Democrats win control of House for 20 yrs?

[zorkpolitics]

By my tracking system, I have the Democrats at plus 25.  But if you figure in that most undecided will go for the challenger this year, a likely supposition, then that could add another 10 seats, or a total gain of 35.  Right in the Rothenberg range of 30 to 40 seats.

The biggest thing to consider is that because of gerrymandering, in an average election year, there is less than a 10 seat swing (only once in the last 20 years has there been a net shift of more than 9 seats).  Thus if the Democrats pick up 35 seats, that will likely guarantee them control of the House for years, probably until a Democratic President is as unpopular as Bush is today. 

It could be 20 yrs before the Republicans regain the House...

[Eraserhead]

By my tracking system, I have the Democrats at plus 25.  But if you figure in that most undecided will go for the challenger this year, a likely supposition, then that could add another 10 seats, or a total gain of 35.  Right in the Rothenberg range of 30 to 40 seats.

The biggest thing to consider is that because of gerrymandering, in an average election year, there is less than a 10 seat swing (only once in the last 20 years has there been a net shift of more than 9 seats).  Thus if the Democrats pick up 35 seats, that will likely guarantee them control of the House for years, probably until a Democratic President is as unpopular as Bush is today. 

It could be 20 yrs before the Republicans regain the House...

Awesome.

[Democratic Hawk]

Furthermore, another factor to take into consideration is the extent to which Democrats perform in the state legislative elections, in 2006 and 2008, and how this might impact redistricting after the 2010 Census

Dave

[sethm0]

 I do think there are a few Democratic pick-ups that will only last one or two terms (TX-22, for example), but I agree that if the Democrats can pull off a 25-40 state swing they could be in power for a while.

[Torie]

By my tracking system, I have the Democrats at plus 25.  But if you figure in that most undecided will go for the challenger this year, a likely supposition, then that could add another 10 seats, or a total gain of 35.  Right in the Rothenberg range of 30 to 40 seats.

The biggest thing to consider is that because of gerrymandering, in an average election year, there is less than a 10 seat swing (only once in the last 20 years has there been a net shift of more than 9 seats).  Thus if the Democrats pick up 35 seats, that will likely guarantee them control of the House for years, probably until a Democratic President is as unpopular as Bush is today. 

It could be 20 yrs before the Republicans regain the House...

You are absolutely correct, absent another wave. Some of the lost seats were going to go Dem anyway when open, in some suburban metro areas, but if the incumbent is talented, these days, they are hard to dislodge, sans wave, or sans a big partisan move. Think Chet Edwards. But the House Dems will have a much larger number of DINO's, who will remain DINO's.

[RBH]

I don't make bets on this sort of thing.

There's too many factors that could swing things.

We could lose the house in 2 years for all we know.

[cp]

It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure that it will pan out.

The way I see it, this election is the start of a larger realignment that's going to play out over the next 5-10 years. The conservative coalition is breaking apart and the Democratic Party is recovering from its nadir of the past few years with a more coherent platform of social liberalism/libertarianism and economic populism/moderation. They're still divided over Iraq, but that's going to be an albatross on American politics for everyone.

What's my point? Elections early in a realignment tend to be volatile, with seats shifting back and forth in unusually large numbers. Even if the Dems pick up a few seats this time, the Republicans could counter with a strong campaign in 2008 or 2010 and get back 10-15 in a single shot.

I will say, though, that the Democrats are the best situated to capitalize on the shifts in the electorate. They have a more coherent and generally untainted image than the Republicans. They bear a bit of a resemblance to the Republican Party in the mid 60s, though not perfectly. The Republicans, on the other hand, will have the most scrambling to do in order to maintain their viability, particularly as the years go by and the socially conservative wing falls more and more out of step with the mainstream.

[Defarge]

I'm not sure.  I think there's a very real possibility that many Democratic freshmen could be swept away in 2008.  A blindly partisan, attack dog Democratic congress could lose public trust rapidly.  Add to this a McCain/Giuliani sweep, and the odds of the Republicans winning back the majority seem very real to me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd love that, but I doubt it. People were probably saying the same thing in 1994. All it'd take is another sweep. Still, I'd take 12 years of control.

I agree though, control of state governments in 2012 is key.

[Jake]

Problem is a lot of those seats are coming from scandal ridden incumbents in GOP leaning districts (FL-16, TX-22, PA-10, etc.) and many of the rest are coming from natural Lean GOP districts. Sure, the Democrats will hold onto pretty much any seats they win in New York, Connecticut, and the Philly Suburbs, but holding most others in 2008 will be shaky. If the Democrats pick-up 40 seats, I'd look for around half to be won back in 2008, absent another bad year for Republicans. That would put the House about equal.

[Nym90]

It all depends on the size of the wave, for starters. If the Democrats win 40 seats, the GOP would need 25 in 2008 to win back the House, which would be a tall order. It's pretty rare for one party to gain 25 seats in one election, especially in modern times.

If the Dems say only picked up 20 seats, then we could be entering an era where control of the House frequently flips between the parties. The GOP would only need 5 seats in 2008, which wouldn't require a wave at all, merely a decently good election for them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats kept the House for 40 years after they last won it back (1954-1994).

[Beet]

The Democrats kept the House for 40 years after they last won it back (1954-1994).

That's because a third of the country was under a single-party 'dictatorship'.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats kept the House for 40 years after they last won it back (1954-1994).

That's because a third of the country was under a single-party 'dictatorship'.

Which part was that?

[Jake]

We all know you're not that stupid. Stop acting like it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Maybe. But it's too early to tell; not so long ago people were predicting that the Democrats couldn't win back the House until after the next census, and that there were only ever going to be twenty or so close race each election.
Btw, one thing to remember is that while a lot of new Democratic Reps will find it hard to hang onto their seats, a lot of old Republican Reps will retire next election if the Democrats take the House.

[Sam Spade]

Maybe. But it's too early to tell; not so long ago people were predicting that the Democrats couldn't win back the House until after the next census, and that there were only ever going to be twenty or so close race each election.
Btw, one thing to remember is that while a lot of new Democratic Reps will find it hard to hang onto their seats, a lot of old Republican Reps will retire next election if the Democrats take the House.

Very true, of course a lot of that depends on where the retirements happen and what kind of seats they are.  And it also depends on how strong the Democratic push is this year in defeating Republicans in marginal seats, as I think most of us would naturally predict that 2008 will be a much more steady, natural election than this one. 

Some of the newly minted Dem incumbents will become safe seats (and this does not necessarily have anything to do with partisanship of the CD in all cases) and some will be gone within one or two cycles.  Similarly, a few of the Republican incumbents defeated in this election will make a comeback and be important figures in the future.  Most will head off to pasture.

The one thing I'm pretty sure we see is a greater number of DINO's on the Democratic side on the whole who will, as Torie quite aptly put it, remain DINOs.

[Nym90]

Maybe. But it's too early to tell; not so long ago people were predicting that the Democrats couldn't win back the House until after the next census, and that there were only ever going to be twenty or so close race each election.
Btw, one thing to remember is that while a lot of new Democratic Reps will find it hard to hang onto their seats, a lot of old Republican Reps will retire next election if the Democrats take the House.

Excellent point. That ultimately greatly hurt the Democrats' chances of taking back the House and Senate in 1996, when by rights they should've had a good chance given Clinton's coattails. But there were a ton of Dem retirements after they lost control (in the Senate, 8 of the 15 Democratic incumbents up for reelection retired!), especially in the South, and the Republican pickups in those states helped save the House for the GOP especially.

[Silent Hunter]

Way too early to tell. Depends a lot on 2008.

[gorkay]

If they do gain control of Congress (one or more houses), it all depends on what they do with it. The massive losses of 1980 and 1994 had a lot to do with the fact that they had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, and spent most of that time fighting with the President and with each other.

[Nym90]

If they do gain control of Congress (one or more houses), it all depends on what they do with it. The massive losses of 1980 and 1994 had a lot to do with the fact that they had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, and spent most of that time fighting with the President and with each other.

Also true, which is why it would be nearly impossible for the GOP to take back the House in 2008 if the Democrats gain 40 seats this year. It would be pretty near impossible for a party that doesn't have complete control of government to screw up enough to lose 25 seats no matter how incompetent they are.

But in all seriousness, yes, "wave" elections are more likely to occur when there is one party control then when there is split control. If the Democrats take the House this year (well it seems more like when than if, but still hedging our bets a tad), I highly doubt they'd lose it until and unless the Democrats have also taken back the Presidency and then a Dem President screws up and has Clinton 1994/Bush 2006 style approval ratings.

Though it depends a lot on the margin, if the Dems only gain 20 seats this year, the GOP would only need 5 to win it back, which could well be done if the GOP can win the Presidency in 2008 on the coattails alone, absent any kind of a wave.

[Conan]

Dems are also set to win state legislatures leaving many districts to be redrawn.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It could very well happen. If the dems win 30+ seats on tuesday and take the Senate, and win the governorships and state legislatures, then nominate someone credible in 2008 and avoid significant congressional losses that year, democrats would control congress, the state governments, and the justice department, producing radical changes in house districts which could ensure their control for decades.