Could the Republicans control the House for most of the next 30 years?

[progressive85]

From 1954-1994, the Democratic Party ruled the House with a majority that sometimes was over 270 seats.  That's a huge amount of time for one party to control a house of Congress and the Democrats were probably able to do this because of the Solid South and that a large number in their majorities were moderates and conservatives.  Still, progressive Democrats were able to get some of their legislation through.

Since 1994, Republicans have controlled the House for all but four years (2006-2010).  That's 20 years of Republican control.  Are we in a reverse of 1954-1994 or can the Democrats actually win the House and keep it again for more than four years?

Does aggressive gerrymandering, the advantage of incumbency, urban voters packed into less districts, and the deeper R benches in the state legislatures make the House impossible for the Democrats to win and hold onto?

[GlobeSoc]

The long dem majority was supposed to have ended in 1980 but enough blue dogs were conservative and adaptive for the dems to keep their majority until 1994

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, because the House will hopefully fall in 2018 and Democrat will ensure their majority won't fall in the the 2020 reapportionment. 

But, Dems do have a long ways to go before that victory is ensured.

[morgieb]

With significant Dem inroads in Sunbelt suburbs and (hopefully) less agressive gerrymanders for the next cycle, the Republican House advantage will diminish, IMO.

If they get a good year with the current Senate cycle though I can see the Senate being very red soon enough.

[Ebsy]

We struggle to predict elections hours before they happen, so I wouldn't even bother considering things this long term.

[Virginiá]

Unlikely. As TD has pointed out before, the current GOP coalition is not as strong as the Democrats' coalition used to be. Which shouldn't be that surprising, particularly given the difference in political agendas. One party constantly trying to take away social services people depend on is an easy way to forfeit support among many groups. This has limited the number of seats Republicans have been able to hold the House by on average, compared to Democrats throughout most of their time in power.

I think there are a number of things to consider:

1. Republicans do not really have an equivalent of the Solid South right now, as minority voters are no longer suppressed as thoroughly as they were decades ago, it has left Democrats with a nice buffer in those regions. In many cases, though, Democrats back then were actually just suppressing what probably would have been more Democratic votes. Further, even in some majority-white districts, it seems like the GOP's ongoing weakness among upscale/college educated whites may cost them extra seats in the South. An example is GA-6, a district that really shouldn't have become competitive this quickly, even if Trump floundered there. Instead, we are seeing an almost instant shift from safe status to competitive, closely mirroring presidential preferences. That kind of enormous shift in that kind of district is something I don't think even money can buy that quickly.

2. Because the GOP's overall majorities have been smaller, that has made them more vulnerable as demographic/generational change has shifted various seats to Democrats, particularly in the sunbelt/suburbia. It has even been suggested that after a certain point, Republicans could begin to see a sort of packing issue with their own voters, as Democrats expand from urban cores to the suburbs, and Republicans are pushed back into rural/exurban districts. Now they are running up the score in the sticks while slowly ceding more fertile ground to Democrats.

3. Gerrymandering has helped Republicans not only pad their current majority, but make other seats safer that would normally be more competitive. It is looking more and more like they will not have another super-favorable round of redistricting in 2021-2022, and while Democrats will almost surely not be in a position to conduct their own round of brutal gerrymandering, they will be able to force fair(er) maps in many states. Gerrymandering reform is picking up, and court cases threaten the entire idea of partisan gerrymandering, both in SCOTUS and in some states (see: PA). Further, Recent cases involving the VRA and minority opportunity districts have made it easier for Democrats to reduce "bleaching," where Republicans use the VRA as an excuse to pack minorities into fewer districts. The result is likely to be more minority-coalition districts and thus more competitive (or even VRA) districts.

4. As it was stated before, Democrats ideally should have lost their House majority much sooner, sometime in the 80s, if not 1980 itself. Crafty and adaptive Democrats, however, extended their shelf lives, even as GOP presidents carried many Democrat-held districts election after election. Due to ongoing political polarization, it is unlikely that kind of split ticket voting will aid Republicans in holding on after Democrats begin exerting political dominance as Millennials rise to power and Boomers recede due to generational replacement.

5. If Democrats begin making more serious inroads with white college educated voters, which are a higher turnout group than most groups, this could help them offset their troubles in midterms, which would then allow them to avoid steep midterm losses that end up setting back their existing House coalition and makes it harder to get a majority back. It's not impossible to see Trump doing some real damage to the GOP brand among these people. His approvals are currently way underwater with white college educated voters - Something like +20 - +25 points. It may only get worse as white Millennials continue aging and skewing the bloc towards Democrats.


Overall, I just don't see how Republicans could replicate the same kind of generational majorities Democrats had managed to hold on to. They could hold on for years longer, but 20, even 30 more years? I dunno.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With significant Dem inroads in Sunbelt suburbs and (hopefully) less agressive gerrymanders for the next cycle, the Republican House advantage will diminish, IMO.

If they get a good year with the current Senate cycle though I can see the Senate being very red soon enough.

The Senate in 2020 looks very good for the Dems as well as in 2022. Like the previous poster said.  The pendulum goes back and forth.  The Dems will control the House either in 2018 or 2020. But, Trump ethics has brought the House in play for Dems earlier than usual in 2018

[Orser67]

Yes, I expect Republicans to control the House for most of the next 30 years, for two reasons.

1)They benefit from better "voter spacing." This spacing will help them win House elections, as well as legislative elections that will in turn help them gerrymander
2)They're generally better at raising funds, especially at the state and local level, which help them win legislative elections. This will help them gerrymander but also provide for a deeper bench
3)I expect Democrats to win most presidential elections in the next 20 years. We could see a lot of 2012 and 2014 style elections, where Democrats win the presidency and do ok in the House in the 2012-style elections, but Republicans dominate the 2014-style elections

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The environment is very good, right now for the Dems to win contol the House this year, due to the Trump ethical issues.  And voter apathy over impeachment, which begins in the House will be displayed in the gubernatorial contest as well.


25-30 districts that are in vulnerable GOP districts, AZ, FL, TX, NV, NY, NJ are in Latino districts that Clinton won.

[Xing]

Unless Democrats really fail to make gains in several states in 2018, it's unlikely, since the House map in the 2020s will probably be a little less Republican favored, and it's probably that at least one election in that decade flips the House to the Democrats, if it doesn't happen in 2018.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Pelosi would greatly enhance the Democratic electoral strength if she becomes Speaker in 2019. Puerto Rico will become a state with a divided Senate and a Democratic friendly House and Dems will pick up PA and MI for sure and win PR's electoral votes given them the 270 electors needed to clinch

[I’m not Stu]

Pelosi would greatly enhance the Democratic electoral strength if she becomes Speaker in 2019. Puerto Rico will become a state with a divided Senate and a Democratic friendly House and Dems will pick up PA and MI for sure and win PR's electoral votes given them the 270 electors needed to clinch

Trump only won Texas by 9%. What if Democrats soon win Texas' electoral votes? What if some Texas Democrats end up winning a US Senate or gubernatorial race?