Cohn: GOP House majority may now be unshakable for a generation

[JRP1994]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/the-enduring-republican-grip-on-the-house.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&abt=0002&abg=1

"Whatever doubts existed about the Republican grip on the House should now be gone.

By picking up at least a dozen House seats in the elections last Tuesday, the Republicans cemented a nearly unassailable majority that could last for a generation, or as long as today’s political divides between North and South, urban and rural, young and old, and white and nonwhite endure.

Even if the Democrats could retake the House in an anti-Republican wave, it probably won’t come with a Democratic president to take advantage of it. The party with the presidency rarely makes big gains in Congress. As my colleague Lynn Vavreck put it, the economy elects presidents; presidents elect Congress.

In other words, a Republican president is probably a prerequisite to a Democratic House. And even a Republican president might not assure another wave like 2006 or 2010, which itself would not even assure a Democratic House."

[IceSpear]

Pretty sure these same articles were written after 2004. And let's not forget Rothenberg's "there is no way the GOP will win the House" article in 2009.

[Vosem]

I think it's clear that the 2007-2011 Democratic majority was a brief aberration (like the short-lived 1947-1949 and 1953-1955 Republican majorities that studded the long 1931-1995 Democratic majority).

[Sol]

I think it's clear that the 2007-2011 Democratic majority was a brief aberration (like the short-lived 1947-1949 and 1953-1955 Republican majorities that studded the long 1931-1995 Democratic majority).

Exactly. I suspect that considering the current era's GOP friendliness, the House will nearly always be in GOP control.

[Mehmentum]

The GOP House will exist for as long as the Republicans at the state level can gerrymander them into the majority.

Gaining 12 House seats doesn't really mean anything as a good Democrat wave could still wipe out that majority.  However, GOP successes in picking up Governorships and state houses does mean a lot. 

Thankfully, Democrats will have one more chance to take over open seats in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.  Unfortunately, these races will be during a midterm, where Republicans seem to be naturally favored as of late.

[Devils30]

It's probably safe through 2020 but after that is anyone's guess. Democrats goal should be to win Governor's races in MI, WI, OH, FL in 2018. With the exception of Ohio I think Dems have strong odds as they may attempt to succeed unpopular incumbents in swing to blue states. If Dems cant gain in 2018 then they should put referendums on the ballot in 2020 to create bipartisan commissions.

[Devils30]

The GOP House will exist for as long as the Republicans at the state level can gerrymander them into the majority.

Gaining 12 House seats doesn't really mean anything as a good Democrat wave could still wipe out that majority.  However, GOP successes in picking up Governorships and state houses does mean a lot. 

Thankfully, Democrats will have one more chance to take over open seats in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.  Unfortunately, these races will be during a midterm, where Republicans seem to be naturally favored as of late.

If Hillary wins and is very popular I can see Dems winning all of these. Gwen Graham could be the candidate in Florida and Michigan/Wisconsin may tire of the GOP after 8 years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats odds of taking back the House before the 2022 redistricting look bleak, and to take it back next decade, 2018 & 2020 have to go a lot better than 2010.

[King]

Considering the average Republican voter is in their 60s, a generation is like a decade.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Pretty sure these same articles were written after 2004. And let's not forget Rothenberg's "there is no way the GOP will win the House" article in 2009.

I remember one saying that they had a lock on the Senate for the next 20 years and the House for at least the next 50 years.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's probably safe through 2020 but after that is anyone's guess. Democrats goal should be to win Governor's races in MI, WI, OH, FL in 2018. With the exception of Ohio I think Dems have strong odds as they may attempt to succeed unpopular incumbents in swing to blue states. If Dems cant gain in 2018 then they should put referendums on the ballot in 2020 to create bipartisan commissions.

bipartisan commissions are a terrible idea. Go 2:30 in this video to see why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY&index=8&list=PLqs5ohhass_QhOSkrNqPFEAOv5fBzTvWv

[freepcrusher]

I think it's clear that the 2007-2011 Democratic majority was a brief aberration (like the short-lived 1947-1949 and 1953-1955 Republican majorities that studded the long 1931-1995 Democratic majority).

love the hackery. Remember that dems have 245ish seats. Good majority yes, but you have to remember that reps had bigger majorities most years. Let's take a look:

1936 334
1934 322
1932 313
1964 295
1976 292
1974 291
1958 283
1978 277
1982 269
1940 267
1990 267
1948 263
1960 262
1938 262
1988 260
1992 258
1962 258
1986 258
1970 255
1984 253

Although there were guys like George Mahon, William Colmer for the democrats that skewed the numbers there were still Gil Gude and Sil Conte types in the republican caucus.

[DrScholl]

That's kind of a silly thing to assume, when you consider that Democrats have a chance to win back more than half the gains Republicans made this year, plus win some blue seats that Republicans hold late on in the decade. That might not result in a the House flipping, but the Republicans are more likely to lose seats than gain them in 2016.

[Dixie Reborn]

Great Success!

[Frodo]

He could be right -remember that in the wake of Richard Nixon's victory in 1968, Democrats held on to the House until 1994, and (with the six-year exception between 1981 and 1987) dominated the Senate also until that same year.  We could be in a similar period with Democrats largely dominating the electoral college with the new electoral coalition forged by Barack Obama in 2008, and being relatively competitive in Senate races (but with the advantage going to Republicans), and the GOP dominant in the House.  

Gerrymandering in the legislatures was key for us then, as it is for Republicans now.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At the end of the day gerrymandering alone is not the sole issue underlying the majority even in 2012. You still have the long term concentration of Democratic voters and also Republicans have the bench that put reasonable candidates up those marginal seats and hold them even as far back as 2010, where unlike in the Senate, Republicans nominated really solid candidates like Hanna, Gibson, Heck, Meehan etc in the swing territory.

[Nichlemn]

Pretty sure these same articles were written after 2004. And let's not forget Rothenberg's "there is no way the GOP will win the House" article in 2009.

Basically this. I mean the GOP does have some genuine structural advantages on the current map that make it difficult for Democrats to win. Cohn's analysis is pretty accurate for the short term. But I always feel that these "implications of the latest victory" articles are rather myopic in that they tend to think that recent events are going to play out in the same way for a long time to come. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The keyword is "may".


Unless the Republicans screw it up like in 2006, they will more then likely have it. An unpopular war and/or a bad economy and/or corruption scandals can unravel any majority.

[jaichind]

I think it's clear that the 2007-2011 Democratic majority was a brief aberration (like the short-lived 1947-1949 and 1953-1955 Republican majorities that studded the long 1931-1995 Democratic majority).

love the hackery. Remember that dems have 245ish seats. Good majority yes, but you have to remember that reps had bigger majorities most years. Let's take a look:

1936 334
1934 322
1932 313
1964 295
1976 292
1974 291
1958 283
1978 277
1982 269
1940 267
1990 267
1948 263
1960 262
1938 262
1988 260
1992 258
1962 258
1986 258
1970 255
1984 253

Although there were guys like George Mahon, William Colmer for the democrats that skewed the numbers there were still Gil Gude and Sil Conte types in the republican caucus.

To be fair during the 1932-1994 period I think we really had a 3 party system:  GOP, Southern Dems, Non-Southern Dems.  Southern Dems were often the swing bloc in the House.  So a nominal majority 243 after 1980 for the Dems translated into the GOP and Southern Dems forming an alliance to pass significant parts of the GOP agenda.  Once the Dem majority goes above 260 or so were there not enough Southern Dems in the House to form an de facto majority with GOP.  In that sense I think the 1932-1994 Dem majorities were often inflated relative to their real strength.  

[Mr.Phips]

Democrats badly need to win the governorships of PA, OH, MI, and WI in 2018.  Court ordered maps in those four states alone would likely lead to Dems picking up 12-15 seats. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Democrats badly need to win the governorships of PA, OH, MI, and WI in 2018.  Court ordered maps in those four states alone would likely lead to Dems picking up 12-15 seats. 

Not quite. Maybe 6 to 10.

[Devils30]

Probably at least 10, to start it would be 4 in PA, 1 in WI, 3 in FL, 2 in MI. FL actually might get 12-13 Dems or so by 2020, FL 26, 27 look shaky for the GOP long term. Garcia barely lost despite being a crook and Miami seems to be a reverse West Virginia with current trends of old cubans dying out and younger Dem leaning hispanics replacing them.

[J. J.]

I was surprised that there were several NY districts that were relatively close.  A slight demographic change or coat tails could swing them.    I think there are a few potentially winnable seats out there for the GOP.

[smoltchanov]

That's kind of a silly thing to assume, when you consider that Democrats have a chance to win back more than half the gains Republicans made this year, plus win some blue seats that Republicans hold late on in the decade. That might not result in a the House flipping, but the Republicans are more likely to lose seats than gain them in 2016.

Of course. But not about 30 they need to lose majority. THAT will require not simple wave, but massive wave

[Landslide Lyndon]

Democrats badly need to win the governorships of PA, OH, MI, and WI in 2018.  Court ordered maps in those four states alone would likely lead to Dems picking up 12-15 seats.  

Virginia too.
Also, elect a real Democrat in New York that will help them gerrymander the state.
And creating a bipartisan redistricting commision in North Carolina by referendum would be helpful too.