When will Democrats win back the House?

[Del Tachi]

I'll go out on a limb and say 2018. 

In the middle of a Republican administration's disastrous first-term in office, the Democrats are able to net the 30-something sets they need to get to 218.  They accomplish this by winning most of the typically marginal seats as well as knocking-off some GOP royalty in American suburbia (i.e., Peter Roskam, Mike Coffman).   

[RFayette]

I'll go out on a limb and say 2018. 

In the middle of a Republican administration's disastrous first-term in office, the Democrats are able to net the 30-something sets they need to get to 218.  They accomplish this by winning most of the typically marginal seats as well as knocking-off some GOP royalty in American suburbia (i.e., Peter Roskam, Mike Coffman).   

Del Tachi, I've noticed you're one of the few people predicting a 2016 GOP win; what rationale do you have for that conclusion?

[OSR stands with Israel]

2016 - Democrats make 2-5 gain win white House
2018: Democrats lose 6-12 seats
2020: Democrats lose 15-20 more seats and white house(and lose chance for redistricting)

After 2020 the Republicans will hold between 263-277 seats in the House

2022: Democrats make 10-15 seat gain

2024: Republican retain white house and gain 10-12 seats

2026: Democrats make a 30-35 seat gain

Entering 2028:  Republicans will hold between 228- 249 seats in the house( most likely in between that)   

So If Dems win in 2016(80% happening) they are certainly  locked out of the house for the next decade.

Now 2028 if Republicans win Dems have a chance of recapturing 2030 , if Dems win they can possibly take back the house if there is a 2008 style wave(likely not), but they will likely just miss taking back the house and get crushed in 2030 and lose the house for another decade.

Only way I see Democrats take back the house within 20 years

A. Republicans win in 2016 and get all the blame for troubles which will happen the next four years

B: Republicans pull of three consecutive victories between 2020-2028 and Democrats take back house in a wave in 2030

C.  Republicans President by 2028 is as unpopular as W Bush was in 2008

D: Realignment

Other then that I dont see them taking back the house until the 2040s.

[Del Tachi]

I'll go out on a limb and say 2018. 

In the middle of a Republican administration's disastrous first-term in office, the Democrats are able to net the 30-something sets they need to get to 218.  They accomplish this by winning most of the typically marginal seats as well as knocking-off some GOP royalty in American suburbia (i.e., Peter Roskam, Mike Coffman).   

Del Tachi, I've noticed you're one of the few people predicting a 2016 GOP win; what rationale do you have for that conclusion?

Hillary Clinton's not good on the stump, President Obama will be wildly unpopular amidst a economic downturn, and Scott Walker is the perfect candidate to triangulate a GOP victory by appealing to SoCons, Tea Partiers, and the neocons.

Hillary would make a great president, its just that 3rd terms for a single party are the exception rather than the rule.     

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems will have at least 200 members; this election cycle

2020 is conceivable or later; but not decades. And as long as Dems hold that number going into redistricting; other 17 seats will become electable. The ones that were targetted in 2014.

[RFayette]

I'll go out on a limb and say 2018. 

In the middle of a Republican administration's disastrous first-term in office, the Democrats are able to net the 30-something sets they need to get to 218.  They accomplish this by winning most of the typically marginal seats as well as knocking-off some GOP royalty in American suburbia (i.e., Peter Roskam, Mike Coffman).   

Del Tachi, I've noticed you're one of the few people predicting a 2016 GOP win; what rationale do you have for that conclusion?

Hillary Clinton's not good on the stump, President Obama will be wildly unpopular amidst a economic downturn, and Scott Walker is the perfect candidate to triangulate a GOP victory by appealing to SoCons, Tea Partiers, and the neocons.

Hillary would make a great president, its just that 3rd terms for a single party are the exception rather than the rule.     

This is where we disagree.  I tend to think we'd hit a recession sometime around 2018-2020.  Is there any evidence a recession is upcoming at this point?

[Nyvin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

2016-2020 will be similar time period to 1976-1980, whoever wins in 2016 will cause their party to be crushed by a realignment in 2020.

[Sumner 1868]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

2016-2020 will be similar time period to 1976-1980, whoever wins in 2016 will cause their party to be crushed by a realignment in 2020.

Why?

[Ebsy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

2016-2020 will be similar time period to 1976-1980, whoever wins in 2016 will cause their party to be crushed by a realignment in 2020.

Why?

Nothing he says makes any sense.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

2016-2020 will be similar time period to 1976-1980, whoever wins in 2016 will cause their party to be crushed by a realignment in 2020.

There is no guarentee that a recession will happen; Dems will do everything we can to keep WH.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

I count 13 seats held by the Dems that have a Dem PVI of 2% or less ranging from 6%R to 2%D.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

2016-2020 will be similar time period to 1976-1980, whoever wins in 2016 will cause their party to be crushed by a realignment in 2020.

Why?

For many reasons no economic expansion in American history has lasted more then 10 years so we can expect a recession by 2018. Also we will have a major foreign policy troubles in 2020, for the republicans they will invade a country and like Iraq get bogged down there, with Democrats ISIS will likely grow, Russia makes more trouble and possibly Iran.

If a Democrat is in office Democrats will get all the Blame for any trouble due to holding the white house for 12 years and like Bush in 1992 they cant blame Congress. If Republicans win and things collapse on them like it did for Carter they will get the Blame as they hold all three branches for government.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Troubles with foreign policy can be avoided for either party if they do this ( give an ultimatuim to ISIS , if they dont listen kick their buts like we did with the Taliban but unlike Afganhistan leave immediatly and threaten to repeat the process in 3-4 years if they show up again).

Troubles with Economic policy can only be avoided if the FED goes back to how Volcker managed it and not Greenspan

[Emperor Charles V]

Hopefully after Pelosi retires.

2022 is earliest possible date that I see it happening.

Granted that "would be" Hillary's sixth year midterm...so even that date is really iffy.

You meant O'Malley, didn't you.

[Nyvin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

I count 13 seats held by the Dems that have a Dem PVI of 2% or less ranging from 6%R to 2%D.

Yes,  and the GOP currently holds 245.

245 + 13 = 258

That still leaves 19 seats the GOP would need in very Dem-leaning districts to get to 277, while not losing any of their own.   That's not happening under any realistic scenario.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

I count 13 seats held by the Dems that have a Dem PVI of 2% or less ranging from 6%R to 2%D.

Yes,  and the GOP currently holds 245.

245 + 13 = 258

That still leaves 19 seats the GOP would need in very Dem-leaning districts to get to 277, while not losing any of their own.   That's not happening under any realistic scenario.

And Republicans already hold a handful of very Democratic seats:  NV-04, IA-01, NY-24, IL-10, ME-02.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.   

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

I count 13 seats held by the Dems that have a Dem PVI of 2% or less ranging from 6%R to 2%D.

Yes,  and the GOP currently holds 245.

245 + 13 = 258

That still leaves 19 seats the GOP would need in very Dem-leaning districts to get to 277, while not losing any of their own.   That's not happening under any realistic scenario.

And Republicans already hold a handful of very Democratic seats:  NV-04, IA-01, NY-24, IL-10, ME-02.

ME-02 is NOT especially Democratic - LePage won it easily (double digits). IL-10 and NY-24 have moderate nonoffensive Republicans with at least some crossover appeal, so, while surely gettable for Democrats, will not be easy. IA-01 and NV-04 - yes.

[The Mikado]

It's certainly impossible with the current districts: even in the potential Clinton wave year some Democrats dream of, the absolute maximum for the Democrats in 2016 would be in ~ the 206-210 range (well short of 218), and they'd just lose many of those again in 2018.

I'm beginning to suspect that even in the 2020s, it'd take something drastic, probably including Puerto Rican statehood and five likely safe Dem seats, to really alter the math to a way that favors the Dems.

[smoltchanov]

IMHO, two of main reasons why it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to win a majority even after 2020 are overconcentration of Democratic voters in relatively few "their" districts, and, to some extent, a VRA. Why do Democrats need 85-88% Democratic districts like PA-01 and PA-02 or even 93-95% like NY-13 and NY-15? A lot of Democratic votes, which could go into another, more competitive, districts and help them there, are simply wasted. And there are LOTS of such districts. Democrats don't need OR-03 or WA-07 as they exist now - they could easily win with these districts being 60-65% Democratic instead of about 75-80%. The same - in Bay Area, in Los Angeles, Chicago,  and so on..

And VRA may play into Republican hands more then Democratic too. Yes, in Deep South (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana) with their extremely polarized voting habits that can help Democrats to get their lone black seats. But traditionally there was a number of 30-40% Black seats in the South, which usually elected moderate white Democrats. Most of these were eviscerated in attempts to create more "majority minority seats" and, as a result, for each such seat usually 2 (sometimes - 3) seats became solidly republican and ultraconservative. Was it good? Not sure.

So, for now i am a pessimist about Democratic chances in House. Even to simply mitigate present situation they will need big successes in Governor elections of 2018 and state legislative elections of 2018-2020. But even then because of the above mentioned reasons (and some other i didn't mentioned) it will be difficult. Demography? Yes. But it's a very slow process.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.  

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

I count 13 seats held by the Dems that have a Dem PVI of 2% or less ranging from 6%R to 2%D.

Yes,  and the GOP currently holds 245.

245 + 13 = 258

That still leaves 19 seats the GOP would need in very Dem-leaning districts to get to 277, while not losing any of their own.   That's not happening under any realistic scenario.

And Republicans already hold a handful of very Democratic seats:  NV-04, IA-01, NY-24, IL-10, ME-02.

ME-02 is NOT especially Democratic - LePage won it easily (double digits). IL-10 and NY-24 have moderate nonoffensive Republicans with at least some crossover appeal, so, while surely gettable for Democrats, will not be easy. IA-01 and NV-04 - yes.

LePage won statewide by five, so of course he won this district by more.  However, even John Kerry won this district by five points.  Any Kerry district should be safe for Dems.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look over the numbers 277 Republican held seats is pretty much impossible,  you'd be talking about winning around 15-20 D+4 or above seats.     There aren't that many D+1 or D+2 seats in the country.  

I think Republicans already hold most of the D+1/D+2 seats that exist.

I count 13 seats held by the Dems that have a Dem PVI of 2% or less ranging from 6%R to 2%D.

Yes,  and the GOP currently holds 245.

245 + 13 = 258

That still leaves 19 seats the GOP would need in very Dem-leaning districts to get to 277, while not losing any of their own.   That's not happening under any realistic scenario.

And Republicans already hold a handful of very Democratic seats:  NV-04, IA-01, NY-24, IL-10, ME-02.

ME-02 is NOT especially Democratic - LePage won it easily (double digits). IL-10 and NY-24 have moderate nonoffensive Republicans with at least some crossover appeal, so, while surely gettable for Democrats, will not be easy. IA-01 and NV-04 - yes.

LePage won statewide by five, so of course he won this district by more.  However, even John Kerry won this district by five points.  Any Kerry district should be safe for Dems.

Theoretically. But Poliquin is a very good fundraiser, votes more like pragmatic conservative then ideologue, and Cain is so liberal, that many ethnic working class Democrats  (many of whom are socially conservative) don't especially want to vote for her. So, no, it's possible, but, surely, not guaranteed here.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

It's certainly impossible with the current districts: even in the potential Clinton wave year some Democrats dream of, the absolute maximum for the Democrats in 2016 would be in ~ the 206-210 range (well short of 218), and they'd just lose many of those again in 2018.

I'm beginning to suspect that even in the 2020s, it'd take something drastic, probably including Puerto Rican statehood and five likely safe Dem seats, to really alter the math to a way that favors the Dems.

I actually think that PR would be a swing state with maybe a slight Republican lean (the politics on the island are very different than those of other Hispanic groups in the US).  Also, the party that supports statehood is the more Conservative of the two Puerto Rican ones, so it would mean that it was having success.  It might take a couple cycles to know for sure, but keep in mind that it was thought that Alaska would be Democratic, while Hawaii would be Republican.

[RINO Tom]

When Democrats re-implement a 50-state strategy and having socially conservative and moderate office holders in the South and Plains is a priority for them.