the House, that will still make President Obama be a lame-duck President considering Boehner wants nothing to do with gun safety or a minimum wage. We're better off playing the lottery here in a win-it-all (Democratic control of House & Senate) or lose-it-all (Republican control of House & Senate) scenario.

I don't see 20-25 seats Democrats can win in this year. In fact - i see, but i see approximately the same number of seats Democrats can lose this year, so, for now, it's a sort of "wash" to me (really: +3-4 Republican)

[dmmidmi]

That's a bad idea for a few reasons. Out of the House Democrats, the House GOP, the Senate Democrats, and the Senate GOP, the House Dems are raising more money than any of them which is pivotal especially when you look at 2010 and then we also have this problem that their are Senators in vulnerable seats like in Alaska with Begich or North Carolina with Hagan who don't want any help from the President and the same would likely apply to Pryor and Landrieu since their states don't want anything to do with President Obama either. Helping out in SD or MT won't do him much good either and WV is lol. Besides, Republicans pretty much gave up any chance they have of taking down Hagan anyways and judging from the recent polls and money figures in AK, Treadwell isn't as vulnerable as I thought so if we easily hold both of those, the Senate will be under Democratic control.

So b/c of that, we should really target the House. Assuming we win FL-13, we'll only need about 20-25 seats (depending on how many seats the Democrats lose themselves), and those can be found in a multitude of states with retirees or straight-out vulnerable Republicans in Atlasian red states. Also, if we hold the Senate and Republicans hold the House, that will still make President Obama be a lame-duck President considering Boehner wants nothing to do with gun safety or a minimum wage. We're better off playing the lottery here in a win-it-all (Democratic control of House & Senate) or lose-it-all (Republican control of House & Senate) scenario.

20-25 is a lot of seats to change hands.

[Person Man]

So b/c of that, we should really target the House. Assuming we win FL-13, we'll only need about 20-25 seats (depending on how many seats the Democrats lose themselves), and those can be found in a multitude of states with retirees or straight-out vulnerable Republicans in Atlasian red states. Also, if we hold the Senate and Republicans hold the House, that will still make President Obama be a lame-duck President considering Boehner wants nothing to do with gun safety or a minimum wage. We're better off playing the lottery here in a win-it-all (Democratic control of House & Senate) or lose-it-all (Republican control of House & Senate) scenario.

That actually makes a lot of sense. As much as I hate to admit it, if Dems don't pick up the House (they really have no chance of doing that as of now), Obama's second term is basically just as useless as the last three years have been. Especially because I can't really see the GOP picking up more than five Senate seats already (which would leave Senate under Democratic control), they are basically guaranteed control of the Senate after the 2016 elections, even if the GOP makes it to 51 seats in 2014.

The House is just so badly gerrymandered that even if all the focus is put on the House in 2014, they really aren't likely to pick it up before new district lines are drawn again unless there's another 2006/2008 wave. So I guess they can minimize the losses in the Senate there, but they are likely to get it back likely no matter what.

At this point, does each party have to wait for something to happen to become have a shot in the house where they are not the majority?