HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Nate Silver ~ Democrats U...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:38 AM

Nate Silver ~ Democrats Unlikely to Regain House in 2014

Democrats did not have as strong a performance in races for the United States House of Representatives last week as they did in the contests for the Senate and the presidency. Instead, Republicans retained control of the chamber.

But Democrats did regain some ground in the House. Although several races remain uncalled, Democrats would wind up with 201 seats in the House if all races are assigned to the current leader in the vote count – an improvement from the 193 seats Democrats held after the 2010 midterm elections. That would leave Democrats needing to pick up 17 seats to win control of the chamber in 2014.

Although 17 seats is not an extraordinary number, both historical precedent in midterm election years and a deeper examination of this year’s results would argue strongly against Democrats being able to gain that many seats.

There is also reason to suspect that Democrats are unlikely to sustain the sort of losses in the House that they did in 2010. But odds are that the electoral climate in 2014 will be somewhere between neutral and Republican-leaning, rather than favoring Democrats.



http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/democrats-unlikely-to-regain-house-in-2014/

I hope Nate is wrong here!

36 replies, 3501 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nate Silver ~ Democrats Unlikely to Regain House in 2014 (Original post)
boston bean Nov 2012 OP
still_one Nov 2012 #1
boston bean Nov 2012 #2
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #8
cali Nov 2012 #10
still_one Nov 2012 #20
cali Nov 2012 #21
still_one Nov 2012 #22
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #31
reformist2 Nov 2012 #3
frazzled Nov 2012 #5
Jade Fox Nov 2012 #4
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #6
Jade Fox Nov 2012 #7
99Forever Nov 2012 #17
ananda Nov 2012 #9
dlwickham Nov 2012 #18
davidn3600 Nov 2012 #11
upi402 Nov 2012 #13
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #15
behindenemylins Nov 2012 #12
Hugin Nov 2012 #19
blue_onyx Nov 2012 #14
MineralMan Nov 2012 #16
dsc Nov 2012 #23
MineralMan Nov 2012 #24
julian09 Nov 2012 #33
ProSense Nov 2012 #25
dsc Nov 2012 #28
exboyfil Nov 2012 #26
Kalidurga Nov 2012 #27
ProSense Nov 2012 #30
grantcart Nov 2012 #29
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #32
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #34
pstokely Nov 2012 #36
Texas Lawyer Nov 2012 #35

Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:41 AM

1. A year ago we were also told the Democrats would not win the Senate. Instead we have a 10 seat

majority

Things changes in the blink of an eye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:45 AM

2. here's to hoping things will change!

it will take some work with all the gerrymandered house seats.

I think that the Democratic Party ought to put up extremely liberal candidates and throw money at the races.

I know this goes against the conventional wisdom, but if the differences were clear, especially on social programs like medicare/social security and health care, we might win some votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:08 AM

8. We were also told that Obama probably would not get re-elected.

Because no president since WXYZ has EVER been re-elected with an unemployment rate at blahblahblahblahblah. And, that was one of several scenarios they were throwing at us. Normally, I trust Nate Silver, but that's because he makes his prognostications based on actual data, unlike the others who are incapable of thinking that the electorate will ever stray from past patterns. He's not doing that here. I DO think that all the gerrymandering will make it very difficult, especially here down in the South. But, like you point out, thing can and do change. We don't know how and when, and neither does Nate Silver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:24 AM

10. that's not true in the house

where more and more seats are in gerrymandered districts and with the South and states like Oklahoma. In addition, we lucked out big time this year with candidates for the Senate like Akin and Mourdock.

Nate is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:51 AM

20. even without akin a mourdock we still would have the majority in the Senate. As far as the house

goes, even there with the gerrymandering we picked up seats. Two years is a long time, and this election showed that the tea party is losing their hold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:59 AM

21. we gained the majority of those seats in CA

Yes, we would have held the Senate, but the House is a totally different story. Unless something unforeseen and startling happens, we won't gain back the House in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:06 PM

22. we are moving the right direction. We just got another seat in Arizona today. Things are changing

The republicans have lost the gender vote, and the Latino vote for decades

It will happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:37 PM

31. I agree with the gerrymandered comments, but

its still possible to pick up a few more seats in '14. Here in Fl, despite a gerrymandered redistricting, Dems managed to take away the R's supermajority in the State Legislature. Despite moving to a "safer" Congressional District, Allen West lost. The Governor remains highly unpopular, and is up for reelection. And my own Congressman, Bill Young, is difficult to mount a campaign against but he's getting old. When he retires, Dems have a fair chance at his seat.
Its possible changing demographics could flip a few Congressional seats in states like Texas. Possible also is a scandal hitting a Rep Congressman in an otherwise safe seat.
So, while I agree with Nate that taking over the House in '14 is unlikely, I do think it's possible to pick up another handful of seats, leaving Dems only several seats shy of a majority in the next presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:46 AM

3. We need to enact districting/anti-gerrymandering laws.


We need to come up with a set of rules for determining how districts are carved out, a set of rules that will make sure the delegation from any state bears some resemblance to the political leanings of the people who live in that state. In other words, if a state votes 55%/45% in one direction, then there is something seriously wrong if the delegation is 90% the other way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:53 AM

5. Although we Democrats do it just as much

Here in Illinois, the 2010 redistricting by Democrats in the Statehouse created ridiculously gerrymandered and oddly shaped districts that brought us three new Democratic House members, and got rid of Joe Walsh and other scurrilous Republicans.

It's going to be very hard to get rid of this kind of manipulation, which makes it so very difficult to change the composition of the House. Requiring neutral, outside boards to do the redistricting is obviously the best hope, but that is a state by state decision, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:50 AM

4. We have got to figure out how to get out the mid-term vote.....

otherwise the GOP will have another partial resurgence in 2014.

Bold, revolutionary ideas are needed. Wish I had some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jade Fox (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:56 AM

6. How about ballot initiatives?

Republicans use them to get out the vote (abortion, anti-marriage equality, etc). We should do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:02 AM

7. Good idea....

I'm so hoping the Dems put some serious time/money/thinking into this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jade Fox (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:38 AM

17. Here ya go.

It ain't all that tough to figger out.


Stop being Republican Lite, capitulating, spineless worms and FORCE progressive policies through.

Bingo, Democrats SWEEP everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:09 AM

9. We could do in with Howard Dean and the 50 state strategy..

.. which would include TEXAS by the way!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:39 AM

18. from you keyboard to the ears of the DNC members

I still credit him for Obama's win in 2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:24 AM

11. The opposition almost always gains in the mid-terms

I think there has only been a few minor exceptions throughout the last 100+ years.

Democrats gaining 17 seats in 2014 is a massive order when you look at the historical trends. It would go completely against the political cycles of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:26 AM

13. If the media magically became balanced...

we could buck that trend. But I'd bet against that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:31 AM

15. Maybe if the Repubs are dumb enough to try another impeachment.

Last time they did it, we picked up seats in the House (1998).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:26 AM

12. Despite the usual numbers...

...if many fellow Dems stay at home like in 2010, it's very possible.

Guaranteed, in 2014, the Cons are going to be out for blood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to behindenemylins (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:48 AM

19. "the Cons are going to be out for blood."

You'd better believe it!

What to do other than a massive GOTV effort is to focus on those issues that have emerged in the latest election.

Also, find potential Candidates who have the ability to address those issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:27 AM

14. Probably true

Unfortunately, the timing of the large Republican victory in 2010 gave them control of redistricting in many states. Democrats probably would've won 2 seats in Michigan (MI-1 and MI-11) this year if the Dems would've had partial control over redistricting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue_onyx (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:34 AM

16. That gerrymandering was attempted in Minnesota.

The result was that Democrats regained control over both houses of the legislature, and picked up one seat in Congress. Despite the efforts of the Republican state legislature elected in 2010, dissatisfaction with Republicans in Minnesota overcame the gerrymandering.

Great GOTV efforts in MN helped a lot, and can help in other states as well. Selecting the ideal Democratic candidate for each district is another factor. While that sometimes means a moderate candidate is the only change of winning, a majority Democratic Caucus in the House tends to get the votes it needs, blue dogs or not, in most legislation.

We have two years to turn this around. Well, one year, and a few months, anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:10 PM

23. actually Dayton was able to veto the maps

so they were not as onerous as in places like MI, OH, PA, and NC where the GOP could go whole hog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:11 PM

24. That's true, and the redistricting was done in a different way.

Minnesota has a very good system for redistricting. It's much more fair than in some states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue_onyx (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:52 PM

33. State level elections, govenors races every ten years after cencus, helped them redistrict.

 

picked a bad year to stay home and not vote. The House is not representative of voters any longer. Now the legislature picks the voters, instead of voters picking the legislature. This last election the Dems had more total votes and are the minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:18 PM

25. Democrats actually did well all things considered, meaning gerrymandering

House of Representatives roundup: we friggin kicked tail on Tuesday

by litho

I was just perusing pollster's breakdown of the current state of the House of Representatives in the incoming Congress, and in light of comments coming from the GOP that the elections changed nothing the results are really quite astonishing. Yes, it's true that we currently have a Democratic president and Senate and a Republican House, and that we will continue to have those in the 113th Congress, but the contours of all those branches will be dramatically different. We all know about the upgrade in the Senate, adding two seats to the Dem side and replacing conservative senators with substantially more progressive ones (especially my own Elizabeth Warren and Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin). In the House, as well, our accomplishments on Tuesday, while not enough to restore the gavel to Nancy Pelosi, were nothing short of remarkable.

On the other side, details and analysis from pollster's current info...

Prior to the election, pollster identified 72 House races as "competitive," and it broke down those races as follows:

Strong Dem: 10
Lean Dem: 16
Tossup: 17
Lean GOP: 20
Strong GOP: 19

Today, all but six of those races have been decided. Two of the undecideds were lean Dem, three were tossups, and one was lean GOP, and as of the moment, the Democratic candidate is leading in all of them. Let's assume the Dems all hold to win, in order to assess the accuracy of pollster's predictions.

First, all the strong Dems held onto their seats, as did all the strong GOPs. Furthermore, all of the lean Dem (including AZ-02 and AZ-09, where Dems lead as the count continues) also went, or probably will go, to the Democrats. So far, it looks good both for the Dems and for pollster's predictions.

Surprises start to appear in the tossup category. Including the three outstanding races where Dems lead (CA-07, CA-52, and NC-07), Dems look to take 12 of the 15 races in this category, or 80% of the tossups. Not bad for a gerrymandered Congress!

Wonders do not cease, however, because Dems performed well even in the lean GOP category, taking five of those twenty seats (including Murphy's likely victory over West in FL-18).

If the Dems do pick up all those outstanding races, then the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress will be composed of 201 Democrats against 234 Republicans. This is against the 112th Congress, which began with 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats and currently has 240 Republicans and 190 Democrats.

If Boehner thinks he has a mandate to oppose the people's will, he's got another think coming. We kicked tail on Tuesday, and if they stand in our way we'll kick their tail again in 2014. The Democratic Party is ascendant, and it's time to pass the laws our country so sorely needs -- on climate, on deficits, on entitlements, on defense, and on labor. The Republicans will work with us, or they will watch from outside as we remake the country.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160341/-House-of-Representatives-roundup-we-friggin-kicked-tail-on-Tuesday



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:12 PM

28. the problem is this was a high water mark

Barring something unprecedented we should do worse in 2014 than in 2012. We might be able to reverse the gerrymandering in a state or two, Ohio and NJ are our best shots since in both cases we need to win at large elections and not elections coming from the district map which currently exists. PA also had a commission draw its lege maps so we might have an outside shot there. If you add that to some narrow escapees this time we have a better shot at 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:32 PM

26. At the end of the day

recognize Nate Silver is a numbers guy. He is not a partisan hack. I think a big part will be how the economy does in the next two years. If it goes well Obama needs to set up a Morning in America kind of campaign for the Congressional seats - I think it can be done. Don't be afraid to remind folks of the alternatives.

If Obama gets his tax increase and we get an economy like Clintons with solid work on the deficit, I don't see any reason to think it can't happen. Just don't demonize Silver if the polls show it not happening. Again he is a numbers guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:11 PM

27. So, if Democrats are able to maintain the new configuration it's a win.

If Democrats even pick up a single seat it's a win. It won't be a majority. But, it's still a situation where we are working against a trend and not losing. Not losing is a good thing. That being said. I would really like to see that 17 seat pick up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:15 PM

30. It's possible, it'll

just take a lot of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:14 PM

29. He is correct the odds of doing it are less than 50-50


The odds of us electing a President to the US whose father was a Muslim born in Africa and whose name Barack Hussein Obama was formed from 3 non anglo saxon names would have been considered less than 2% 12 years ago.

It can be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:39 PM

32. It's Too Early To Make A Prognostication Of That Magnitude.

Barring any major events history suggests the Republicans will keep the House. That's all anybody can say with certitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:19 PM

34. did he have any predictions for the 2012 senate race?

I would be curious if he made a prediction about the senate because everyone expected the republicans to take the Senate and they didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:33 PM

36. they also looked to take it 2010

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:25 PM

35. That is nothing but a snapshot in time making a prediction two years ahead of time. If we do nothing

there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this prediction.

But forecast is not fate.

The power to change the forecast lies in our hands.

In 2008, the Republicans were not predicted to take the House majority two years later -- but they did.

In 2010, the Democrats were bot predicted to hold the Senate majority two years later -- but we did.

In 2012, the Democrats aren't predicted to take back the House majority in two years time -- but we can!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread