In your opinon what do the democrats have to do to win a majority in 2018?

[Canis]

So title. What would help them start taking back seats and governorship's.

[Virginiá]

The leadership of the Democrats is so unpopular that it would help them to distance themselves and even attack them just as much as they attack Trump

Maybe they could throw in some attacks in red districts where the national party is despised, but this kind of strategy should be kept to an absolute minimum. It's not "free," as in, it will create a lot of future tension in the party that could make it difficult to govern when Democrats claw back power. Conservatives have been roasting their own party for years now, and I'm not particularly excited to go down a similar path as them, especially seeing their dysfunctional party right now.

-

As for what they should do - Focus on bringing down Trump's approvals and turning his base against him. Midterms are referendums on the president and his party, so for now that is how Democrats should operate. They should also emphasize a pro-worker agenda that appeals to voters they recently lost, but at the same time, don't shy from attacking Trump. People constantly say "we lost because we focused too much on Trump," which might be true in a presidential election, but in a midterm that kind of strategy does tend to be pretty effective. Most people aren't going to be paying attention to the party's agenda.

Other than that, recruiting as many candidates as possible and the best they can find is absolutely necessary. Democrats need extensive wave insurance for 2018. And for gods sake, stop with this dumb excuse that the DCCC helping in red districts would hurt their candidate there. Republicans will tie those candidates to Pelosi/national Democrats no matter what, so the national party might as well chip in as much as it can (money/resource wise, not necessarily surrogates)

Lastly, focus on top districts. Many people have decried the loss of focus on working class/rural districts. Democrats should try their best there, but at the same time Democrats also have to understand that just because they want to win in a certain district doesn't mean they can. At least for the time being, the path to a House majority runs through suburban America whether we like it or not. Democrats can and should target rural districts as well, but for now, many of the best targets are where Trump's popularity is tanking.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The truth is when it comes to midterms it's not what the party out of power does it's what the party in power does. So really 2018 rests on just how badly Trump is doing by that time. Also a good idea is for more dems to do what Bernie does which is a) make the issues on Trump's dishonesty about economic populism and b) go on Fox alot an challenge the talking points

[Holmes]

NV/NM/KS/IA/IL/MI/OH/ME/VT/FL/GA are heir best shots with outside chances at WI/MA/NH/MD/SC. They just need to recruit the best candidates possible and run in part against a Trump, in part promising transparency and fairness, and in part saying on fighting for them. Think Beto O'Rourke, more liberal or conservative based on the state.

[Strudelcutie4427]

NV/NM/KS/IA/IL/MI/OH/ME/VT/FL/GA are heir best shots with outside chances at WI/MA/NH/MD/SC. They just need to recruit the best candidates possible and run in part against a Trump, in part promising transparency and fairness, and in part saying on fighting for them. Think Beto O'Rourke, more liberal or conservative based on the state.

"Outside shot" at NH? Come on, if Shaheen, Kuster or CSP runs, Sununu is basically DOA - even in a GOP wave year.

It's certainly more like to flip than VT.

😒  No. Just no...

[CapoteMonster]

Make the case for why their policies will improve life for ordinary Americans and not just say why the Republicans are bad.

Trump's unpopular and polarizing enough to the point where they'll have ammo to motivate people with, but they have to give people something to vote FOR. Unfortunately I fear that the establishment Democrats would prefer to just make it a referendum on Trump and run on divisive social issues.

[Maxwell]

It would probably rely on Trump continuing to be as bumbling as he has been, and the GOP house being as divided as it has been, and that Democratic leaders know when to let individual candidates do their thing and where to put money in the right places.

I think pick-ups in Nevada and Arizona aren't that difficult - Flake is desperately unpopular and Nevada is decidedly not a Trump state and Heller has not been nearly independent enough. But the challenge is holding every single Democrat seat and then picking up ONE MORE SEAT. That will be a genuine challenge - The closest seat I can eyeball is Texas, and while I like O'Rourke, I don't think he's the perfect candidate, which I think would be required.

The House, strangely enough, looks like an easier coup, as new avenues and new potential seats have been opening up.

Governorships are entirely a state by state view, so that would take forever.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Make the case for why their policies will improve life for ordinary Americans and not just say why the Republicans are bad.

Trump's unpopular and polarizing enough to the point where they'll have ammo to motivate people with, but they have to give people something to vote FOR. Unfortunately I fear that the establishment Democrats would prefer to just make it a referendum on Trump and run on divisive social issues.

     This hits the nail on the end. The Democrats didn't come out looking good in 2016; this sort of hard-negative campaign doesn't really inspire people to want to vote for you and missed the important factor that made people like Trump. Democrats controlled the terms of the debate, but their coalition wasn't as strong as they thought, or as motivated either.

[Figueira]

They would need to gain 9 seats. This isn't likely, but I could see it happen. I think this is the path:

New Jersey (2017)
New Mexico
Maine
Michigan
Illinois
Nevada
Kansas
Florida
One of Georgia/New Hampshire/Wisconsin/Ohio/Iowa/Maryland/Massachusetts

[MT Treasurer]

IA (Branstad/Reynolds are not polling highly in approvals for whatever reason)

A +20 (44/24) approval rating is hardly bad news for Reynolds

Anyway, Democrats aren't going to win back the Senate and pick up like 15+ governorships or something like that, lol. Get real.

[RINO Tom]

They would need to gain 9 seats. This isn't likely, but I could see it happen. I think this is the path:

New Jersey (2017)
New Mexico
Maine
Michigan
Illinois
Nevada
Kansas
Florida
One of Georgia/New Hampshire/Wisconsin/Ohio/Iowa/Maryland/Massachusetts

I really don't think D+10 or more is that ludicrous. The Republicans are extremely overextended in blue territory, open seats, and several unpopular incumbents. In order of likelihood of flipping (not including NJ since it's in 2017 and it's basically a given now), there's NM, MI, NV, IL, ME (if Collins doesn't run, obviously, but I still think this one will be close, especially if Dems nominate a coastal person), FL (Putnam is extremely overrated. He's the definition of a career politician who's never had to face a legitimate opponent), KS, NH, MD (high and inelastic Democratic floor), OH, WI, IA (Branstad/Reynolds are not polling highly in approvals for whatever reason), GA, MA, AL, VT and I'm sure I'm missing a few more. Obviously a lot of these are probably leans/likely R right now, with the dividing line between tossup and leans R probably starting in between Kansas and New Hampshire, but it's not inconceivable that if Democrats are having a great night and how the next 18 months unfold, they could net double digits. My blind guess was D+13 in another thread, mostly due to Dems sweeping most of the open seats (which tends to happen every eight years or so it seems, particularly if the out party is the beneficiary of an unpopular president) and knocking off a few unpopular incumbents, or ones who appear on a collision course for unpopularity (IL, WI, IA, NH) and then Hogan, who I have a hunch is the only incumbent who goes down solely because of Trump.

Not arguing with any one specific race you might be referencing, but this is a misleading reason for optimism, in most cases.  Not only are gubernational races WAY less partisan, many states actually seem to prefer the opposite of their Presidential party preferences (for example, it would be absolutely ridiculous to call MA a [non-Atlas] "blue" state in the context of a gubernational race or WV a [non-Atlas] "red" state, as both are closer to the opposite, if anything) and many voters in deeply Democratic/Republican states might want a governor to serve as a check on the legislature to avoid corruption (like, say, in MD).  Again, not talking about a specific race or set of races for 2018, but that's never a sure reason to be optimistic.

[Figueira]

They would need to gain 9 seats. This isn't likely, but I could see it happen. I think this is the path:

New Jersey (2017)
New Mexico
Maine
Michigan
Illinois
Nevada
Kansas
Florida
One of Georgia/New Hampshire/Wisconsin/Ohio/Iowa/Maryland/Massachusetts

I really don't think D+10 or more is that ludicrous. The Republicans are extremely overextended in blue territory, open seats, and several unpopular incumbents. In order of likelihood of flipping (not including NJ since it's in 2017 and it's basically a given now), there's NM, MI, NV, IL, ME (if Collins doesn't run, obviously, but I still think this one will be close, especially if Dems nominate a coastal person), FL (Putnam is extremely overrated. He's the definition of a career politician who's never had to face a legitimate opponent), KS, NH, MD (high and inelastic Democratic floor), OH, WI, IA (Branstad/Reynolds are not polling highly in approvals for whatever reason), GA, MA, AL, VT and I'm sure I'm missing a few more. Obviously a lot of these are probably leans/likely R right now, with the dividing line between tossup and leans R probably starting in between Kansas and New Hampshire, but it's not inconceivable that if Democrats are having a great night and how the next 18 months unfold, they could net double digits. My blind guess was D+13 in another thread, mostly due to Dems sweeping most of the open seats (which tends to happen every eight years or so it seems, particularly if the out party is the beneficiary of an unpopular president) and knocking off a few unpopular incumbents, or ones who appear on a collision course for unpopularity (IL, WI, IA, NH) and then Hogan, who I have a hunch is the only incumbent who goes down solely because of Trump.

Not arguing with any one specific race you might be referencing, but this is a misleading reason for optimism, in most cases.  Not only are gubernational races WAY less partisan, many states actually seem to prefer the opposite of their Presidential party preferences (for example, it would be absolutely ridiculous to call MA a [non-Atlas] "blue" state in the context of a gubernational race or WV a [non-Atlas] "red" state, as both are closer to the opposite, if anything) and many voters in deeply Democratic/Republican states might want a governor to serve as a check on the legislature to avoid corruption (like, say, in MD).  Again, not talking about a specific race or set of races for 2018, but that's never a sure reason to be optimistic.

I agree; the better opportunities for Democratic pickups are in swing states and Democratic-leaning states, like New Mexico, Michigan, Maine, and Florida, since governors actually do stuff there besides being a check on the legislature. Also Kansas, because Kansas.

[Xing]

Trump's popularity will be a big factor. If Trump is very unpopular, they may get a majority of governorships without breaking a sweat, or if their main message is "Trump sucks". If Trump's approval rating is about where it is now, or slightly higher, they'll pretty much just need to get strong recruits who are in touch with their respective states, and present a clear alternative to Trump.

[JoshPA]

No not all.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We all know that Dems failed at winning 3 straight elections three times: 1992, 1996, 2000 def Al Gore; and 2006, 2008 and 2010(GOP house); presidency 2008, 2012 and 2016.

Most of the governorships are two-terms GOP control and this is the first time since 1988 that the GOP is trying to win a 3rd election in a row.  

That's why its gonna be daunting for the GOP in House and Govs 2018, Prez and Senate 2020 and Senate 2022(even if Dems recapture WH). Not only because of History, because of reapportionment and Latinos.

[smoltchanov]

So title. What would help them start taking back seats and governorship's.

Expand far beyond their base and run candidates tailor-made for their states and districts. Very liberal in liberal areas, more moderate - in moderate ones, and even conservatives - in conservative. No "litmus tests" beyond that one: candidate must fit the district!

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Great candidates.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Appeal to Latinos by promoting comprehensive immigration reform, as most of the districts won by Clinton, that the GOP hold in the House are Latino districts.