Winning the House in 2014: 5% headwinds?

[andym]

The last two years of the Obama administration (2015-6) may be the best of all, if the economy is strong and Democrats win the House in 2014. But Democrats will probably have to get more than 5% of the generic ballot preference because of GOP gerrymandering.

Here's what Sam Wang says:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/

"Did I underestimate the tilt of the playing field? Based on how far the red data point is from the black prediction line, the “structural unfairness” may be higher – as much as 5% of the popular vote. That is incredible. Clearly nonpartisan redistricting reform would be in our democracy’s best interests."

----------
So we'll need two things to take the House, a robust economy and a lot of hard work changing the national dialog to credit liberal economic policies. Let's begin to make it happen.

[democrattotheend]

1. I don't think there has ever been a midterm wave in favor of the president's party

Usually wave elections go against the president's party. Even in 1934, the Democrats only gained 9 seats. In 1998, the Democrats gained 5 seats. In 2002, the Republicans gained 8. In every other midterm election since 1934, the president's party has lost seats.

That said, there is a first time for everything, and I am hoping that maybe we will break that precedent if people get tired of Republican obstructionism.

[andym]

4. Yes-- it would have to break an historical trend

but I do think a strong recovery would make it possible...

[democrattotheend]

7. Does good news ever cause wave elections?

I feel like wave elections usually happen when people are angry, because they want to vote the bums out and are willing to cross party lines.

In such a polarized climate, I don't think good economic trends will be enough to cause a wave. Pickups, sure, but not a wave. The only way I could see a wave happening is if a) there is a big scandal regarding House Republicans sufficient to cause people to see the whole party as corrupt and vote them out (like in 1974, and to a lesser extent, 2006), b) Republicans play their hand wrong on the fiscal cliff or do something else that creates a backlash, or 3) the Democrats are successful at painting them as the obstructionists standing in the way of a really popular initiative, like Bush did in 2002 with the Homeland Security bill.

[andym]

13. Past performance does not guarantee future results

is the famous disclaimer on investments.

Hopefully it will hold here too. There's a first time for everything, and if the supply side economic policies of the GOP can be shown to be wrong by a strong economy resulting from ideologically opposed policies, they will lose power.

[southernyankeebelle]

2. Dem have to show up or we will have another 2010

[Nerdette]

3. 2014!

We have a good chance of having huge majorities in the house and senate in 2014. Once we have control of the house and senate, Obama will be able to accomplish a lot (I'm hoping we get a permanent assault weapons and handgun ban installed by the end of Obama's term).

Once Obama's term is over, we need to get another liberal president in control so the right doesn't screw up all of Obama's hard work.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Gun Control is a non starter at the federal level. That's a simple reality.

However, I would like to see a public option added to The ACA, and the Federal Government to finlly end the misguided war on otherwise law abiding pot smokers.

[Nerdette]

9. Why?

Why can't guns be banned at the federal level? I read that Clinton did it in 1994...if only that bill had been permanent and more strict!

[Warren DeMontague]

10. It's not going to happen. Like how the GOP base wants to outlaw birth control. Not happening.

Political Reality.

[cliffordu]

11. rofl.

Nice try.

Fail.

[AllyCat]

12. Welcome to DU!

I see you have met some of our resident gun apologists. It's okay. There are many like you and I who would love to see this. I doubt it will happen, but we can dream, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Either that, or

the audience is not entirely convinced by the 1st act of the play?

[Nerdette]

16. :)

Thanks for understanding! I'm glad there's someone like me out there. I get a lot of harassment for my anti-gun views, but thanks for supporting me!

[Cha]

5. I'm excited about it being a whole different ballgame than 2010..

coming off this win..I know we can do it. I'm thinking the President's Team will be in on the Organizing of mobilizing Voters for this, too!

And, unfortunately, we'll have two freaking years of boner, cantor, ryan ,issa, bachmann, etc etc to highLight why We Must!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

6. The alternatives are unacceptable!

[DFW]

15. The difference is in the ground game

Rove thought he could win with a combination of disenfranchisement of Democratic voters plus a saturation of the airwaves.

Obama's team knew they couldn't match right wing money, so they had to make up for it on the ground. And they did.

The good news is that the structure is still intact.
The bad news is that now the Republicans know what went wrong.
The good news is that they probably won't learn from their mistakes.