House-elections-2014-democrats-poorly-positioned-blue-states">Nate Cohn has a good piece in the New Republic explaining to its mostly liberal readers why Democrats don't have a good chance to regain a majority in the House in 2014, despite the supposedly massive unpopularity of House Republicans. The bottom line: There aren't many target seats (only 17 House Republicans represent districts that voted for Barack Obama in 2012) and Democrats don't seem to be running strong candidates in many of them.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-democr...le/2536932

Democrats have ruined themselves all the way around. No matter how much they blame House Republicans for the shutdown, nobody important believes it.

The 2010 census.

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

Democrats should worry more about keeping the Senate. The GOP only needs six seats, and there are six seats up for election in red states.

(10-07-2013 04:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

Democrats should worry more about keeping the Senate. The GOP only needs six seats, and there are six seats up for election in red states.

You know if Republicans take the House and Senate and get this country back on track where it's supposed to be, Obama will be given all the credit, just like they constantly try to blame a failed economy on Bush after the dems took over the Senate in 2006.

(10-07-2013 04:33 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

Democrats should worry more about keeping the Senate. The GOP only needs six seats, and there are six seats up for election in red states.

You know if Republicans take the House and Senate and get this country back on track where it's supposed to be, Obama will be given all the credit, just like they constantly try to blame a failed economy on Bush after the dems took over the Senate in 2006.

If the GOP takes control of the Senate, it won't matter what Obama or the Democrats have to say. I wouldn't bet the farm on it happening. There is a good chance, but it is not set in stone.

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

In House races that doesn't really matter much.

In NC, 51% of votes went to democrats in 2012, yet the republicans won 9/13 seats.

(10-07-2013 04:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

In House races that doesn't really matter much.

In NC, 51% of votes went to democrats in 2012, yet the republicans won 9/13 seats.

I didn't even catch that. Was he really saying it is a demographics issue?

(10-07-2013 04:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

Democrats should worry more about keeping the Senate. The GOP only needs six seats, and there are six seats up for election in red states.

I'm sure we are. I think Kay Hagan will defeat the GOP candidate in NC. There may be a significant fight in the GOP primary. That should be one of the six they don't take. But you can never take anything for granted. There is little chance that any house seats will change hands here.

You need 2/3 of the senate to over ride a presidential veto.

(10-07-2013 04:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You need 2/3 of the senate to over ride a presidential veto.

yeah, but Obama and the Democrats won't be able to pass any legislation. Not legally, that is.

(10-07-2013 04:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

In House races that doesn't really matter much.

In NC, 51% of votes went to democrats in 2012, yet the republicans won 9/13 seats.

I didn't even catch that. Was he really saying it is a demographics issue?

I assumed he was arguing against your point with his statement.

Census shows an increase of minorities and city-dwellers. These groups are usually overwhelmingly democrat, lending one to assert that republicans would not see gains in 2014.

Maybe I just misinterpreted his intent though.

(10-07-2013 04:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

In House races that doesn't really matter much.

In NC, 51% of votes went to democrats in 2012, yet the republicans won 9/13 seats.

I didn't even catch that. Was he really saying it is a demographics issue?

That wasn't what I was saying at all. The 2010 census required the districts to be redrawn. For example, the NC General Assembly after the 2010 election was under control of the GOP. They thus got to gerrymander to their hearts content. I was answering your question. The 2010 census is why the Democrats will not take control of the House. Given the number of state assemblies that were in the hands of the GOP as a result of the 2010 elections the likelihood that Democrats can take back the House is low at best.

(10-07-2013 05:01 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

In House races that doesn't really matter much.

In NC, 51% of votes went to democrats in 2012, yet the republicans won 9/13 seats.

I didn't even catch that. Was he really saying it is a demographics issue?

That wasn't what I was saying at all. The 2010 census required the districts to be redrawn. For example, the NC General Assembly after the 2010 election was under control of the GOP. They thus got to gerrymander to their hearts content. I was answering your question. The 2010 census is why the Democrats will not take control of the House. Given the number of state assemblies that were in the hands of the GOP as a result of the 2010 elections the likelihood that Democrats can take back the House is low at best.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

(10-07-2013 04:59 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:41 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The 2010 census.

In House races that doesn't really matter much.

In NC, 51% of votes went to democrats in 2012, yet the republicans won 9/13 seats.

I didn't even catch that. Was he really saying it is a demographics issue?

I assumed he was arguing against your point with his statement.

Census shows an increase of minorities and city-dwellers. These groups are usually overwhelmingly democrat, lending one to assert that republicans would not see gains in 2014.

Maybe I just misinterpreted his intent though.

You made the wrong assumption, but that is okay. I was agreeing with him, saying the redrawing the districts because of 2010 census make it very difficult.

Bottom line: It's not getting any easier for the Dems like they had hoped.