Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

I don't think so. They'd realize it's the Republican Congress' fault, and they're the bad guys....only they should be realizing this now. And Bernie should be working to help defeat them. But he's not even trying, and isn't putting any effort in his revolution like Obama was during the primaries (registering people to vote and fundraising for the Democratic downballot).

I think my biggest concern is that people (especially young people) don't comprehend how important Congress is. That's why midterm turnout plummets.

The president isn't really the problem. Now Obama's done a lot of good even by himself and he's definitely preferable to Bush. But Bush had a Democratic Congress for the last two years of his presidency and they passed some good legislation. Even though GOP politics have moved towards brinksmanship and crisis management, I think when one of them is actually the president they have more political implications to worry about which moves them towards more moderate governance. To summarize

Generic Democratic president: wants to govern
Generic Democratic Congress: wants to govern
Generic Republican president: wants to govern
Generic Republican Congress: burn this motherfucker down

Not that Trump or Carson or Cruz would be anything close to generic Republican president, but I honestly don't think something like President Kasich or Romney - with a Democratic Congress to serve as a check - would be that terrible. In fact this is what made 2012 more comforting for me as it became clear Democrats would hold the Senate and by a comfortable margin, meaning even if Romney got elected he wouldn't have carte blanche to repeal Obamacare and sign the Ryan budget day 1.

Of course, as a liberal I would greatly prefer the Dem trifecta, but I guess lately I feel that if Democrats were to have one or the other, I'd rather it be Congress. The current reality is that Democrats have an advantage in the electoral college, can sometimes win the Senate, while the GOP has a monstrous advantage in the House. For any progressive this is the biggest obstacle towards getting anything major done. Single-payer, subsidized college, cap & trade, immigration reform, you name it.

But whatever, Bernie vs. Hillary woo yay.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think my biggest concern is that people (especially young people) don't comprehend how important Congress is. That's why midterm turnout plummets.

The president isn't really the problem. Now Obama's done a lot of good even by himself and he's definitely preferable to Bush. But Bush had a Democratic Congress for the last two years of his presidency and they passed some good legislation. Even though GOP politics have moved towards brinksmanship and crisis management, I think when one of them is actually the president they have more political implications to worry about which moves them towards more moderate governance. To summarize

Generic Democratic president: wants to govern
Generic Democratic Congress: wants to govern
Generic Republican president: wants to govern
Generic Republican Congress: burn this motherfucker down

Not that Trump or Carson or Cruz would be anything close to generic Republican president, but I honestly don't think something like President Kasich or Romney - with a Democratic Congress to serve as a check - would be that terrible. In fact this is what made 2012 more comforting for me as it became clear Democrats would hold the Senate and by a comfortable margin, meaning even if Romney got elected he wouldn't have carte blanche to repeal Obamacare and sign the Ryan budget day 1.

Of course, as a liberal I would greatly prefer the Dem trifecta, but I guess lately I feel that if Democrats were to have one or the other, I'd rather it be Congress. The current reality is that Democrats have an advantage in the electoral college, can sometimes win the Senate, while the GOP has a monstrous advantage in the House. For any progressive this is the biggest obstacle towards getting anything major done. Single-payer, subsidized college, cap & trade, immigration reform, you name it.

But whatever, Bernie vs. Hillary woo yay.

You are young too but clearly an outlier from the Sanders craze. How did that happen?

-Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress for the remaining 6 years. He got stuff passed.

 

[dramatis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk_0IXXjYCc

Jeb Bush Googles "Donald Trump is a jerk"

Where's my BUSTED graphic, Makai

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

I missed the Socialism discussion, but what always depresses me about this poll is the Atheism number. At least being unwilling to vote for a socialist is based on an actual economic stance. I'll never understand the public hatred of atheists. It's one reason I don't apply the label to myself, despite the fact that I do not believe in any god.

So I'm watching The Daily Show and Trevor Noah is interviewing Rand Paul. Like Larry Wilmore, Noah's grown on me. I don't think either are as good as their predecessors, but they've become enjoyable for the most part over time. Unfortunately, Noah doesn't seem to very knowledgeable about much. At least, that's the impression I got from the interview with Rand. He asks some good questions, but doesn't really follow up with rebuttals. I don't think he knows the actual material well, like Jon Stewart did.

Of course, this is what I saw that was aired on T.V. Maybe the extended interview is better.

I agree, and I also wonder if the choice of topics was prearranged, since they are all things that sound OK in the abstract.

Sadly, Larry Wilmore is not growing on me-- I liked him reasonably well early on, but less over time. Two big reasons: his delivery (particularly the need to follow up every joke with a comment or laughing at himself), and his relatively weak supporting cast. Some of them are awful. Mitigating comment-- I just saw the Oscar Snubs bit from last night at it was great.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't think so. They'd realize it's the Republican Congress' fault, and they're the bad guys....

You give the electorate too much credit. Many people (most, maybe?) don't know who's responsible for what.

 

[Veritigo_X]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...2m-weekly-ad-spending-goal-latest-buy-n496021

Trump slashed ad spending. Fuck!

I'm not convinced this is a big deal since he still has a big media presence without needing to spend money on ads. But I bet the spending will ramp back up to the $2 million mark in the next couple weeks.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You are young too but clearly an outlier from the Sanders craze. How did that happen?

-Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress for the remaining 6 years. He got stuff passed.

He got stuff passed that was spun from GOP priorities like welfare reform and repealing Glass-Stegall.

Don't forget that his Congress also shut down the government and then impeached him.

 

[NeoXChaos]

He got stuff passed that was spun from GOP priorities like welfare reform and repealing Glass-Stegall.

Don't forget that his Congress also shut down the government and then impeached him.

and Eisenhower through first 2 years of Clinton had a Democratic House and they got stuff passed.

You got

-CRA
-VRA
-Interstate Highway
-Immigration Reform
-Assault Rifle Ban
-2 Amendments
-2 States added


and a bunch of stuff too many to list between that span of 40 years.

 

[Metaphoreus]

He got stuff passed that was spun from GOP priorities like welfare reform and repealing Glass-Stegall.

Don't forget that his Congress also shut down the government and then impeached him.

Welcome to a world where not everyone agrees on everything and people have to compromise.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Welcome to a world where not everyone agrees on everything and people have to compromise.

Did I ever say this was a bad thing?

I'm just saying as a progressive interested in furthering progressive causes, a GOP Congress is not the way to go as Congress sets the legislative agenda, no matter who the president is. GOP Congress + Dem Clinton gave us compromised right-wing legislation, Dem Congress + GOP Bush gave us compromised left-wing legislation.

I would really appreciate you not putting words into my mouth.

BTW what's your idea of "compromise" for impeaching the president? Because you really only have two options there, do it or don't. I guess they didn't remove a democratically elected leader from office, so that's cool.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Welcome to a world where not everyone agrees on everything and people have to compromise.

Can you let your side know about this idea?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Did I ever say this was a bad thing?

I'm just saying as a progressive interested in furthering progressive causes, a GOP Congress is not the way to go as Congress sets the legislative agenda, no matter who the president is. GOP Congress + Dem Clinton gave us compromised right-wing legislation, Dem Congress + GOP Bush gave us compromised left-wing legislation.

I would really appreciate you not putting words into my mouth.

BTW what's your idea of "compromise" for impeaching the president? Because you really only have two options there, do it or don't. I guess they didn't remove a democratically elected leader from office, so that's cool.

No need to be so hostile. You seemed to be downplaying Clinton's legislative accomplishments because they were spun from Republican priorities. But, of course. That's how a Democratic president can enact legislation via a Republican Congress.

And, naturally, I was referring to the legislation as compromise, not the impeachment.

Can you let your side know about this idea?

Y'all are the ones who frequent Free Republic. You tell them.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I may be remembering wrong, but Welfare had a lot of negative press coming into the Clinton years, and I think he campaigned on reforming it even before he lost Congress. Clinton pitched himself as an economic moderate pretty hard.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I may be remembering wrong, but Welfare had a lot of negative press coming into the Clinton years, and I think he campaigned on reforming it even before he lost Congress. Clinton pitched himself as an economic moderate pretty hard.

is that because we came off of a 12 year Reagan-Bush doctrine?

 

[Aaron Strife]

No need to be so hostile. You seemed to be downplaying Clinton's legislative accomplishments because they were spun from Republican priorities. But, of course. That's how a Democratic president can enact legislation via a Republican Congress.

And, naturally, I was referring to the legislation as compromise, not the impeachment.

I'm downplaying Clinton's legislative achievements from a progressive/liberal angle. Yes, he was able to pass legislation with a GOP Congress. I don't think that legislation is anything worth cheering about for a liberal and that a Democratic Congress would be preferable.

You seem to think I have a problem with compromise at all, which I do not. There will always be Republicans (or conservatives, anyway) and in split government it's necessary to work with them to get anything done. But the grandiose, sweeping changes Bernie is proposing - or even the modest reforms Hillary supports - are going to have to happen without them.

Even Obama has gotten some things done by negotiating with Boehner, like the sequester or TPP. Again, not huge liberal priorities and I'd rather have had him negotiating with Pelosi on free college.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm downplaying Clinton's legislative achievements from a progressive/liberal angle. Yes, he was able to pass legislation with a GOP Congress. I don't think that legislation is anything worth cheering about for a liberal and that a Democratic Congress would be preferable.

You seem to think I have a problem with compromise at all, which I do not. There will always be Republicans (or conservatives, anyway). But the grandiose, sweeping changes Bernie is proposing - or even the modest reforms Hillary supports - are going to have to happen without them.

Fair enough.

 

[Makai]

Where's my BUSTED graphic, Makai

Humble programmer here. I just crop images.

I know there's a handful of graphic designers in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SC1uUiT9s&t=0m52s

 

[User 406]

Of course, as a liberal I would greatly prefer the Dem trifecta, but I guess lately I feel that if Democrats were to have one or the other, I'd rather it be Congress.

Nope nope nope nope nope NOPE nope nope the fuck noping nope

 

[disastermouse]

AC360's about to cut to Trump, let's see if sempai noticed me.

And this is why politics is great on GAF.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm downplaying Clinton's legislative achievements from a progressive/liberal angle. Yes, he was able to pass legislation with a GOP Congress. I don't think that legislation is anything worth cheering about for a liberal and that a Democratic Congress would be preferable.

You seem to think I have a problem with compromise at all, which I do not. There will always be Republicans (or conservatives, anyway) and in split government it's necessary to work with them to get anything done. But the grandiose, sweeping changes Bernie is proposing - or even the modest reforms Hillary supports - are going to have to happen without them.

Even Obama has gotten some things done by negotiating with Boehner, like the sequester or TPP. Forgive me for not dancing in the streets because the government has actually functioned in some way.

The idea of ramming through legislation like single payer and minimum wage with only single party support and no input from the other side is disheartening to the idea of a functional government no matter what side you are on. I wish it did not have to come down to that.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Aw man, O'Malley made the cut for the dem debate. I was really hoping it'd be Hillary-Bernie 1 on 1.

 

[HylianTom]

Rubio on Fox this morning:

BAIER: If the gang of eight bill came up today, would you sign it?

RUBIO: We're not passing the gang of eight bill when I'm president.

 

[Teggy]

Rubio on Fox this morning:

How could he sign it if he's never at work? <rimshot>

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nope nope nope nope nope NOPE nope nope the fuck noping nope

This might be the best argument I've ever seen against that hypothesis.

I want to say a Dem Senate would be able to stop anyone truly radical, but Thomas did get in on a 52-48 vote. FWIW the other three conservatives were confirmed by Republican Senates, Kennedy was a compromise.

Oh well, best to win the trifecta and not have to worry about it at all!

The idea of ramming through legislation like single payer and minimum wage with only single party support and no input from the other side is disheartening to the idea of a functional government no matter what side you are on. You wish it did not have to come down to that

I agree, but that's the reality.

I was actually really bummed about immigration reform because that did receive significant GOP support in the Senate, but not enough to get the House off its ass I guess.

I do wish we had two viable options for governance in this country. One party representing the mainstream left, one representing the Clinton fiscal conservatism/social moderation. But the GOP have become slaves to ideology and the Democrats have to house both of them.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I'm really fearful that Sanders would get elected, pass nothing in the face of an obstructionist Congress, then all the youngin's supporting him now would be awoken to the harsh realities of slow progress against a unified opposition.

I would be worried about this for Hillary too with the stranglehold Republicans have over the House. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I'm not sure what needs to happen for Democrats to have a chance to gain control: the Supreme Court ruling against gerrymandering?

Hillary voters want to win the election. What do Sanders supporters want, a golden goose?

Bernie can find the goose. He's found geese before and he can find them again. They congregate near ponds.

Clinton's attacks here are clumsy but she's not attacking single payer. She's attacking Bernie's plan to get rid of what we have now, in favor of universal health care... being administered by individual state governments. And we saw how that worked out in Republican states with Obamacare. So while it's great for states like New Hampshire or California with Democratic governors, states with Republican governors are fucked. She's also pushing him to releasing his plan to pay for the $15 trillion price tag, because he promised his paid leave plan was the only one in which he would raise taxes on the middle class, but with such a high price tag, well...

I don't get the rationale of giving so much control to the states. Even Hillary's 1993 health care reform had "regional alliances".

I'm glad she's pushing him to release his plan to pay for it. I think it can be done, you just need the right knowledgeable people in charge.

Listen, Clinton supports single payer, as do many other Democratic legislators, as well as free tuition, but they're not so naive to promise things that can't be accomplished. The 2009/2010 Obamacare shenanigans weren't that long ago. Do you forget? Sanders is appealing to people's emotions but he's just letting them dream. It's naive.

Please, that's what politicians love to do. Calling it naive is a defeatist attitude. Is it possible Bernie will not be able to pass single payer? Of course, but it's a fight worth taking. It's not like he'll scrap Obamacare before it happens. If you want to say Hillary has more realistic objectives I can concede that:

• Defend the Affordable Care Act. Hillary will continue to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against Republican efforts to repeal it. She'll build on it to expand affordable coverage, slow the growth of overall health care costs (including prescription drugs), and make it possible for providers to deliver the very best care to patients.
• Lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The average deductible for employer-sponsored health plans rose from $1,240 in 2002 to about $2,500 in 2013. American families are being squeezed by rising out-of-pocket health care costs. Hillary believes that workers should share in slower growth of national health care spending through lower costs.
• Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.

Maybe she's outlined it more in her speeches, but the lack of specifics is important. Expand on it how? Lower out-of-pocket costs how? Isn't that cost decided by private insurance companies and hospitals? Demand lower prescription costs how? Again, how will that work for those not on Obamacare? It all seems very incremental without any intention of truly attacking the larger problems. Maybe you don't even need universal healthcare to do that. I honestly need to learn more about the healthcare system in the US. It seems like an overly complicated mess to me.

 

[B-Dubs]

And this is why politics is great on GAF.

Hey, I got $50 on Trump with the payout at $300. If I can swing this thing so I win you best believe I'm gonna do it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

is that because we came off of a 12 year Reagan-Bush doctrine?

Pretty much.

I looked it up, and Clinton had pledged to end "Welfare as we know it" when running in 92.

I've mentioned this before, but younger less-liberal me was quite enthused with a moderate Democrat. I'm sure there were lots of others. At the time, adhering to a party platform was more of a negative whereas now we have "party purity" arguments on both sides. That's why Perot was popular, he wasn't beholden to any existing party.

Things have really, really changed since the early 90s.

 

[disastermouse]

Pretty much.

I looked it up, and Clinton had pledged to end "Welfare as we know it" when running in 92.

I've mentioned this before, but younger less-liberal me was quite enthused with a moderate Democrat. I'm sure there were lots of others. At the time, adhering to a party platform was more of a negative whereas now we have "party purity" arguments on both sides. That's why Perot was popular, he wasn't beholden to any existing party.

Things have really, really changed since the early 90s.

Yes they have. Pleated khakis are fucking eradicated.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I would be worried about this for Hillary too with the stranglehold Republicans have over the House. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I'm not sure what needs to happen for Democrats to have a chance to gain control: the Supreme Court ruling against gerrymandering?

I think the difference is that Hillary supporters are a bit more grounded in this regard and know that with a GOP Congress, not much is getting done. The best you could hope for is Hillary co-opting some of the Republicans' priorities and putting a liberal spin on them like Bill did to get legislation passed. But that would require the GOP to have a realistic platform, theirs right now consists of

1) Repeal Obamacare
2) Eh

And if Trump is the nominee, add

3) Build a fence and make Mexico pay for it
4) Deport Muslims and Mexicans

I feel many of Bernie's younger supporters would see him get inaugurated and then wonder why we don't have single-payer on day 1.

I have a friend who's supporting Bernie. His biggest pet issue is Citizens United and was annoyed that Obama hasn't done anything to reverse the decision. I asked him what would be different if Bernie had been president under the same circumstances (GOP Congress, same SCOTUS). He didn't have an answer.

 

[Cybit]

I'm really fearful that Sanders would get elected, pass nothing in the face of an obstructionist Congress, then all the youngin's supporting him now would be awoken to the harsh realities of slow progress against a unified opposition.

I'm kidding, they'll just say Bernie's a corporate shill and not show up for the next election.

I laugh, and then remember 2010 and 2014 (and watching my young progressive peers here [Seattle] hate on Obama for not getting enough "stuff done"). The authoritarian streak on both sides is getting pretty damn real. (Not surprising seeing the gridlock we've had for so long now)

 

[Daniel B·]

The reason the GOP did great in the last Mid-Terms, was due to what I stated previously:

Also 2016, will be a repudiation of the entire political establishment, of which Obama and Clinton are very much a part.

You know Obama's Presidency will probably be remembered as the greatest mistake ever made by the establishment, because he promised so much, and he gave us the exact opposite, with the TPP and the infringement of our constitutional rigits.

Let's say Bernie becomes President, and unlike Obama, his mandate is big enough to win a usable (not fleeting, for five seconds) Supermajority in The Senate, but he doesn't quite re-take The House (not that we shouldn't also be fighting hard for that too); despite the GOP dragging their heels, in The House, I am super confidant that Bernie would make the very best of the situation, including using the full power of the Office Of President, to uphold his idealls, and so, when the Mid-Terms come around again, the American people will see that he's on the right course (e.g. no TPP sellout policies), and turn out in big numbers, to give Bernie that little extra support, to remove the final roadblock to revitalising America's neglected Middle Class .

 

[NeoXChaos]

Gerrymandering only account for generous sake 10 seats gain for the Democrats. It the geography too that plays a part.

 

[Yellowtail]

President Obama &#8207;@POTUS
new LA gov edwards just expanded medicaid; gets 1000s coverage & helps the state budget. more states need to follow

Obama stanning.

 

[Basileus777]

Also:

Sam Wang has published his breakdown on how the delegate math could shake-out:
GOP Nomination Rules Tilt the Playing Field toward Donald Trump

The pressure for Everyone Not Named Rubio to get out after New Hampshire is going to be insane.

This is pretty damning for those saying that the proportional nature of the primaries will keep Trump at bay.

What this analysis shows is that in a divided field of candidates, a candidate polling at 30 percent or above before Iowa and New Hampshire might reasonably expect to win 50 percent of the delegates awarded through Super Tuesday, an initial step toward an overall majority. Today, Donald Trump meets this criterion.

The mirror image to Trump's advantage is Senator Marco Rubio's disadvantage. In my simulations, Rubio’s current support translates to about 10 percent of delegates, even after he picks up votes from a narrowing field. This outcome is expected whenever four candidates survive

Finally, if no candidate gets to an outright majority, the convention becomes genuinely suspenseful. Party insiders should not necessarily be consoled by this idea. Delegates are usually selected for loyalty to their candidate. If current trends were to persist, the convention floor in Cleveland would be filled with close to 1,000 Trump delegates. These delegates won’t be from the usual pool of party loyalists. They seem like an unpromising starting point for elites to work their magic.

 

[And_Gignac]

Selzer, the pollster, noted that Sanders scores well with the types of voters who put Barack Obama over the top in Iowa in 2008. Sanders is supported by 62 percent of political independents who plan to attend the Democratic caucuses, compared with 21 percent for Clinton. He also leads 59 percent to 27 percent among those younger than 45 and by 52 percent to 34 percent among people who plan to attend their first caucuses.

Terrible news for Clinton. This enthusiasm is probably under represented in the polls.

 

[Pryce]

He also leads 59 percent to 27 percent among those younger than 45 and by 52 percent to 34 percent among people who plan to attend their first caucuses.

Even if Bernie doesn't win, I hope the Dems remember this in 4 or 8 years.

There seems to be a real liberal push for young voters.

 

[theprodigy]

Why are the Iowa caucus rules so complicated on the Democratic side?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Even if Bernie doesn't win, I hope the Dems remember this in 4 or 8 years.

There seems to be a real liberal push for young voters.

Fuck, I hope they remember it in two years!

 

[NeoXChaos]

Even if Bernie doesn't win, I hope the Dems remember this in 4 or 8 years.

There seems to be a real liberal push for young voters.

forget 4 how about two. We need the IA Governorship. We need the WI Governorship. We need the MI Governorship. We need the FL and OH Governorship. etc

Look at Louisiana & Kentucky to see how quickly things change when you change parties.

Aaron's state was 4,000 votes away in 2010 from becoming the next WI.

 

[VendettaRed07]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/08/01/how-did-rich-connecticut-morph-into-one-of-americas-worst-performing-economies/#2715e4857a0b2e3c1375270e

Some state level poligaf. Disagree with some parts and some of the accusations but the writer basically argued that CT is shit because over the last 26 years democratic politicians have done nothing but raise taxes and have nothing to show for it and haven't invested people's tax money into anything.

Which I can't really disagree with. Once I'm done with school at Uconn I'm going to have to move out. There are no jobs, cost of living is insane and taxes are highest in New England, and people get nothing in return for it, so you might as well live somewhere else.

 

[Holmes]

Why are the Iowa caucus rules so complicated on the Democratic side?

Because it involves the Democratic party.

 

[Y2Kev]

Lol @ wehner's op Ed in the nyt today. This guy is such a huge worm.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I think the difference is that Hillary supporters are a bit more grounded in this regard and know that with a GOP Congress, not much is getting done. The best you could hope for is Hillary co-opting some of the Republicans' priorities and putting a liberal spin on them like Bill did to get legislation passed. But that would require the GOP to have a realistic platform, theirs right now consists of

1) Repeal Obamacare
2) Eh

And if Trump is the nominee, add

3) Build a fence and make Mexico pay for it
4) Deport Muslims and Mexicans

I feel many of Bernie's younger supporters would see him get inaugurated and then wonder why we don't have single-payer on day 1.

I have a friend who's supporting Bernie. His biggest pet issue is Citizens United and was annoyed that Obama hasn't done anything to reverse the decision. I asked him what would be different if Bernie had been president under the same circumstances (GOP Congress, same SCOTUS). He didn't have an answer.

That's a big hope. I really don't know if Republicans would be any more willing to work with her than Obama.

I don't know how true it is that Hillary supporters are more grounded, but let's go with it. I admittedly might have been too hard in Obama back in 2012, but it stemmed from his drone policy, the failure to close Gitmo and probably another issue. I was fully aware of the opposition he faced prevented his agenda from proceeding. To Bernie's credit, he's said they need more people voting to get Democratic legislation to pass.

Holmes might be right that Bernie should be doing more to raise money for Democrats. I don't think he's obligated to, especially since the party isn't going to help him in any fashion, but it would be the right thing to do.

Also, I think the willingness to govern for Democratic Presidents, Republican presidents, and a Democratic Congress versus the obstructionist Republican Congress is true, at least now. It almost makes a Republican president sound desirable...at least a President Kasich and maybe Christie sound okay.

Gerrymandering only account for generous sake 10 seats gain for the Democrats. It the geography too that plays a part.

You would have to look carefully at the changes made after the 2010 census. Of course keeping the opposing party to the president in Congress is common, I just think the tables have been tilted to make it harder for Democrats to make any ground that will continue if a Republican were to take the White House.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Most political handicappers put the likelihood of Democrats ever taking back the House dependent on a Republican winning the WH looking at historical precedence.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-clinton/

Democrats currently have a fairly large deficit in the House: The Republican majority is 247-188**, meaning that Democrats would need to win 30 seats next year to take control. Let&#8217;s assume that Clinton is elected but that Democrats do not win control of the House. If that happens, Clinton would have at most three more opportunities to preside over a Democratic House takeover &#8212; a midterm (2018), a second presidential election (2020), and a second midterm (2022), assuming she wins reelection.

Midterm elections almost always go poorly for the president&#8217;s party. After the GOP&#8217;s 2014 midterm victories, which added 13 seats to the party&#8217;s already impressive House majority, the president&#8217;s party has now lost ground in the House in 36 of 39 midterm elections dating back to the Civil War. Unusual circumstances were at play in all three exceptions: 1934 (Franklin Roosevelt&#8217;s first midterm against the discredited Republicans), 1998 (Bill Clinton&#8217;s second midterm, when his party benefited from a great economy and GOP overreach on impeaching the popular incumbent president), and 2002 (George W. Bush&#8217;s first midterm, conducted under the shadow of 9/11). The presidential party&#8217;s gains in all three of these years were in the single digits.

Perhaps a President Hillary Clinton could preside over a historic midterm breakthrough for her party, but there&#8217;s little reason to expect it far in advance. Not only does history advise against it, but so do the Democrats&#8217; current problems turning out their younger, more diverse electorate in non-presidential years.

That leaves 2020, when a President Clinton would try to win a second term and a fourth straight Democratic term in the White House. Reelected presidents almost always gain seats in the House, at least in the 13 elections since 1900 when a reelected chief executive won a second term (or when a deceased president&#8217;s successor wins what would be his first elected term, like Lyndon Johnson in 1964). In those elections, the president&#8217;s party netted an average of 19 House seats.

Let&#8217;s say Democrats net 19 seats in 2016 and 19 more in 2020, which given the current maps and overall political outlook in the House would be two very successful elections. That&#8217;s a 38-seat net gain, or eight more than they need to win the House. However, there&#8217;s a midterm to be held in between those elections, and Democrats could only afford to lose eight seats, no more, to control the House in 2021 under this scenario. In only nine of the last 39 midterms has the president&#8217;s party lost eight or fewer seats. Again, one can concoct scenarios whereby a President Hillary Clinton controls the House during her term. They are just ones that take a tremendous leap of faith to predict.

One other point: It&#8217;s possible that the next best opportunity Democrats will have to take the House is 2022, which is after new state congressional maps go into effect in most states following the decennial census. Democrats are using the next census as a rallying cry for voters to focus more on statewide and state legislative elections, whose victors determine new district lines in most places. This is a worthy goal for Democrats. However, if Clinton is in the White House, is it really reasonable to expect that Democrats will do very well in 2018, when most governorships (and some state legislative seats) are decided, or in 2020&#8217;s state legislative elections? Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures found that the president&#8217;s party has lost net state legislative seats in 27 of the last 29 midterm elections, and Democrats performed better in gubernatorial elections while President Bush was in office than when President Obama has been in office. Democrats could benefit from legislative elections conducted in 2020&#8217;s presidential year, but remember that the next election would be 2022 &#8212; a midterm &#8212; where the historical midterm trend might dull any edge Democrats would get from improved maps.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Lol @ wehner's op Ed in the nyt today. This guy is such a huge worm.

I remember when he was PoliGAF's chosen one.

 

[B-Dubs]

I remember when he was PoliGAF's chosen one.

Who?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Who?

Anthony Weiner, although I can't find his op-ed and have just noticed that Y2kev spelt Wehner, so perhaps not.

 

[Pryce]

Fuck, I hope they remember it in two years!

forget 4 how about two. We need the IA Governorship. We need the WI Governorship. We need the MI Governorship. We need the FL and OH Governorship. etc

Look at Louisiana & Kentucky to see how quickly things change when you change parties.

Aaron's state was 4,000 votes away in 2010 from becoming the next WI.

Well, yeah. Of course. I strictly speaking in terms of presidental races.

If/when Bernie loses, maybe they can get him on the campaign trail in two years if he's still up for it. If he can get this buzz right now I don't see why he couldn't do it again or for other Dems.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Who?

Peter Wehner from the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Peter Wehner from the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

definitely not Weiner, then.