Democrat's path to a majority in the House
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:08:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Democrat's path to a majority in the House
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democrat's path to a majority in the House  (Read 3081 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 16, 2015, 08:05:00 PM »

Democrats have to pick up 30 seats in order to get a majority in the House of Representatives. Here are some seats likely needed in order to do so.

AZ-02, AR-02, CA-10, CA-21, CA-25, CO-06, FL-13, FL-26, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IA-01, IA-03, ME-02, MI-01, MI-07, MI-08, MN-02, NV-03, NV-04, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-05, NY-01, NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-24, PA-06, PA-08, TX-23, VA-02, VA-10, WA-08, WV-02, WI-07

There are 36 seats here, so they have to win 83% of these in order to get the majority. If there is already a thread on this, I apologize.

Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2015, 08:47:50 PM »

And, they would have to hold all of their marginal seats in this scenario
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2015, 08:52:00 PM »

And, they would have to hold all of their marginal seats in this scenario

I think they only have 7 seats that are D+1, D+2, or even.   
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2015, 08:53:54 PM »

And, they would have to hold all of their marginal seats in this scenario

Which marginal seats do they have left?  Fl-18, AZ-01, MN-07, FL-02, NE-02?  After those five, there isn't much left.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,577
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2015, 09:11:26 PM »

And, they would have to hold all of their marginal seats in this scenario

Which marginal seats do they have left?  Fl-18, AZ-01, MN-07, FL-02, NE-02?  After those five, there isn't much left.

AZ-9, CA-52, MN-8, CA-7.....
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2015, 09:14:49 PM »
« Edited: May 16, 2015, 09:18:55 PM by Nyvin »

And, they would have to hold all of their marginal seats in this scenario

Which marginal seats do they have left?  Fl-18, AZ-01, MN-07, FL-02, NE-02?  After those five, there isn't much left.

AZ-9, CA-52, MN-8, CA-7.....

Altogether there are 15 seats that Democrats hold that are between D+2 and R+6.

There are 37 seats Republicans hold between D+8 and R+2.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2015, 02:22:01 AM »

the only path they have is to expand their base outside urban core. Will not happen until they start accepting pro-lifers and pro-marriage folks back in. They also will have to stop losing  white voters by 20%.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2015, 03:04:43 AM »
« Edited: May 18, 2015, 07:45:18 AM by smoltchanov »

Democrats have to pick up 30 seats in order to get a majority in the House of Representatives. Here are some seats likely needed in order to do so.

AZ-02, AR-02, CA-10, CA-21, CA-25, CO-06, FL-13, FL-26, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IA-01, IA-03, ME-02, MI-01, MI-07, MI-08, MN-02, NV-03, NV-04, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-05, NY-01, NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-24, PA-06, PA-08, TX-23, VA-02, VA-10, WA-08, WV-02, WI-07

There are 36 seats here, so they have to win 83% of these in order to get the majority. If there is already a thread on this, I apologize.



Some problems:

AR-02 - difficult with  heavy republican swing in this state

IL-12. Southern Illinois swung to Republicans too

IL-13 Adequate Republican congressman, who will be difficult to beat

MI-08 AFAIK - relatively weak Democratic bench and relatively strong Republican tradition on local level despite rather good Democratic presidential numbers.

MN-02. Generally conservative district with solidly conservative bit unoffensive Republican.

NV-03. Heck is a rather talented congressman  and pragmatic conservative to boot.

NJ-03 MacArthur is very adequate representative of this swingy, but usually Republican on congressional level district - conservative, but not VERY conservative. He isn't Lonegan

NJ-05 Garrett is a right-wing extremist, but district is conservative enough.

NY-11 Donovan fits district as hand fits glove. Police union is popular there. Only scandal may doom him

NY-21. Stefanik isn't a fiery right-winger, and district's tradition is very Republican (Owens was the only Democrat representing it i may remember and he was anything, but liberal)

PA-08. Bucks county has better Republican (and not especially conservative, what's good for suburban district) then Democratic bench

WI-07 Duffy seems rather entrenched and, while solidly conservative - not especially offensive.

So (IMHO of course) - -12 and no chances (for majority) except in really BIG wave.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2015, 08:29:12 AM »

the only path they have is to expand their base outside urban core. Will not happen until they start accepting pro-lifers and pro-marriage folks back in. They also will have to stop losing  white voters by 20%.

Is waging aggressive war as Senator Tom Cottonmouth suggests against Iran a viable 'pro-life' position? Aggressive warfare is as 'pro-death' a policy as there is short of outright genocide.

Americans increasingly accept the idea of same-sex marriage.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2015, 10:08:19 AM »

Their path is similar to Frodo's path to Mordor. Long, winding, convoluted, requiring a ton of luck, and altogether fictional.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2015, 11:03:38 AM »

Their path is similar to Frodo's path to Mordor. Long, winding, convoluted, requiring a ton of luck, and altogether fictional.

But Frodo succeded))))
Logged
aktheden
Rookie
**
Posts: 45
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2015, 12:49:13 PM »

Dems won't have the house for the next 30 years....gerrymandering and voter ID laws will ensure that
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2015, 01:51:43 PM »
« Edited: May 18, 2015, 01:56:40 PM by Nyvin »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really,  the Democratic party in Michigan is pretty solid.   Eric Schertzing wasn't a good candidate, but there's others out there.   Debbie Stabenow came from MI-8's area.   Also MI-8 has parts of east Lansing.  

Frankly rather than MI-8 I would aim for MI-6 with it's large college student population.   Nominate someone younger and more modern, and paint Upton as a fossil.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2015, 05:23:43 PM »

Democrats have to pick up 30 seats in order to get a majority in the House of Representatives. Here are some seats likely needed in order to do so.

AZ-02, AR-02, CA-10, CA-21, CA-25, CO-06, FL-13, FL-26, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IA-01, IA-03, ME-02, MI-01, MI-07, MI-08, MN-02, NV-03, NV-04, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-05, NY-01, NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-24, PA-06, PA-08, TX-23, VA-02, VA-10, WA-08, WV-02, WI-07

There are 36 seats here, so they have to win 83% of these in order to get the majority. If there is already a thread on this, I apologize.



Some problems:

AR-02 - difficult with  heavy republican swing in this state

IL-12. Southern Illinois swung to Republicans too

IL-13 Adequate Republican congressman, who will be difficult to beat

MI-08 AFAIK - relatively weak Democratic bench and relatively strong Republican tradition on local level despite rather good Democratic presidential numbers.

MN-02. Generally conservative district with solidly conservative bit unoffensive Republican.

NV-03. Heck is a rather talented congressman  and pragmatic conservative to boot.

NJ-03 MacArthur is very adequate representative of this swingy, but usually Republican on congressional level district - conservative, but not VERY conservative. He isn't Lonegan

NJ-05 Garrett is a right-wing extremist, but district is conservative enough.

NY-11 Donovan fits district as hand fits glove. Police union is popular there. Only scandal may doom him

NY-21. Stefanik isn't a fiery right-winger, and district's tradition is very Republican (Owens was the only Democrat representing it i may remember and he was anything, but liberal)

PA-08. Bucks county has better Republican (and not especially conservative, what's good for suburban district) then Democratic bench

WI-07 Duffy seems rather entrenched and, while solidly conservative - not especially offensive.

So (IMHO of course) - -12 and no chances (for majority) except in really BIG wave.



The democrats need to stop pretending they can't win these seats. If someone like Mark Warner could come close to losing, then some of these guys can be defeated - especially the guys who got below 60%.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2015, 05:24:24 PM »

the only path they have is to expand their base outside urban core. Will not happen until they start accepting pro-lifers and pro-marriage folks back in. They also will have to stop losing  white voters by 20%.

Or they could wait a few years until 'pro-marriage' folks are politically irrelevant.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2015, 05:30:54 PM »

the only path they have is to expand their base outside urban core. Will not happen until they start accepting pro-lifers and pro-marriage folks back in. They also will have to stop losing  white voters by 20%.

Or they could wait a few years until 'pro-marriage' folks are politically irrelevant dead.
Logged
GMantis
Dessie Potter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,945
Bulgaria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2015, 12:24:12 PM »

the only path they have is to expand their base outside urban core. Will not happen until they start accepting pro-lifers and pro-marriage folks back in. They also will have to stop losing  white voters by 20%.
If the Democrats were limited to the urban core, they would have become irrelevant decades ago. The reality is that the Democratic party relies on very strong support in the  cities and close to even results in the suburbs and in fact coming second in the suburbs did not prevent Obama from wining reelection (there are a lot more people living in urban areas than in the Republican small town and rural stronghold).

As for the social issues you cited, consider that the majority of voters (even in the strongly Republican 2014) believe that majority should be legal, while the opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage are tied, with a strong trend for the supporters. It's doubtful that the Democrats would gain much from abandoning their positions on these issues and far more likely that they would lose votes.

Oh, and winning white voters by 20% sure helped President Romney  Roll Eyes Now improving upon this result would certainly help but would require either the Democratic party nominating again candidates that can be perceived as anti-white - which can't be relied on or changing their positions on certain issues (chief among them immigration), which the Republicans might be reluctant to do.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2015, 01:28:33 PM »

the only path they have is to expand their base outside urban core. Will not happen until they start accepting pro-lifers and pro-marriage folks back in. They also will have to stop losing  white voters by 20%.

If Democrats actually did that, it would backfire horribly. Not exactly a good strategy to get progressives out to vote.

Basically, Democrats need a 2008-style wave to take back the house, and even then, they might fall a few seats short.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2015, 02:48:38 PM »
« Edited: July 20, 2015, 02:50:33 PM by smoltchanov »

Democrats have to pick up 30 seats in order to get a majority in the House of Representatives. Here are some seats likely needed in order to do so.

AZ-02, AR-02, CA-10, CA-21, CA-25, CO-06, FL-13, FL-26, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IA-01, IA-03, ME-02, MI-01, MI-07, MI-08, MN-02, NV-03, NV-04, NH-01, NJ-03, NJ-05, NY-01, NY-11, NY-19, NY-21, NY-24, PA-06, PA-08, TX-23, VA-02, VA-10, WA-08, WV-02, WI-07

There are 36 seats here, so they have to win 83% of these in order to get the majority. If there is already a thread on this, I apologize.



Some problems:

AR-02 - difficult with  heavy republican swing in this state

IL-12. Southern Illinois swung to Republicans too

IL-13 Adequate Republican congressman, who will be difficult to beat

MI-08 AFAIK - relatively weak Democratic bench and relatively strong Republican tradition on local level despite rather good Democratic presidential numbers.

MN-02. Generally conservative district with solidly conservative bit unoffensive Republican.

NV-03. Heck is a rather talented congressman  and pragmatic conservative to boot.

NJ-03 MacArthur is very adequate representative of this swingy, but usually Republican on congressional level district - conservative, but not VERY conservative. He isn't Lonegan

NJ-05 Garrett is a right-wing extremist, but district is conservative enough.

NY-11 Donovan fits district as hand fits glove. Police union is popular there. Only scandal may doom him

NY-21. Stefanik isn't a fiery right-winger, and district's tradition is very Republican (Owens was the only Democrat representing it i may remember and he was anything, but liberal)

PA-08. Bucks county has better Republican (and not especially conservative, what's good for suburban district) then Democratic bench

WI-07 Duffy seems rather entrenched and, while solidly conservative - not especially offensive.

So (IMHO of course) - -12 and no chances (for majority) except in really BIG wave.



The democrats need to stop pretending they can't win these seats. If someone like Mark Warner could come close to losing, then some of these guys can be defeated - especially the guys who got below 60%.

They (Democrats) can defeat some of these guys. But only SOME. And for this to happen they will need as big wave as happened in 2014 (and almost washed Warner away), only in opposite direction. Then a LOT is possible. But so far i see no signs of such big wave in sight. Of course - everything can change rather quickly...
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,761
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2015, 03:27:27 PM »

If Dems win prez, they win Senate, thats their priority. The House will be divided among the parties whatever the outcome will be. Even 200-206 members can do more than 188 can.
Logged
andrew_c
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 454
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2015, 09:10:22 PM »

The only way Democrats can win back the House in 2016 is if goof or a far-right nutjob wins the GOP presidential nomination and ends up hurting Republicans at all levels.  Otherwise, I don't see it happening before the next redistricting cycle.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2015, 12:26:18 AM »

The only way Democrats can win back the House in 2016 is if goof or a far-right nutjob wins the GOP presidential nomination and ends up hurting Republicans at all levels.  Otherwise, I don't see it happening before the next redistricting cycle.

+1. Exactly my thoughts too. And even then - it will require big gains for Democrats in governor and state legislative elections of 2018-2020
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,761
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2015, 06:20:20 AM »
« Edited: July 22, 2015, 06:24:13 AM by OC »

If Trump runs a third party campaign, which will ensure a Hilary landslide, and House may be at stake. That is a hypothetical. But Trump would rather cost Jeb, than Hilary the WH. But 15 seats, 206 seats and 50 or 51 dems in senate is what dems are expecting.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,761
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2015, 07:40:16 AM »

If Trump runs a third party campaign, which will ensure a Hilary landslide, and House may be at stake.

Wrong because most of the Trump voters would vote for the Republican candidate for House of Representatives.

I guess? The obamacare legislation, which mandate health insurance, makes employers try to find the loophole, which applys to part time work. Hire them instead of full timers and no health care.
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2015, 09:25:13 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really,  the Democratic party in Michigan is pretty solid.   Eric Schertzing wasn't a good candidate, but there's others out there.   Debbie Stabenow came from MI-8's area.   Also MI-8 has parts of east Lansing.  

Frankly rather than MI-8 I would aim for MI-6 with it's large college student population.   Nominate someone younger and more modern, and paint Upton as a fossil.

The bench in MI-08 is thin. There are plenty of Democrats holding local positions, but the one headliner (Whitmer) seems like she has her eyes on the Governor's mansion.

I have to give it to the GOP--if the Lansing area, as a whole, was entirely in MI-08, it might be a little more competitive. They made sure a third of the city and Delta Township fell in MI-07.

MI-06 will be competitive the day Upton announces his retirement. Until then, Democrats are better off devoting resources elsewhere.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 11 queries.