The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics
They won the House vote in 2012.
Nevertheless, the path is definitely there for Democrats to reclaim it, and it would be a more sustainable majority than the 2007-2011 facade that was built on the backs of dozens of rural red districts that they should've had no business winning.
In fact, the longest-lasting trifecta in modern US history has been for only four years--from 1976-1980, and 2002-2006. That's why I think Democrats retaking the House in 2018 has a much higher likelihood than many posters here are giving credit for. Americans have historically favored divided government, and the stage is already being set for a backlash of sorts. We just don't know how severe it could/will be yet.You seem to be putting your eggs in the basket of the Democrats being this sensible, center-left party of smart and enlightened people who reject cultural populism, and even though I think that's laughably ridiculous, the bigger issue is it's a losing electoral strategy. There is a very high suburban/affluent/wealthy floor for the GOP, and that showed in 2016. Democrats can try to make all the inroads they want, but I think they're close to maxing out. I'd even argue - over the next four decades - the GOP floor among wealthy Whites is higher than rural Whites.
Anyway, those districts weren't "red" then ... that's why they elected Democrats. Democrats had a fifty-state strategy, and it worked. It could easily work again if they ran proper candidates and invested in, ya know, winning the House/thought that was more important than seeming like the "cool" party.
Poll
