Skip to main content

View Diary: Magic tricks, loopholes, government shutdowns and the debt ceiling (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Lose their majority in 2014 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is almost impossible.

    •  Just wait till they shut down the government (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, greenbell, Creosote

      Gun control was impossible until Newtown.  Disasters have a way of focusing people's attention on what's going wrong.

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:45:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dems won the popular House vote (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ItsSimpleSimon, 3goldens

        by 3 or 4% in 2012. And still did not win the House.

        I don;t see how they can win it in 2014.

        •  My experience is that demography... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson, kat68

          ...overwhelms neatly drawn district lines faster than the line drawers will admit. The continued low level revolt in the GOP House and actions by state legislatures will contribute as well. In short, what looks insurmountable now may look like a difficult but navigable pass through the mountains in 15 months.

          That's my bit of Pollyanna, and I'm sticking to it  ;-)

          When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Egalitare on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:28:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Depending on vote distribution... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...the Democrats could conceivably win 55% of the votes for House members in the US, and still lose the House. (Which is to say, we could win the popular House vote by TEN PERCENT, and still not control the House.

        In fact, that distribution is more likely than them winning 53% of the votes for House members in the US and winning the House. If we only (!) win the country by 6%, we have essentially no chance of retaking the House.

        Which is to say, in order to win the House, we would need a landslide bigger than any since Reagan/Mondale. If you only include non-presidential years, there has not been an election 'swingy' enough in the last 50 years (if I am interpreting the numbers correctly) to have swung the House to the Democrats. And people have only become more polarized, and less willing to even consider voting across party lines. Certainly not less.

        All this 'focus on the House in 2014' stuff is taking resources away from the state races that we should be focusing on. But instead, the Democratic party isn't even talking about them. If this continues, not only will we be stuck with a Republican House after 2020 and the next redistricting, we will also probably be stuck with a Republican president too. (Assuming they are able to pass the 'allocate presidential votes by congressional district' laws that they're showing every sign of being able to pass.)

        Well, if we let them keep those state houses, at this point, knowing what they can do with them, then we deserve what we get.

        •  Speak for yourself, kemosabe (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gary Norton, Eric Nelson, Creosote

          because my union is prioritizing elections at all levels.  We basically swept in November, and we're keeping our campaign machinery polished and ready.

          I recommend progressives throughout the country do the same.

          When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

          by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:26:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's tough but not impossible. If we equal the (5+ / 0-)

      gains in 2012, we'll be in the majority. That is partially why we saw Boehner take the Cliff and Sandy votes. I think he knows that the party faces a real risk if they continue their obstructionism. Also, he reads the tea leaves that the tea party is on the wane.

      Further, affiant sayeth not.

      by Gary Norton on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:51:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If we win as we did in 2006, we will take (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gary Norton

        the House.

        In hindsight, it's kind of amazing that we were able to do that.

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:23:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bailey2001, chuckvw

          If we only win the same percentage of votes that we did in 2006, we don't take the House.

          In fact, we would have to do a LOT better. The gerrymandering is dramatically more effective this time around.

          •  Many people said the same thing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gary Norton, Eric Nelson

            after the 2000 redistricting.

            Yes, I do think they did a better job this time, but political terrain can shift in unpredictable ways. North Carolina put a lot of seats out of reach, but I am not prepared to say that PA, OH, and MI did.

            Ok, so I read the polls.

            by andgarden on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:32:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  No, this is not correct. We would need a higher (0+ / 0-)

          percentage to gain the House in 2014 as compared to our take in 2006. Quite a bit higher, in fact.

          •  State your assumptions clearly please (0+ / 0-)

            If one of them is an even swing, then you are quite possibly "not correct" yourself.

            Ok, so I read the polls.

            by andgarden on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:01:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We would need at least a 7 point swing in our (0+ / 0-)

              direction and some state as high as 9.  With the current gerrymandering and district layouts, the likelihood of accomplishing even 2006 levels is a tough mountain to climb even if we are indeed in favorable conditions come election time.  This doesn't even consider our very usual disadvantage of turning out our base in midterms nor any political fall out that may come with the debt and/or gun proposals.

              We must GOTV like it's an election year now.

              •  Assuming a uniform swing? Yes or no? (0+ / 0-)

                Ok, so I read the polls.

                by andgarden on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:22:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Most likely with those predicting, yes...and your (0+ / 0-)

                  thoughts, how do you see a realistic 2014 victory for the House majority?  I am curious, as most are predicting this to close to impossible although gains are quite likely.

                  •  I will take that as a yes (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    The point is, swings are rarely uniform.

                    I am not predicting that we will take back the House in 2014. Rather, I am saying that it would take a wave of the same nature as 2006. I was not making (or intending to make, anyway) a quantitative point about the magnitude of the swing necessary.

                    I am hardly ignorant of redistricting and what it can do. On the contrary, I am cognizant of its limitations. Tide doesn't always get the stain out, and gerrymandering doesn't always preserve the partisan balance you expect it to.

                    Ok, so I read the polls.

                    by andgarden on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:05:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site