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.
The story is being sold that if the Democrats don't win the House, they have failed. It is a great story, but it has some caveats that I don't think many people realize.
The obvious reasons why Democrats should capture the House is that the House acts as the "quick feedback loop" of the people. All seats come up every two years. If the people don't like what is going on, the "check" against the President and the Senate is that the people can essentially elect a new body of representatives after two years.
So, it the will of people is that they want to see less of Trump's agenda, they can put a lot of stops to the domestic end of it by electing Democrats to the House to put the brakes on his agenda.
However, that's not the reality of the House anymore. In a politically neutral environment (50/50 votes nationally), Republicans stand to capture 234 House seats. Democrats stand to capture 201 seats. Due to gerrymandering, there is an inherent bias. So, even if nationally, there was a 5% margin by Democrats, Republicans would likely still hold that chamber.
It is estimated that a 6% Democratic margin isn't even enough to flip the house. So much for the House of Representatives being that quick feedback loop that it was designed for.
In 2016, I described a scenario where Republicans could consolidate full power for the next several years, even if Americans in a "popular vote" respect would prefer to have Democrats controlling Congress as a check on the president. This would indeed play out if each Congressional seat votes as it did in 2016.
One small footnote is that the recent court ordered redistricting in Pennsylvania has llkely lowered the Democratic margin needed to capture the House by a little. Multiple Republicans have retired in the state, and it's easier to win open seats than defeat an incumbent. I think in a realistic scenario where Democrats do win the House this year, they will have to pick up 3 or more seats in Pennsylvania. New Jersey and California are a couple other states where seats will need to flip for Democrats to take over the House.
In 2016, I described a scenario where Republicans could consolidate full power for the next several years, even if Americans in a "popular vote" respect would prefer to have Democrats controlling Congress as a check on the president. This would indeed play out if each Congressional seat votes as it did in 2016.
One small footnote is that the recent court ordered redistricting in Pennsylvania has llkely lowered the Democratic margin needed to capture the House by a little.
I think many people were missing the forest for the trees in 2016. The Senate has a bias towards Republicans at the moment due to the constituency of small states, and their political leanings vs the national political environment. And the House has a bias due to how much better Republicans are at gerrymandering.
Yet, in 2016, I think Democrats (and many others) were so sure Clinton would win, that at least it would temper what Republicans could do while holding the upper and lower chambers.
Well, that didn't quite pan out.
As for PA and gerrymandering, I'm very curious what the SCOTUS will do on the matter. One thing is for certain - the congressional districts are not drawn arbitrarily. They are drawn with a particular purpose - and that purpose is to not represent the people of the state properly. Both sides do it. It is ridiculous that Democrats need a 6%+ margin to simply break even in the House.
You act like we have no industry or agriculture in red states. We have ports too, and oil and wind and solar and everything else you’ve got. Oh, and good luck living on your “entertainment.” Lol
take away Wall St and Silicon Valley and let me know what the US economy looks like.
oh, so he won by what it says in the constitution and not by what 3,000,000 in one small radius of the country want? I think you forgot we are the united states of america not the united states of california. Hate to burst your bubble. Maybe a civics class would do you good.
Listen to the Democrats running for office in the latest races. Most of them don't even mention Trump in their election campaigns, other than basic party related deflection and reverting to the platform issues, when asked.
The Senator (D) that won against Moore in Alabama stayed clear of dissing Trump and avoided mentioning Trump as much as possible.
The strategy of the local races is to talk about local issues and what matter to the local voters (e.g. the voters in either a congressional district or a state).
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.
