are the dems conceding too much?

[freepcrusher]

IDK it seems like the democrats are turning into the republicans when Vanderjagt was NRCC chair. The dems don't seem to get that open seats are the most winnable races and they seem unwilling to run good candidates against low-seniority R congresscritters.

[Nyvin]

The national party doesn't seem very focused on the House,   I'll say that.

[publicunofficial]

They national party doesn't seem very focused on the House,   I'll say that.

This. It just doesn't seem prioritized. Like they've given up on having a majority while Obama's in office, or at least under the current map.


Like all problems with the Democratic party, I blame DWS.

[Zioneer]

They've conceded a ton of House seats, even more state legislative seats (which can be leveraged into Congressional seats in a few cycles), and just overall done terribly at everything except retaining the presidency.

[smoltchanov]

IMHO, Democratic politics in 2006-2008 was much more coherent. Yes, Democrats were helped by very strong tailwind then, nevertheless - they were not afraid to run candidates even in very difficult districts, and won at least some of them (usually - only until 2010, but still). Another factor - not only Republicans, but Democrats were less ideologically "pure" then: Democrats ran a lot of conservative-leaning candidates (tailored to their conservative-leaning districts) then, and, as a result, had considerable success. Now it's usually a double-boring thing to look at Americah congressional elections: both parties run ideology-motivated candidates even in districts (and states), where they are a very bad fit, and they condede a lot of districts to each other,  concentrating mostly on "holding their own" (in Democratic case that includes holding Presidency as first priority even at the expense of everything else..). No more then 10% (usually - less) of seats in House are really competitive at election day, alll other can be reliably deduced simply by looking on letter after candiddate's names..

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, the election has turned back to a 50/50 race and most of the House races are around CO, NV, Iowa, FL, AZ, TX, NY, Ca, Pa & NH. Latino corridor.

Dems probably will get up to 206 with 51 seats in Senate.

[Torie]

Oh the Dems have their share of competitive seats. It is just that there are not many competitive seats. At least in the House, the Dems are just screwed, and there is not a damn thing they can do about it. They should just get used to it. Sure if the Dems start beating the Pubs by substantial margins nationally, they might win the House, but the dynamics of the two party system, is that parties tack to try to become competitive again. Indeed the party with a substantial lead, while tend to then "spend" some of that lead, to effect more of their agenda. So equilibrium is relative parity between the parties.

If things move back to emphasizing economics more than cultural issues, then it is a whole different ball game. The divide will be less geographically based, which is what is screwing the Dems. I see no sign of that happening at the moment.

Here is a little chart showing the lay of the land. Based on PVI's, the Pubs have 3-4 more seats than one might predict. Oh, my chart leaves off NV-04, with a Pub incumbent, but a Dem PVI of 4%. So the Pubs are holding 6 outlier seats, while the Dems have 4 such seats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

[Mr.Phips]

IDK it seems like the democrats are turning into the republicans when Vanderjagt was NRCC chair. The dems don't seem to get that open seats are the most winnable races and they seem unwilling to run good candidates against low-seniority R congresscritters.

It's more the DNC than the DCCC.  The Obama White House made the incredibly idiotic decision to tear down Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and only focus on Presidential elextions.  This left Democrats with no network of support for downballot races and this has showed up in nearly every election since 2009.  2010 would have still been quite bad for Dems even with the 50 state strategy infrastructure, but they would have been able to save about 20 or so House seats and a few state legislative chambers had they still had that infrastructure in place.

[Torie]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I wasnt basing it soley on gerrymandering, at anyrate Dems arent gonna win House anytime soon. Dems are gonna win WH, Senate & Govs election.

But, at very least 2017-2018, will give Dems NJ & and a handful of midwestern govs to net more house seats.

The 2010 50 state strategy failed because GOP won all the govs and state legislatures.

[Mr.Phips]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

Undoing the Republican gerrymanders in PA, MI, and OH alone would net Dems at least 10 seats.  Once you.take into account Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be closer to 20 seats than 10.

[freepcrusher]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

the path to the majority runs through low single digit R seats. Surely the dems could find some Collin Peterson types to win them.

[Mr.Phips]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

the path to the majority runs through low single digit R seats. Surely the dems could find some Collin Peterson types to win them.

Another problem for Dems is that even the low R PVI seats still vote heavily GOP downballot (see PA-06, PA-07, MI-08, ect.), while seats like NY-24, IL-10, IA-01, NV-04 and ME-02 which should be safe for Dems are being won by Republicans.

[Torie]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

Undoing the Republican gerrymanders in PA, MI, and OH alone would net Dems at least 10 seats.  Once you.take into account Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be closer to 20 seats than 10.

Not by my count. The Dems picked up about 2 seats in MD from its gerrymander there, and another 3 on paper from the Dem gerrymander in Illinois, and then there are scattered seats elsewhere that I think the Pubs would get from a non partisan map using Muon2 metrics, including 3 in Arizona, a half seat in CT, a seat in NY, a seat or two in CA (not sure about that one yet), a half seat in Oregon, and so forth. It really is around 10 seats, plus or minus a couple of seats. I haven't finalized the exercise yet. In Indiana, the Pub map caused the Pubs to pick up half a seat (per my map), or no seats (per Muon2's map). The Pubs picked up 3.5 seats in Michigan on paper per my map, and I think two seats in PA per my map, again on paper, just using PVI's, and ignoring incumbency factors. I have not done Texas yet. In Florida, per the old map, the Pubs picked up one seat. The new court map screws the Pubs in my opinion out of a half seat. I have not done Washington yet, but the court map there may have slightly favored the Pubs by a half seat, or maybe not. Wisconsin on paper netted the Pubs maybe 1 seat total (two half seats, but not sure yet). NC netted the Pubs about 2 seats. NJ, a court map, netted the Pubs 1.5 seats. Virginia per Muon2's map, netted the Pubs 2.5 seats I think. At some point, I will put up a grand ledger sheet. I am doing it state by state. Oh, the Dems netted a seat out of LA, since there is no section 2 VRA seat, so the gerrymander to create a black CD was not legally required. As I said, we are talking about a gerrymander free world, unless required by the VRA. The VRA does not apply in VA either, which is why the Pub net number was so high. Ditto for NC.

[Torie]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

the path to the majority runs through low single digit R seats. Surely the dems could find some Collin Peterson types to win them.

Good luck. Sure it will happen at some point, but probably not until there is a relatively unpopular Pub POTUS.

[Mr.Phips]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

Undoing the Republican gerrymanders in PA, MI, and OH alone would net Dems at least 10 seats.  Once you.take into account Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be closer to 20 seats than 10.

Not by my count. The Dems picked up about 2 seats in MD from its gerrymander there, and another 3 on paper from the Dem gerrymander in Illinois, and then there are scattered seats elsewhere that I think the Pubs would get from a non partisan map using Muon2 metrics, including 3 in Arizona, a half seat in CT, a seat in NY, a seat or two in CA (not sure about that one yet), a half seat in Oregon, and so forth. It really is around 10 seats, plus or minus a couple of seats. I haven't finalized the exercise yet. In Indiana, the Pub map caused the Pubs to pick up half a seat (per my map), or no seats (per Muon2's map). The Pubs picked up 3.5 seats in Michigan on paper per my map, and I think two seats in PA per my map, again on paper, just using PVI's, and ignoring incumbency factors. I have not done Texas yet. In Florida, per the old map, the Pubs picked up one seat. The new court map screws the Pubs in my opinion out of a half seat. I have not done Washington yet, but the court map there may have slightly favored the Pubs by a half seat, or maybe not. Wisconsin on paper netted the Pubs maybe 1 seat total (two half seats, but not sure yet). NC netted the Pubs about 2 seats. NJ, a court map, netted the Pubs 1.5 seats. Virginia per Muon2's map, netted the Pubs 2.5 seats I think. At some point, I will put up a grand ledger sheet. I am doing it state by state. Oh, the Dems netted a seat out of LA, since there is no section 2 VRA seat, so the gerrymander to create a black CD was not legally required. As I said, we are talking about a gerrymander free world, unless required by the VRA. The VRA does not apply in VA either, which is why the Pub net number was so high. Ditto for NC.

I think.your PA numbers is low (Dems would win PA-11, PA-06,   PA-07, and maybe even PA-03 under a fair map).  In.Ohio, they would likely get three (a Cincinatti seat, an Akron-Lorain seat and a Northeast corner seat).  On Michigan, I agree that Republicans picked up 3-4.  I disagree with calling LA a gain for Dems.  Taking away the black community's Representation there would have led to all out riots and is not realistic.

With these numbers, gerrymandering gives Republicans about 15 more seats.

[Nyvin]

Torie just makes fantasy wet dream maps and then says "Muon2 Metrics" somewhere in some random sentence and then comes up with arbitrary numbers like "10 seats" out of nowhere.    It's quite worthless really.

There was an entire section on Daily Kos that showed how easy it is to have a Dem majority in the House with fair maps,  particularly in states like Texas and the south.     Heck the Fair Districts Act in Florida basically produced three additional Dem PVI seats all by itself.  

We know the Dems can reach somewhere in the range of 201 seats based on the 2012 election alone, and we know there are plenty of areas around the country trending in favor of the Dems too.    Once the maps are made more fair in Ohio and Pennsylvania (both already in the works now) the situation won't be as impractical as it is now.

I don't think it's feasible to have a Dem majority in 2016,  but the future beyond that gets really murky.   A lot of how national politics are has a shelf life, and a lot of it is tied to the current president.   Probably a new trend will emerge sometime in the 2018 or 2020 timeframe.    Probably most of us won't see it coming.

[Nyvin]

The Dems are trying to takeback Senate, so that whenever there is a SCOTUS vacancy, the Alito-Roberts gerrymandering by the nxt reapportionment, will be thrown out.

Ah, what is in your mind, when you refer to the Alito-Roberts "gerrymandering?"  I don't think that they have been involved in that. They might be soon, if reapportionment is based on citizen or voter counts, but that will just add to the Pub House totals, and that would just be surplus for the Pubs. The Dems are already screwed without having to go there. The coup de grace was when the Dems lost all those Southern seats that have been trending Pub at warp speed in 2010. That put them effectively out of the House game. You get rid of all gerrymandering, and that might net the Dems a max of 10 seats based on my going over it all state by state. And that is not enough either.

Undoing the Republican gerrymanders in PA, MI, and OH alone would net Dems at least 10 seats.  Once you.take into account Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be closer to 20 seats than 10.

Not by my count. The Dems picked up about 2 seats in MD from its gerrymander there, and another 3 on paper from the Dem gerrymander in Illinois, and then there are scattered seats elsewhere that I think the Pubs would get from a non partisan map using Muon2 metrics, including 3 in Arizona, a half seat in CT, a seat in NY, a seat or two in CA (not sure about that one yet), a half seat in Oregon, and so forth. It really is around 10 seats, plus or minus a couple of seats. I haven't finalized the exercise yet. In Indiana, the Pub map caused the Pubs to pick up half a seat (per my map), or no seats (per Muon2's map). The Pubs picked up 3.5 seats in Michigan on paper per my map, and I think two seats in PA per my map, again on paper, just using PVI's, and ignoring incumbency factors. I have not done Texas yet. In Florida, per the old map, the Pubs picked up one seat. The new court map screws the Pubs in my opinion out of a half seat. I have not done Washington yet, but the court map there may have slightly favored the Pubs by a half seat, or maybe not. Wisconsin on paper netted the Pubs maybe 1 seat total (two half seats, but not sure yet). NC netted the Pubs about 2 seats. NJ, a court map, netted the Pubs 1.5 seats. Virginia per Muon2's map, netted the Pubs 2.5 seats I think. At some point, I will put up a grand ledger sheet. I am doing it state by state. Oh, the Dems netted a seat out of LA, since there is no section 2 VRA seat, so the gerrymander to create a black CD was not legally required. As I said, we are talking about a gerrymander free world, unless required by the VRA. The VRA does not apply in VA either, which is why the Pub net number was so high. Ditto for NC.

I think.your PA numbers is low (Dems would win PA-11, PA-06,   PA-07, and maybe even PA-03 under a fair map).  In.Ohio, they would likely get three (a Cincinatti seat, an Akron-Lorain seat and a Northeast corner seat).  On Michigan, I agree that Republicans picked up 3-4.  I disagree with calling LA a gain for Dems.  Taking away the black community's Representation there would have led to all out riots and is not realistic.

With these numbers, gerrymandering gives Republicans about 15 more seats.

His numbers in Oregon also rely on blatantly ignoring state laws.   Like I said....worthless really.

[Torie]

Well you guys go to your church, and I will go to mine. However, to back up one's assertions with facts, one would have to critique the Muon2 metrics as not reasonably fair. And critiquing the metrics is always welcome. It is a work in progress, but now largely developed, at least to my satisfaction. Or that the maps are messed up, and good luck with that. Absent that, and it is just an exercise in making unsubstantiated claims. And of course, to apply them, all state laws would need to change, not just Oregon's. It is an effort to effect reform to exorcise the gerrymander disease in a uniform and neutral manner across the Fruited Plain.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There was an entire section on Daily Kos that showed how easy it is to have a Dem majority in the House with fair maps,  particularly in states like Texas and the south.

Lol.

[Torie]

There was an entire section on Daily Kos that showed how easy it is to have a Dem majority in the House with fair maps,  particularly in states like Texas and the south.

Lol.

Yeah, I had a conversation with a guy who drew on Daily Kos a "fair" map of Ohio, that chopped Cleveland in half, and combined Youngstown with Cleveland suburbs. He also failed to put the Cincinnati district in the SE corner of the state, which skewed the seat Dem by about a half point. So that was a 1.5 seat swing right there. We did more or less agree on much of the design of the balance of the map.

[Orser67]

I do wish that they did a better job recruiting House candidates, but I'm sure that's tough when your party seems likely to be in the minority for a long time. I think they've done a nice job of recruiting Senate candidates, even in non-swing states like Arizona and Missouri.

[smoltchanov]

I do wish that they did a better job recruiting House candidates, but I'm sure that's tough when your party seems likely to be in the minority for a long time. I think they've done a nice job of recruiting Senate candidates, even in non-swing states like Arizona and Missouri.

But without candidates you are guaranteed to be in minority forever....

[Zioneer]

I do wish that they did a better job recruiting House candidates, but I'm sure that's tough when your party seems likely to be in the minority for a long time. I think they've done a nice job of recruiting Senate candidates, even in non-swing states like Arizona and Missouri.

But without candidates you are guaranteed to be in minority forever....

It's a catch-22, yeah. You want good candidates, but if it doesn't look favorable, good candidates won't come out of the woodwork.