Democrats Planning Effort to Take Back State Legislatures

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

In other news, the sky is blue.

Democrats will not start winning in Midterms again until they fire DWS.

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

Good luck. What they'll need for 2020:

 - Very good gains in 2018 with the Governorships (and 2020, but a majority are in 2018), and with lots of open seats opportunities will be plentiful.
 - 2020 needs to be a good year for Democrats. They need either a very unpopular Republican president who gets booted out a la Jimmy Carter, or a 1964 redux where the Republicans nominate someone extreme or unelectable against the incumbent Democrat. The downballot effect in those two scenarios will be big enough to flip several legislative chambers in time for redistricting.
 - Democrats need to start caring about every race, not just the national ones, and need to turnout. Not only that, Democratic candidates also need to run top-tier recruits, something absent in recent years as many state benches have been decimated.

But let's also be realistic, they're so far behind in some states they need like Michigan and Ohio that they will need multiple good years to gain, such as 2018 and 2020 being back to back waves. The likeliness of that happening? Slim. It'll be tough.

+100. And i would add my favorite rule: "the district rules!". Republicans can ignore superconcentrated urban liberal hyperdemocratic districts and still have a majority in House (i counted many times and never got more then 180-190 liberal-leaning districts, it's another matter that in many of them Democrats win absolutely unneccessary for victory 80-85 or even 95% of vote), After all - they have about 30 districts "cushion" now... Democrats - can't. They need substantial number of swing and even conservative-leaning (may be - not by much, but - still.....) districts to even have a chance for 218. And to win them - they need moderate or even relatively conservative candidates, not "wild-eyed progressives"... And - no assocication with Obama. Of course - in future Republicans will try to associate Democratic candidates with whatever liberal Democratic president may be, but it will not have the same effect as now...

Or an alternative: repeal VRA!. It leads to relatively few solid Democratic districts (usually - majority-munority) and substantially bigger number of reliably Republican districts as a consequence... Overall result is greatly in favor of Republicans...

Repealing VRA would only make both sides gerrymander even more. Rather than worry about sinking tons and tons of democratic votes into a district to get it to be Black/Hispanic Majority, you divide up that democratic vote into several different districts. We'd likely see the single Safe D district in AL, LA, MS, SC completely eliminated. Perhaps you'd get a semi-competitive district or two in return, but it would still be a Romney district. Anything Republicans kept control of after 2018/2020 would become more gerrymandered than it already is - districts in PA, OH, FL, etc. that are essentially illegal to modify much nowadays because of the VRA rule would suddenly be dramatically altered, expanding the number of districts winnable by Republicans. Sure, Dems could strike back by breaking up some of the heaviest D districts in states they control - but they first have to win control of more states - with the exception of Illinois and perhaps Minnesota, the states that Democrats control are either 1) redistricted by independent commissions, or 2) ones they are already maxed out in in terms of house districts. So, no, repealing VRA is not a substitute to doing well in 2018/20.

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

^ Not sure about your reasoning. A LOT of superdemocratic votes, which are now hyperconcentrated in VRA districs, must go somewhere. And districts, which they will go in, will become substantially more Democratic. Yes, under such situation an election of Black or Hispanic representatives will not be guaranteed, but potentially - more Democrats (yes - mostly white, but - still Democrats) may be elected from these new disitricts. Now, if i am not mistaken, 2-3 district are made heavily Republican in order to guarantee 1 minority-majority district according to VRA demands...

To a point, you are correct. But let's look at an example map for a non-VRA South Carolina:



1. 64-35 McCain
2. 51-48 McCain
3. 50-48 McCain
4. 51-48 McCain
5. 58-40 McCain
6. 51-48 McCain
7. 53-46 McCain

Sure, districts 2-4 and 6 give democrats hope, but how much chance do they really have in districts that even McCain carried? Even if you run Mike McIntyre-style candidates, you still might lose due to lower turnout among the democratic base. Plus you have to take into account that South Carolina may revert back to its 2004 position in presidential years once Obama isn't driving up black turnout anymore, so these districts might not actually be as competitive as they seem from the 2008 results. And most if not all mainstream democrats would have no chance of victory in any of these districts outside of democratic wave years and perfect storm situations.

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

Agree with many arguments here, but - still think that Republicans will gladly agree for "change" i described above: creation of 1 very Democratic VRA district in exchange for 2-3 districts made heavily Republican instead of swingish. And yes, IF Democrats want to win swingish or even somewhat republican-leaning districts in the  South, they must run a candidates like McIntyre, Barrow, Taylor and Bright in them. Otherwise - they will lose them even in relatively good years, and to rather lousy Republican candidates. Simply because most of the South (in fact - almost all, except some big metropolises) is NOT especially progressive. Nancy Pelosi-style candidates seldom win there. But JBE-type (populist, but pro-life, pro-gun, and so on) - can...

Oh, of course the Republicans would never agree to repeal VRA, and I'm not trying to argue they would support doing so. Obviously, being guaranteed all but one district in the state no matter what is better than being at risk of losing 2 or 3 swingish seats in a state during a wave year. But you seemed to think upthread that repealing VRA would be a good way to ensure future democratic success. Given the current state legislature map - or even one slightly better for dems - repealing VRA would actually be a net negative for democrats.