What Are the Chances That Democrats Retake the House?
About as much as Obama calling me tomorrow and wants to send me 10 Million Dollars.
About as much as Obama calling me tomorrow and wants to send me 10 Million Dollars.
1
First, there are not three months until the elections. Early voting begins September 23 in MN and SD, and in more states after that. The D campaign is hitting this hard, while the R campaign seems oblivious to it.
Second, owing to R gerrymandering, a House takeover by Ds in 2016 is really unlikely, although R losses are likely thanks to Trump at the top of the ballot. If the Hillary Clinton administration shows positive results, 2018 is possible. By the nature of R gerrymandering, they have included D minorities in many districts. They could grow into D majorities in enough districts (beyond those taken in 2016) to make a difference. But the Ds will need to do a much better job of fielding good candidates than they have this year.
Second, owing to R gerrymandering, a House takeover by Ds in 2016 is really unlikely, although R losses are likely thanks to Trump at the top of the ballot. If the Hillary Clinton administration shows positive results, 2018 is possible. By the nature of R gerrymandering, they have included D minorities in many districts. They could grow into D majorities in enough districts (beyond those taken in 2016) to make a difference. But the Ds will need to do a much better job of fielding good candidates than they have this year.
Here are the facts.
If the Democrats do not retake the House this election it will be 4 to 8 more years of republican obstruction.
The current house leadership has no intention of working with President Clinton.
The Country can not survive 4 or 8 more years of this republican obstruction.
Time to get rid of the what is left of the republican party.
If the Democrats do not retake the House this election it will be 4 to 8 more years of republican obstruction.
The current house leadership has no intention of working with President Clinton.
The Country can not survive 4 or 8 more years of this republican obstruction.
Time to get rid of the what is left of the republican party.
19
Between Hillary's and Obamacare's unpopularity, I wouldn't count the seats yet. It's hard to imagine a "landslide" for a group that received a "shellacking" in the last election considering the negative effects of Obamacare are only worsening.
1
Great analysis. I wish for an alternate conclusion, but I hope this forces the Democrat party fathers to focus more on winning and changing your conclusion.
Great stuff, thanks.
Great stuff, thanks.
1
It looks like either more years of gridlock or the unraveling of a nation.
2
It is the protest vote that scares me. I really hope we don't have day after regret like Brexit.
1
The only real hope is that women who are not completely dominated by men will break their mental shackles and turn out en masse in support of Ms Clinton as well as looking down the ballot and vote out the obstructionist representatives who will at a minimum further foul the works until 2018.
The change can and will only happen with the women's vote.
Women must realize there will in all likelihood not be another opportunity like this and if any real progress is to be made it will only be so with a woman as President.
Men at all levels are shaking with the thought their hold on power at all levels will be more tenuous and are banding together to denigrate, smear and question her ability, veracity, and mental stability.
I often joke that I pass for a white male because other white men speak their minds as long as I offer no rebuttal to their racist and/or misogynist statements.
If women don't wake up to the fact no man can be trusted to fully understand and therefore fully empathize with almost any problems any woman suffers they will remain as second class in our unenlightened society.
Most men do not think of women as equal, let alone superior to us at any level. Donald Trump voices the truth of men in seemingly senseless rants which are a far too truthful expression of most men's feelings.
Hillary Clinton as well as Democratic candidates down the ballot in al the states must be supported and elected or our nation will continue to slide into the landfill of failure.
The change can and will only happen with the women's vote.
Women must realize there will in all likelihood not be another opportunity like this and if any real progress is to be made it will only be so with a woman as President.
Men at all levels are shaking with the thought their hold on power at all levels will be more tenuous and are banding together to denigrate, smear and question her ability, veracity, and mental stability.
I often joke that I pass for a white male because other white men speak their minds as long as I offer no rebuttal to their racist and/or misogynist statements.
If women don't wake up to the fact no man can be trusted to fully understand and therefore fully empathize with almost any problems any woman suffers they will remain as second class in our unenlightened society.
Most men do not think of women as equal, let alone superior to us at any level. Donald Trump voices the truth of men in seemingly senseless rants which are a far too truthful expression of most men's feelings.
Hillary Clinton as well as Democratic candidates down the ballot in al the states must be supported and elected or our nation will continue to slide into the landfill of failure.
26
Due to massive corruption including gerrymandering, it's very hard to unseat a member of the House. Thank Citizens' United.
34
You got to hand it to him, Donald Trump
never misses a chance to make money.
For instance, his next great business
deal is a sure fire can't miss
opportunity. Trump is going to open a
Retirement Home for Defeated Republicans
in Florida. Come November, it's gonna
look like Washington moved to Miami.
Of course Trump has already reserved
the penthouse suite.
never misses a chance to make money.
For instance, his next great business
deal is a sure fire can't miss
opportunity. Trump is going to open a
Retirement Home for Defeated Republicans
in Florida. Come November, it's gonna
look like Washington moved to Miami.
Of course Trump has already reserved
the penthouse suite.
6
If the Party of No remains in control of the House of Representatives (and worse, the Senate as well), the vitriol of the past eight years will be a love-in by comparison.
24
I dunno... Hillary isn't likely to stay aloof like poor Obama, who didn't know how, or didn't want to fight them like LBJ would have. I suspect Hillary is going to take quite a different tack with those miserable, cowardly, ignorant sell-outs. Can"t' wait!!!
Howevah...gerrymandering might still rock her boat..
Howevah...gerrymandering might still rock her boat..
23
"didn't want to fight them like LBJ would have".....You do know that when LBJ was President the Democrats had total control of both the House and the Senate? LBJ never fought anybody. He never attempted anything unless he already had the necessary votes in his back pocket. In his first two years Obama passed a major stimulus bill which saved the country's economic lunch; and ACA, a major step toward universal healthcare. Further, in the last 6 years of his administration, the total negativity of the Republican Party (and the 5/4 Supreme Court) which was required to thwart everything and anything he tried to do, has led to the present collapse of the Republican Party. History will view his legacy kindly.
43
LBJ had a large Southern Democratic constituency (and all Republicans) firmly opposed to his civil rights initiatives. You are correct that he moved after he had the votes lined up, because of his experience as Senate Majority Leader, which made him the most persuasive president to Congress in my lifetime. His phrase, "If you have them by the b***s, their hearts and minds will follow," embodied a take-no-prisoners attitude. I wish BHO had had the will and the tools to have done nearly so well with a recalcitrant Congress.
If LBJ had not got Vietnam into his shorts, he would be hailed as one of our finest presidents.
If LBJ had not got Vietnam into his shorts, he would be hailed as one of our finest presidents.
3
A story trying to explain why the Democrats might not retake the House even in the event of a YUUGE presidential landslide that does not discuss the impacts of gerrymandering seems rather incomplete.
41
I have made small donations to Democrats in "toss up" races, for the US House and Senate in 12 states. It's all I can personally do to help speed the clean-up of Congress. I hope other Democrats will join me in that effort, and do the same.
58
ChesBay--thanks for doing this! What a great idea!
17
I do that as well. Making calls on behalf of those candidates is also helpful. We're battling the Kochs, who decided to shift their money to down-ticket races, but we can do this!
9
I think the dems could do it in two elections, ie flip the house, assuming Hillary wins...
It is likely they will get 15-20 seats in the next election but probably not enough to flip.
If the dems stay on message of bringing back good paying jobs that we farmed out over the last decades to slave labor countries and keep us out of debacles like the admitted war criminal Bush 2's Iraq, ie two things the American people want the most and the republicans maintain their neo con views, in two yrs, the dems could take back the house...
It is likely they will get 15-20 seats in the next election but probably not enough to flip.
If the dems stay on message of bringing back good paying jobs that we farmed out over the last decades to slave labor countries and keep us out of debacles like the admitted war criminal Bush 2's Iraq, ie two things the American people want the most and the republicans maintain their neo con views, in two yrs, the dems could take back the house...
8
Republicans will likely hold the House until redistricting, and then, if there is a significant effort to redress gerrymandering nationwide, we may get a more accurately representative House.
37
Hillary Clinton would have the highest unfavorables of any candidate in history, were it not for her opponent. She offers no realistic plans to change the lot of ordinary Americans. She does not represent an energizing movement, like Sanders. Instead, her campaign consists mostly of reminding the electorate of her opponent's statements.
Why would such a candidate have an inordinate influence on down ticket races?
Why would such a candidate have an inordinate influence on down ticket races?
4
She may not represent an energizing movement, but if you think she hasn't laid out a program that will significantly help the lot of ordinary Americans it is because you haven't been paying attention. Sanders may have energized a portion of progressive voters, but red lights were flashing all over the place as he was only able to gain the support of a single Senate colleague. As President he would not have been even remotely capable of realizing any of his proposals.
27
But, you think Hillary will?
That was the establishment that rejected Sanders.
They're not the ones who fill the Senate and House seats with progressive stalwarts: Energized progressive voters are the only ones to do that -- thus, giving the establishmentarians the cue to open their eyes.
So, what is more important, what professional Congressman think -- or, energized voters?
I go with the energized voters, every time. Too bad establishment Democrats don't get that. We'd be tearing both houses down and rebuilding them with a new liberal mandate, if they did.
Maybe they will wake up some day -- before their time's up, otherwise it's up to an energized electorate. Hopefully, we'll figure out how to get that back before 2 years from now.
It is, literally, the only thing that will work.
That was the establishment that rejected Sanders.
They're not the ones who fill the Senate and House seats with progressive stalwarts: Energized progressive voters are the only ones to do that -- thus, giving the establishmentarians the cue to open their eyes.
So, what is more important, what professional Congressman think -- or, energized voters?
I go with the energized voters, every time. Too bad establishment Democrats don't get that. We'd be tearing both houses down and rebuilding them with a new liberal mandate, if they did.
Maybe they will wake up some day -- before their time's up, otherwise it's up to an energized electorate. Hopefully, we'll figure out how to get that back before 2 years from now.
It is, literally, the only thing that will work.
I'm a Democrat and even with an electoral tsunami for HRC, the chances of the House flipping are "zero."
5
Jim--It might take 2 or 3 "applications." In 2016, vote, "rinse, repeat." In 2018, vote, "rinse, repeat." In 2020, vote,"rinse, repeat." It's kinda like killing termites or weeds. They will need to be "treated" several times.
21
"Rinse and repeat?"
More like political kerosene is what is needed.
Is HRC political kerosene to the GOtP blight?
Not so far. Her presence, in relation to the specter of Trump, appears to help keep the GOtP status quo in Congress right where it is.
More like political kerosene is what is needed.
Is HRC political kerosene to the GOtP blight?
Not so far. Her presence, in relation to the specter of Trump, appears to help keep the GOtP status quo in Congress right where it is.
Would someone please identify those members of the Congressional Black Caucus who would be willing to re-draw their districts in order to send a big chunk of their AA constituents to other districts and help Democrats win more House races? Of course, doing this might put their seats at risk.
Democrats should quit whining about gerrymandering. It is not as if they didn't do it themselves in states like Illinois and Maryland.
In 2010, the Republcans won governorships and state legislatures while the Democrats were asleep at the switch. That is how so many of these districts were re-apportioned to favor Republicans.
Things can change after 2020 by winning these elections rather than being "sore losers" about it now.
Democrats should quit whining about gerrymandering. It is not as if they didn't do it themselves in states like Illinois and Maryland.
In 2010, the Republcans won governorships and state legislatures while the Democrats were asleep at the switch. That is how so many of these districts were re-apportioned to favor Republicans.
Things can change after 2020 by winning these elections rather than being "sore losers" about it now.
12
Two other considerations for a wave are a strange combination, called " the Edsel" after sociologist Edsel Elos.
" the counterintuitive circumstance where there a) I give up Trump can't win (pessimistic) plus b) I don't need to vote its in the bag (optimism). In both cases the Republican voter doesn't show up. a)+b)= weak incumbent turnout."
....the Electoral College is strange in as much as no matter how many people vote for a candidate, in this case in Mississippi, only 6 EC votes can go to Trump...
Elos calls this the Impact Cap....its part of the reason that off years are so different than Presidential Years.
" the counterintuitive circumstance where there a) I give up Trump can't win (pessimistic) plus b) I don't need to vote its in the bag (optimism). In both cases the Republican voter doesn't show up. a)+b)= weak incumbent turnout."
....the Electoral College is strange in as much as no matter how many people vote for a candidate, in this case in Mississippi, only 6 EC votes can go to Trump...
Elos calls this the Impact Cap....its part of the reason that off years are so different than Presidential Years.
6
I would say that the Democrats will take both the House and the Senate. I see that the elite establishment from both parties are pushing for Hillary. I figure that if the Republicans can't even support one another and their own Presidential candidate and would rather lose and keep their perks then try and do anything for the voters that voted for them. I just don’t see their voters showing up after they lied to their voters for six years and would rather vote with the money people than the public. Seems they want the money more than the office. Because after all, they may get more money form their rich lobbyist but those of us in middle American have more votes.
4
If only there were a good Democratic candidate -- no I do not mean Bernie -- running this election would be a massive blowout and both the House and Senate would flip. Unfortunately, we are stuck with someone who has shown either stupidity or arrogance in the way she has conducted her political life.
4
As for Hillary's alleged stupidity, I say this: Her opponents were successful in painting a negative image of her. She has not been effective in countering that image. Sadly, even we Democrates are beginning to agree with the negative image her foes created. The relentless and mind-numbing drum beat takes its toll.
If you take a step back and try to assess the facts that purport that negative image. These facts all go up in flames.
Benghazi - unsubstantiated allegations. Clinton foundation - no evidence for supporting foreign donors and the donations are for a good cause; Email server - maybe a stupid move of hers, but no evidence of damage to national security.
If you take a step back and try to assess the facts that purport that negative image. These facts all go up in flames.
Benghazi - unsubstantiated allegations. Clinton foundation - no evidence for supporting foreign donors and the donations are for a good cause; Email server - maybe a stupid move of hers, but no evidence of damage to national security.
36
Sorry, but the one who really painted the negative image of HRC was HRC. Oh, the noise from the NRC is trash talk , but the drip, drip , drip of partial statements seeped in legalese and attempts to blame others for her "problems." have made her look like a arrogant politician. In the beginning all she really needed to do was speak plainly and most of the nation would have been behind her.
Her inability to tell a simple straight narrative is a major problem. Yes, I know she is a lawyer -- I too attended the YLS-- but politicians need to at least give the appearance to speaking forthright.
I was for HRC in 2008, and I still think that then she would have made the better choice for President then, but now, if I wasn't a yellow -dog Democrat and if I wasn't so frightened by Trump and the Republicans, I would just set this election out.
Her inability to tell a simple straight narrative is a major problem. Yes, I know she is a lawyer -- I too attended the YLS-- but politicians need to at least give the appearance to speaking forthright.
I was for HRC in 2008, and I still think that then she would have made the better choice for President then, but now, if I wasn't a yellow -dog Democrat and if I wasn't so frightened by Trump and the Republicans, I would just set this election out.
12
As Cher said yesterday, Hillary is a shy person and she is not a great public speaker. True. But combine that personal style with over 20 years of microscopic scrutiny and I might be very careful about how and what I say too. I think that the GOP has done a great job of convincing the general public that there is sinister work at play here. You're smart and they have convinced you that she, somehow, is doing all manner of things unseemly. I see someone who is a true public advocate and possibly the least arrogant person we have seen run for this job. But it is the polar opposite that we read and hear ... take another objective look please.
4
This is why it is essential for each eligible voter - of any "stripe" - to get to the polls, and vote for Democratic candidates down ballot. I shudder to think what a President Trump would feel emboldened to do, if he were to be supported by enough of his GOP lawmakers willing to fulfill his wildest fantasies.
18
The House will remain Republican through 2022 at the earliest. For it to shift to the Democrats, there would have to be a big enough "wave" in 2020 to affect state legislatures. 2020 is a census year, and reapportionment will follow.
The possibility of a SCOTUS-mandated abandonment of gerrymandering is uncertain; and with the appeals that would follow, it is unlikely that any change could be realized for many years thereafter.
The goals of Bernie and his supporters are noble but not feasible any time soon. Without a successful Hillary administration as a transition, they are not feasible for a very long time.
The possibility of a SCOTUS-mandated abandonment of gerrymandering is uncertain; and with the appeals that would follow, it is unlikely that any change could be realized for many years thereafter.
The goals of Bernie and his supporters are noble but not feasible any time soon. Without a successful Hillary administration as a transition, they are not feasible for a very long time.
11
I would have liked to have seen the word "gerrymandering" mentioned at least once in this article. In fact, please bring to us a detailed article about just how the republicans redrafted those boundaries, state by state, in order to create that "high ground" by manipulation. It's the only way republicans can win, that and voter suppression. This article leaves out key issues when looking to the Fall.
61
The wave effect in 2008, at least, was in part a change in the usual voting demographic. An atypical percentage of young people decided to vote, based on the appeal of Mr Obama's candidacy.
Younger voters have a lot of issues (sputtering economy, wage stagnation, college loan debt) to be addressed by government. It's not clear they believe either candidate can address them, but at least Clinton is properly on message about these issues.
The media circus, however, is focused, again, on the horse race aspects, the campaign gaffs, the and accusations of skeletons in the closet; which plays to the Republican strategy of discouraging general voter turnout.
Younger voters have a lot of issues (sputtering economy, wage stagnation, college loan debt) to be addressed by government. It's not clear they believe either candidate can address them, but at least Clinton is properly on message about these issues.
The media circus, however, is focused, again, on the horse race aspects, the campaign gaffs, the and accusations of skeletons in the closet; which plays to the Republican strategy of discouraging general voter turnout.
16
With the polarization of politics over the past few decades, and the somehow still legal process of gerrymandering congressional districts, it is unlikely for the Democrats to experience a wave victory in any election in the foreseeable future. Which is unfortunate, because for politics to return to a comfortable area of moderation, the GOP needs to suffer a seriously crushing defeat over a few cycles.
38
If the Bernie Sanders movement wants to really accomplish something big and important, a Democratic recapture of the House of Representatives would be it. That would be remarkable and incredibly helpful to the progressive cause. Bernie, are you there?
Without the House, no bold agenda is remotely possible.
Without the House, no bold agenda is remotely possible.
82
the only scenario I can imagine for the Dems to take over the House is that Hillary is President, appoints a few progressive or at least non-Republican Supreme Court justices, some smart lawyers figure out a lawsuit that claims gerrymandering unconstitutional, the Court agrees, and the whole country gets redistricted in a more or less neutral way.
or, the Republican party disappears...
or, the Republican party disappears...
88
"or, the Republican party disappears..."
It doesn't have to disappear, it just has to be shrunken to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub, as we've done here in the state that brought you Nixon and Reagan. And Apple, Disney/Pixar and Google.
It doesn't have to disappear, it just has to be shrunken to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub, as we've done here in the state that brought you Nixon and Reagan. And Apple, Disney/Pixar and Google.
16
Districting should be determined by Zip Codes.
2
The trends tend to persist for a decade... Until districts are redrawn to reflect changing demographics. Republicans were in power last time. So a landslide now would portend a shift later, especially if Clinton's popularity increases. Big if of course.
13
Mr. Cohn clearly is a bright man, insightful and typically a pleasure to read. That said, while it is beyond difficult to contest his conclusion--Republicans most certainly will view the House as a bulwark against a probable Clinton win and, perhaps, an accompanying victory in the Senate--this piece meandered, muddied and muddled. Yet, one can't help but appreciate any opportunity to spent time with Mr. Cohn--his is always a welcome byline--and I will continue to look forward to his analyses as Nov. 8 approaches.
5
Your prediction that Republicans may keep control of the House for another decade sent shivers of nihilistic despair through me. Look at what Republican majorities did to Kansas. The state is floundering, nearly ready to go belly up because of balance the budget fiscal policies. Compare to California where Democrats control the legislature and governor's office: California is thriving, one of the economic wonders of the world. What will it take for American voters to understand if one lets Republican wing-nuts like Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jason Chaffetz lead the country, with Koch brother's dark money as support, USA will end up like Kansas.
104
The fact that so many of our fellow citizens think your scenario is acceptable or preferable, Dave, is truly discouraging. I just cannot get my head around what would make anyone want to elect more Tea Party and radical right-wing legislators when the country's infrastructure (physical, educational, health, technology) is declining to third world status due to their obstructionist negativism.
It's really depressing.
It's really depressing.
51
I'm for a robust two or three party political system. But the current Republican Party controlled by the Tea Party, Neo John Birchers, Koch brothers dark money coalitions, Paul Ryan Ayn Randians (greed & survival of the fittest), zealots like Jason Chaffetz ("I need another lazy federal employee to indict."), a GOP whose only vision is to obstruct President Obama, and likely the same for Clinton, will bring America to her knees. There is so much good work that needs to be done. Yes, you are correct: it is depressing.
14
When the voters have to hold their nose to vote for your candidate, any sort of "wave" is very unlikely.
8
I see one very important factor missing: the fact that many districts are uncompetitive due to partisan gerrymandering from Republican state legislatures. Since this article makes historical comparisons, I feel it is worthwhile to note that that Democrats won almost 1.5 million more votes in the House collectively, but Republicans gained more seats, enough to take control of the House. I was reading an article yesterday about how the New York Times fails to mention partisan gerrymandering when it is relevant. I enjoy all the political analysis; I just don't see why the author can't say that the movement to take over the House will never be fair and competitive unless congressional districts are drawn fair and competitive.
123
The primary reason for the difference in votes is the huge majorities that Democrats have in urban areas. In some districts, they get 80% of the vote.
A better approach would be to make the districts smaller, and have more Representatives. The original House was meant to be much more democratic and closer to the electorate.
A better approach would be to make the districts smaller, and have more Representatives. The original House was meant to be much more democratic and closer to the electorate.
19
I couldn't agree more. It's baffling that someone could write extensively on this topic without even mentioning gerrymandering.
10
Florida is de-gerrymandered this year thanks to a state constitutional amendment and state court decisions. It may mean one or two extra seats for the Democrats, who are concentrated in urban districts. So while gerrymandering is an important structural determiner of the makeup of the House, it's not the only one favoring Republicans.
6
Of course, between now and then anything can happen -- but better the White House, than the other House.