Democrats Planning Effort to Take Back State Legislatures

[smoltchanov]

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...

[smoltchanov]

^ 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...

[smoltchanov]

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...

[smoltchanov]

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.

Still disagree. somewhat Of course -what you say is  possible under an extremely heavy gerrymandering. But, frankly, i think, Democrats don't have too much to lose having now 0 districts in Arkansas and Oklahoma (and West Virginia if we count it as Southern), 1 - in Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi, 2 - in Tennessee, and even 3 in Virinia and North Carolina and 4 - in Georgia. In 12 states out of 14 we count as Southern here Democrats essentially have nowhere to go, but up. IMHO, under more or less "normal" district borders Democrats would have no worse chances without VRA. Yes, some Democrats would be white "blue Dogs", but - nevertheless.... As it is - it's utterly uninteresting to observe typical southern politics anymore: statewide - all Republican (with few exceptions because of specific circumstances), VRA-districts - black Democratic, all other - white, Repubican and conservative... Boring...