Posted on 10/02/2015 1:19:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
For liberals hoping to see Democrats retake the House will be sadly disappointed next year, as House Republicans look pretty solid going into 2016. In January, Stuart Rothenberg had this to say about the chances Democrats might take back the lower chamber:
…30 seats is a big number. Since 1950, gains that large have occurred six times during midterm elections, when partisan waves often appear, but only twice in presidential years, in 1964 and 1980. And that’s an important reason why the GOP starts as the clear favorite to retain control of the House in 2016.
According to Roll Call, Democrats do have something going for them that will allow them to at least gain some seats. It’s a presidential year, Hillary is still the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, and that means higher voter turnout.
This means absolutely nothing if Democrats have no one to run in competitive districts, and right now; there’s about a dozen races where they don’t have anyone to challenge the sitting Republican. Case in point, Illinois and New York would be prime pick-up opportunities for Democrats if they could find a sentient being to put on the ballot:
Places where Democrats are finding it challenging to find top recruits include New York’s Syracuse-based 24th District. Freshman GOP Rep. John Katko won here in the 2014 GOP wave, despite President Barack Obama having carried it by a 16-point margin two years earlier. In a presidential year, the district would have a strong Democratic lean. But Democrats have yet to find a nominee to take on Katko.
Recruitment is also proving problematic in Illinois. GOP Reps. Rodney Davis and Mike Bost both hold seats in districts with an even partisan split, making them prime pick-up opportunities. But Democrats still don’t have top-tier recruits in place there.
Additionally, the New York Times’ Nate Cohn noted after the 2014 midterms that given how the House is set up, it’s not inconceivable to have a solid Republican majority there for the next generation. Rob Simms, executive director of the National Republican Campaign Committee, commented that Democrats might have problems recruiting people to run against Republicans in these deep-blue states because they’re already in power in their respective localities.
“Why would you give that up … to come to D.C. to be in the minority for what could be several cycles,” said Simms. He has a point, and Democrats are exactly strong at the state-level either.
As for the Senate, it’s more shaky for Republicans. It’s possible that they could retain the majority, but Democrats just needs to focus on the states that Obama has won twice, though the odds that Republicans retain control increase if Sen. Pat Toomey can hold on in Pennsylvania. Yet, the executive director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Ward Baker, is promising a fight. They’ve already begun spending to defend their majority in the upper chamber:
“I don’t know what they’re going to do over there [at the DSCC],” he says, “but I can promise you this: I hope they are ready for a fight, because we are going to bring it to them.”
This time around, the initial conditions appear ideal for Democrats: defending just two competitive seats (Nevada and Colorado), strong offensive opportunities in six states that Obama won twice and presidential-level voter turnout, which tends to benefit Democrats.
[…]
At the same time, as helpful as the map is for Democrats, it’s not as bountiful as the one Republicans profited from last cycle.
Based on 2012 presidential results, the GOP’s advantage was far greater when comparing its top six pickup opportunities in 2014 (Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, all of which Republicans won) with the top six for Democrats next year (Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). In the last presidential election, Mitt Romney carried the six top GOP targets in 2014 by an average of 19 points, while Obama in 2012 carried the six top Democratic targets in 2016 by an average of just 6 points, with a 17-point victory in his home state of Illinois a notable outlier.
For Republicans, the aim is clear: Keep Democrats from netting more than three seats next year.
The gerrymandering job they did in 2010 is actually pretty solid. It’s why Obama is moving refugees and Section 8 into the suburbs as quickly as he can.
Off topic, but I have seen a number of formerly nice middle class areas go ghetto, when too many Section 8 residents occupy a neighborhood. Sad to see. And they vote Democrat, so politically, that would be why Obama wants this movement of people to happen.
They know their time is short.
This makes a lot of sense as to why they want to open the floodgates to nice neighborhoods/areas.
I believe that Maryland is re-working their districts so that there may actually be more than one Republican coming from there. O’Malley altered the districts terribly.
So, in other words, more of the same
If patriots can possibly elect a 2/3 conservative-controlled majority in the Senate, then they need to do so. Although the “horse has already escaped the barn” with respect to impeaching and removing lawless Obama, a 2/3 conservative senate majority will give Congress the power to impeach and remove constitution-ignoring activist justices from the Supreme Court.
Remember in November ’16!
With Biden and Clinton as the Dem, and Bernie as a third partier, you can kiss all down-ticket votes goodbye. Let’s make it happen.
Ya, cuz a Republican House has accomplished soooo much. It could have been worse with a Dim House you say? How so? From where I sit, the death of the republic is either a ‘heart-attack’(D) or a slow, terminal cancer(R)........
So many things can happen, and as we've seen in the past it really only takes a single Republican to so something so stupid that it affects the entire party.
These types of assessments and "polls" literally mean NOTHING right now. Fact is, aside from us political junkies, political commentators/talking head shows and the policy wonks, the average Joe isn't going to start paying attention until after the first week in September, 2016.
Unless we defeat the GOPe dominated Congress-they elected Boehner their leader with fewer than 5% willing to take him out-by opposing them in primaries and if they win those third party candidates or write-in candidates in general elections America continues to go downhill.
The Democrats will do the same if they win so why worry.
MORE THAN 200 OF THE REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE AND ALL BUT A HANDFUL IN THE SENATE ARE NOT AUTHENTIC CONSERVATIVES.....
They are no longer even trying to be discreet about it.
http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods
SCOTUS cleared the way for them by ruling last session that they could use “disparate impact” to pursue discrimination claims.
I’ve also seen Democrats accuse Mitt Romney of being a dog-abusing polygamist who went around giving people cancer. And that the GOP had declared a War on Women. And it WORKED!
So yeah, next November is a LOOOOONG way away.
Good heavens hot air needs an editor/proofreader!
And if that looks like it won’t work, he’ll declare martial law some way and stop the election.
I foresee a lot of bloodshed in the near future. These people are not able to coexist with us and we will not take their crap. Ammo up, and be alert.
That is fishy....I mean Section 8 is rent reimbursement...HUD employees ought not be conspiring with landlords under the table...
“House Republicans in solid shape for 2016 elections”
As the fat lady said: “What Difference Does It Make?”
Remember all their broken promises from the 2010 campaign?
From the 2012 campaign?
From the 2014 campaign?
I know, but it is something ACORN would do. That is who we suspected were making the calls.
People who live where they want without working for it are known as "squatters."
I have a friend who used to live in Johannesburg, South Africa. She woke up one morning with a family camped in her backyard using their water hose. She and her husband were able to run them off but what if the Feds said that you legally could not run them off?
Sounds like we are heading in that direction.
If it is elitist for me to work hard to be able to live in a nice area where other people take care of the lawns and their houses, then call me an elitist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.