Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least based upon the history of off-year elections going back to 1990.
When a President is elected, but loses a district in the Presidential Race that is simultaneously successfully defended by an incumbent of the President's Party, who then retires rather than run during the next cycle, the Presidential Party’s record at defending those seats is 0-26. You have to go back to Jim Nustle in Iowa in 1990 where the Presidential Party successfully defended an open seat after losing that CD in the last Presidential Election.
There are thus far 8 such open seats in CD’s carried by Hillary that Republicans will defend in 2018. The Democrats need to flip 23 seats, hence those 8 seats would amount to 35% of the way to switching control of the House.
Quote:
Of course, Democrats need a far greater net gain than eight in order to take back the House. The good news for Democrats is that if 2018 looks anything like past years, these eight seats are just the tip of a potential Democratic wave. In 1994, 2006 and 2010, open seats won by the opposition party in the previous presidential election accounted for less than 25% of the net gain. When Democrats last took back the chamber in 2006, they accounted for less than 10%.
In 2018, the potential of having these seats account for a higher number of the net gain means Democrats would need a much lower percentage of seats to be in tough terrain than is usually won in waves. To take back control, Democrats may only need a net gain of 15 Republican held seats in either districts won by Clinton (but where the incumbent is running for re-election) and open seats won by President Donald Trump in 2016.
dont count the democrats chickens until they are hatched. its possible that the dems will take back control of the house, since they only need to pick up 24 seats. but until there are actual candidates running against each other in the general elections, and until we know what their campaign strategies are, and the energy of the voters on both sides. one can never tell the mood of the voters until they actually vote. remember hillary was supposed to win in 2016 going away, and trump was supposed to fade into the annals of history as just another failed candidate.
Even if the Democrats are winners, it's still very hard to get the majority.
Republican gerrymandering makes it next to impossible for any Democrat to win in many districts.
I don't expect to see a Democratic take-over of the House in 2018. The best outcome for the Democratic party will be flipping enough districts to make the Republicans a very narrow majority until 2020, the next census year.
The census will, if all indications prove correct, the year when the Democrats will take over the House.
So far, the youth vote has remained strongly liberal with almost no change, but the young voters haven't been very regular voters. They turned out more in 2008 and 2012 than in 2016, probably because Obama was a more appealing candidate to them.
it remains to be seen how great they will turn out, and how they will vote in both this year and in 2020. Both Clinton and Trump failed to capture them in 2016.
If Saturday is any indication, younger voters will likely increase their political involvement this fall. There is a lot of room to pick up a new voters in this demographic.
Both those demographic groups you mentioned stay in closer touch with each other than at any time in our history, and I believe they are the most peer group-oriented demographics ever.
They influence each other much more than their parents and older generations influence them. They aren't afraid of the same things their parents fear, but they have their own fears. They aren't angered by what angers their parents, but they get angry.
Most of all, they don't want the same things their parents wanted. They don't crave a McMansion, 4 cars, other toys, mortgages, a career spent working in one place, suburban life in general, and many other things their parents were consumed with acquiring.
The candidate that really touches what drives them the most will probably motivate them to vote the most. I don't know for sure what that means yet, but I'm pretty sure those issues will arise this year as time goes by.
I'm also pretty sure there will be a bunch of politicians who ignore them and become very unpleasantly surprised in November for doing so in some places. If the right candidate emerges. If not, then I have no ideas at all how they will vote or turn out.
I doubt that Trump, Biden, Hillary, Ryan, Cruz, Warren or any of the major figures today are very high on their list of desirables.
At least based upon the history of off-year elections going back to 1990.
When a President is elected, but loses a district in the Presidential Race that is simultaneously successfully defended by an incumbent of the President's Party, who then retires rather than run during the next cycle, the Presidential Party’s record at defending those seats is 0-26. You have to go back to Jim Nustle in Iowa in 1990 where the Presidential Party successfully defended an open seat after losing that CD in the last Presidential Election.
There are thus far 8 such open seats in CD’s carried by Hillary that Republicans will defend in 2018. The Democrats need to flip 23 seats, hence those 8 seats would amount to 35% of the way to switching control of the House.
I can only pray, that the Democrats policy they run on, is repeal the 2nd Amendment now that the masks have come off and to impeach Donald Trump, as the only reasons to pick a Democrat.
I can only pray, that the Democrats policy they run on, is repeal the 2nd Amendment now that the masks have come off and to impeach Donald Trump, as the only reasons to pick a Democrat.
Republicans will hold control for centuries.
I would have assumed that this was satirical, if not for the poster.
I can only pray, that the Democrats policy they run on, is repeal the 2nd Amendment now that the masks have come off and to impeach Donald Trump, as the only reasons to pick a Democrat.
Republicans will hold control for centuries.
Ironically the talk of repealing the 2nd Amendment was advocated by a Republican appointed former Supreme Court Justice. Meanwhile, a Democrat who made it very clear that he values and respects Americans' right to bear arms recently picked up a red House district in PA. Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a fringe position and most Democratic House candidates are smart enough to steer far clear of such a stance.
Ironically the talk of repealing the 2nd Amendment was advocated by a Republican appointed former Supreme Court Justice. Meanwhile, a Democrat who made it very clear that he values and respects Americans' right to bear arms recently picked up a red House district in PA. Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a fringe position and most Democratic House candidates are smart enough to steer far clear of such a stance.
The fact that he was appointed by a Republican is meaningless. He was appointed by Gerald Ford, who was not a conservative. Justice John Paul Stevens was also always a reliable member of the liberal faction of the court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
