Argument for Dem House for a long time

[Reignman]

There are some people on my college debate team who are convinced the House of Representatives will stay in Democratic hands for a very long time because in the 2006 elections there were (according to them) a lot of seats in the Northeast held moderate Republicans that the Democrats picked up. Because of the ideological makeup of those northeast house seats, it seems unlikely that the GOP will take them back any time soon, and they'd have to be running very moderate Republicans.

I remember hearing that the Dems didn't do too well in the South with respect to House seats in 2006, so there may be some truth to this argument, but I honestly don't know enough about these Northeast seats to form an opinion on it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...Of the 29 districts gained by the Democrats, 17 have above average levels of manufacturing employment, 15 have below average levels of professional/managerial occupations and in 13 of them less than 25% of the population have degrees. Whats more, only 5 districts had low levels of manufacturing employment, only 5 high numbers of people in professional/managerial occupations and in just 3 districts was the proportion of people with degrees higher than 33%.

Geographically a similer pattern emerges; 19 of the 29 gains were entirely in (or in the case of PA-8 partially in) what could be thought of as an extended Rust Belt, stretching from New England to Eastern Iowa and also running down through the isolated mining communities of Appalachia to pick up struggling textile towns in North Carolina. In the Interior West (an area long the subject of Democratic fantasies) just three districts fell to the Democrats, while the party gained only two classic Northeastern suburban districts...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the Interior West (an area long the subject of Democratic fantasies) just three districts fell to the Democrats[/size]

That's misleading. When Democrats talk about gains in the Interior West, they pretty much just mean Arizona and Colorado. Utah, Idaho and Wyoming are hopeless (sure the WY-AL seat was competitive, but that wasn't due to trends or even the national mood, but rather simply that Cubin is a f**king idiot), and New Mexico is already competitive/leaning our way on the state level.

In Arizona, we won two seats out of 6 Republican-held seats. This means the delegation is now tied. Considering the fact that Democratic strength in Arizona is rather packed in Hispanic-majority seats, that's very impressive. And if Renzi is indicted (very likely), we can take his seat next year too, giving us a majority in Arizona. That'd be unthinkable even fairly recently.

In Colorado, we already have a majority. We gained only one seat because we had already won the other competitive Republican-held seat the last election. Neither the Tancredo seat or the Colorado Springs district will ever be truly competitive, and Musgrave's seat only is because she's Musgrave.

So looking at it that way, the Democratic gains were fairly impressive. The main reason the blue collar districts resulted in much more gains is because the GOP held plenty of such seats that they really shouldn't have, Northup and Hart were the first Republicans to represent their districts in a very long time, if not ever.

[Padfoot]

It depend on your definition of a "very long time."  I think the Democrats will maintain control of the House for at least the next 4 election cycles but beyond that I have no confidence predicting anything.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's misleading.

Yes, but only a little bit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny how you missed out Nevada there. And the only reason why you're omitting New Mexico is the fact that a distinctly winnable seat didn't fall last year.
Who's being misleading now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, although bearing in mind your Cubin excuse, the 5th only flipped because of it's ethically challenged and generally extremely unpleasant incumbent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps (although the Democratic trackrecord in that district has been piss-poor recently; I wouldn't rule out another f*** up), although both new Democratic congresscritters are vulnerable to the right sort of Republican challenger.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True... but do note how close Musgrave came to defeat in 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if you spin very, very hard. Otherwise they're merely "good". And in an election that was, at the very least, "good" for the Democrats in overall terms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the main trends in American politics for the past decade or so has been, relative, Democratic weakness in industrial and working class areas, coupled with, relative, strength in affluent, white-collar suburbs.

This was, very clearly, not the case in the 2006 elections. What's the problem with acknowledging that?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny how you missed out Nevada there. And the only reason why you're omitting New Mexico is the fact that a distinctly winnable seat didn't fall last year.
Who's being misleading now?

Ah, I totally forgot Nevada. Well there you had two GOP held seats. One was open but quite Republican and the GOP nominated their best candidate (we would've had a much better chance against the Club for Growther) It actually was a lost closer than expected. Porter was a missed opportunity due to poor candidate recruitment, I've got no doubt that a stronger candidate would've taken him out.

As for NM, we can chalk that one up to Madrid's debate gaffe alone.

True, although bearing in mind your Cubin excuse, the 5th only flipped because of it's ethically challenged and generally extremely unpleasant incumbent.

Well as much of an ass that Hayworth is, he never underperformed to the level that Cubin and Musgrave do.

Perhaps (although the Democratic trackrecord in that district has been piss-poor recently; I wouldn't rule out another f*** up), although both new Democratic congresscritters are vulnerable to the right sort of Republican challenger.

Mitchell, probably. Giffords, I doubt it. It'd take at least a mildly pro-GOP tide to take her out.

True... but do note how close Musgrave came to defeat in 2004.

Also note how much the Reform party candidate took.

One of the main trends in American politics for the past decade or so has been, relative, Democratic weakness in industrial and working class areas, coupled with, relative, strength in affluent, white-collar suburbs.

This was, very clearly, not the case in the 2006 elections. What's the problem with acknowledging that?

I think the main reason for that is the Democrats have already gained most such affluent white collar areas (see holding 3/4 seats on Long Island), and would've made much more gains had it not've been for gerrymandering (for example how Ferguson in New Jersey almost certainly would've fallen if his district wasn't a gerrymandered monstrosity)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, I totally forgot Nevada. Well there you had two GOP held seats. One was open but quite Republican and the GOP nominated their best candidate (we would've had a much better chance against the Club for Growther) It actually was a lost closer than expected. Porter was a missed opportunity due to poor candidate recruitment, I've got no doubt that a stronger candidate would've taken him out.

If the Democrats had had as good a night in the Interior West as you seem to think they did, both would have fallen.
And a dodgy candidate is no excuse; plenty of seats elsewhere would have fallen, or been a lot closer, with stronger candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even after that she was still the favourite; at least as far as national coverage went.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but he acted even worse than usual (shudders) in the years before 2006; wasn't there something about refusing to hand back crooked money or something like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think will happen in Arizona if McCain is the GOP Presidential candidate in 2008?
Giffords could be around for a while (especially if the local Republicans keep running fruitcakes against her) but she's not safe yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. You do realise that that doesn't actually help your argument here? Not at all?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't be silly; there are quite a few white collar suburban districts represented by Republicans that gave Kerry better %'s than many of the districts gained by the Democrats in 2004 (btw, not all of the Long Island districts are especially white collar. All are affluent o/c).

Again, I don't really understand why you've got a problem with all this. Or are you more pink than red?

[Beet]

The Democrats are definitely trending populist again, as the influence of the DLC fades, with a strange alliance of Blue Dogs, Reagan Democrats, DKoser's and anti-war Dems all combining to attack the old DLC establishment, which tends to produce only mildly anti-war candidates.

As the party trends more populist, high SES groups have stopped trending Democratic and in some cases reversed, while low SES groups are now going back to the Dems strongly. In Alcon's words "by the time a trend is noticed it's already over"... but the trend Al points out here is not yet fully noticed.

Again though, with such a huge number of people living in the suburbs and the southwest growing so fast, is the rust belt a basis for a long term majority, though?

[Padfoot]

Again though, with such a huge number of people living in the suburbs and the southwest growing so fast, is the rust belt a basis for a long term majority, though?

Thats a very good point.  Democrats need to find a way into Florida and Texas in order to offset their likely losses in the Rust Belt and Northeast.

[Frodo]

As the party trends more populist, high SES groups have stopped trending Democratic and in some cases reversed, while low SES groups are now going back to the Dems strongly. In Alcon's words "by the time a trend is noticed it's already over"... but the trend Al points out here is not yet fully noticed.

I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but what exactly does 'SES' stand for?  Is it supposed to be 'Socio-Economic Strata', or something like that?

[Reignman]

Again though, with such a huge number of people living in the suburbs and the southwest growing so fast, is the rust belt a basis for a long term majority, though?

Thats a very good point.  Democrats need to find a way into Florida and Texas in order to offset their likely losses in the Rust Belt and Northeast.

[Beet]

As the party trends more populist, high SES groups have stopped trending Democratic and in some cases reversed, while low SES groups are now going back to the Dems strongly. In Alcon's words "by the time a trend is noticed it's already over"... but the trend Al points out here is not yet fully noticed.

I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but what exactly does 'SES' stand for?  Is it supposed to be 'Socio-Economic Strata', or something like that?

It stands for socio-economic status. It is basically the politically correct way of saying upper class and lower class. But of course there is no such thing as class in this country. ...heh

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain being the candidate would do nothing.  Clinton being the nominee in 1992 and 1996 didn't defeat Jay Dickey or Tim Hutchinson in AR-04 and AR-03 respectively in 1992 of 1996.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:

First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).

Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).

Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted.  Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas.  Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.

[Mr.Phips]

No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:

First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).

Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).

Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted.  Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas.  Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.

This is not true.  Democrats now control most state legislatures and that advantage will probably grow at least if a Republican is elected President in 2008.  There is a good chance that Democrats will be in control of redistricting in states like California, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  This will allow them to undo Republican gerrymanders and make give most of these states solid Democratic delegations.  This alone could give them possibly an additional 25 House seats to offset the losses that they will incur elseware.  A

Also, the large states that the Republicans are likely to control, Florida, Texas, and Georgia have delegations that are already so gerrymandered against the Democrats that it could not get any worse.

Back to the seats in Arizona, Democrats picked both of them up because of the growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:

First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).

Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).

Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted.  Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas.  Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.

This is not true.  Democrats now control most state legislatures and that advantage will probably grow at least if a Republican is elected President in 2008.  There is a good chance that Democrats will be in control of redistricting in states like California, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  This will allow them to undo Republican gerrymanders and make give most of these states solid Democratic delegations.  This alone could give them possibly an additional 25 House seats to offset the losses that they will incur elseware.  A

Also, the large states that the Republicans are likely to control, Florida, Texas, and Georgia have delegations that are already so gerrymandered against the Democrats that it could not get any worse.

Back to the seats in Arizona, Democrats picked both of them up because of the growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats. 

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, your assertion that the "Democrats picked both of them up because of growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats" is simply false.  Here is the registration data for the two Congressional districts (5 &

District         Democrats          Republicans

5                    86,743                 139,057

8                   124,932                144,642

Third, gerrymandering is becoming more and more difficult as many states have enacted measures to prevent this and the courts are acting to prevent it.

Fourth, let me provide an illustration using California counties of the interrationship between population growth and partisan preferences:

County   2000 to 2005   Kerry   Bush
   Growth Rate   2004   2004

Alpine          -4.1   53.2   44.4
Marin                        -0.1   73.2   25.4
Mono                   -2.7   49.2   49.1
San Francisco   -4.8   83   15.2
San Mateo   -1.1   69.5   29.2
Santa Cruz   -2.3   73   24.9
Sierra                   -3.4   33.2   64.1

Median                   -2.7   69.5   29.2

Calaveras                  15.6   37.1   60.9
Madera                  16   34.7   64
Merced                  14.8   42.3   56.5
Placer                  27.6   36.3   62.6
Riverside                  26   41   57.8
San Bernardino      14.9   43.6   55.3
San Joaquin           17.8   45.8   53.2

Median                 16   41   57.8

[Padfoot]

People who argue that Democrats will lose congress because the population of their traditional stronghold districts are shrinking are not looking at the big picture.   Most people who argue against Democratic control will say that since GOP areas are expanding and liberal areas are losing population, the Democrats will lose seats and lose the majority.  However, the Democrats leaving aren't just disappearing.  They are moving into traditional GOP strongholds which in part is contributing to the large growth in these areas.  Northern Virginia is a perfect example of this.  And as retiring Californians spill over into the Mountain West, that area has begun moving leftward as well.

People, you are forgetting that for every Democrat that leaves Massachusetts one more moves into Utah.  It is true that Democrats will have to work harder in order to tap into these transplanted liberals but the loss of seats in the Northeast is not going to mean an automatic loss for the Democrats in the House.  One thing it will have tremendous affect on though, is the electoral college.  One can even see the difference from 2000 to 2004 after the EVs had been redistributed.  In 2000, all Gore needed to win was 4 votes from New Hampshire which he lost because Nader spoiled the election.  However, if Kerry had taken all the Gore seats plus New Hampshire he still would have lost due to the shift in electoral votes.

[Reignman]

No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:

First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).

Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).

Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted.  Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas.  Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.

I buy the second one, but not the first and third.

[minionofmidas]

No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:

First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).

Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).

Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted.  Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas.  Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.

I buy the second one, but not the first and third.

I buy the first one (in all probability) but we're talking about two seats here - AZ 05 is a contender for the title of third most easily recoupable Republican loss of 06, btw.

The loss of AZ 08 was obviously made much easier by Rep infighting... but it's no more'n half the story here.

As to gerrymandering... both arguments are somewhat correct. If we assume (just for simplicity's sake) stable political affiliations and no gerrymandering, Dems moving into Rep areas turn Rep districts Democratic one at a time, all over the period. Rep gains due to seat distribution, on the other hand, occur exclusively at the decadal redistricting, but quite a few of them at once (Indeed, you get a pattern like this in the UK, though obscured by the much larger swings).

Reps did a pretty damn ugly job at redistricting America in 2002, and

You must be logged in to read this quote.

actually should work in the Dems' favor as a result.

On a side note,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

is dead wrong insofar as Georgia is concerned, and even Texas could have been done a good bit worse as far as net numbers of Democrats are concerned (though such a map would without a doubt have been overturned on Voting Rights Act grounds).

[CARLHAYDEN]

People who argue that Democrats will lose congress because the population of their traditional stronghold districts are shrinking are not looking at the big picture.   Most people who argue against Democratic control will say that since GOP areas are expanding and liberal areas are losing population, the Democrats will lose seats and lose the majority.  However, the Democrats leaving aren't just disappearing.  They are moving into traditional GOP strongholds which in part is contributing to the large growth in these areas.  Northern Virginia is a perfect example of this.  And as retiring Californians spill over into the Mountain West, that area has begun moving leftward as well.

People, you are forgetting that for every Democrat that leaves Massachusetts one more moves into Utah.  It is true that Democrats will have to work harder in order to tap into these transplanted liberals but the loss of seats in the Northeast is not going to mean an automatic loss for the Democrats in the House.  One thing it will have tremendous affect on though, is the electoral college.  One can even see the difference from 2000 to 2004 after the EVs had been redistributed.  In 2000, all Gore needed to win was 4 votes from New Hampshire which he lost because Nader spoiled the election.  However, if Kerry had taken all the Gore seats plus New Hampshire he still would have lost due to the shift in electoral votes.

Padfoot,

You assume that a person who is identified as a Democrat in Massachusetts will remain a Democrat if they move to Utah  (to use your example).

There are several reasons why this is not necessarily true:

First, many people register and vote for convenience.  For example, a small manufacturer of 'high tech' widgets may register Democrat in Massachusetts and even contribute to local Democrat candidates because of the need to stay on good relations with the local governing body (zoning, taxes, etc.)  When he moves his business to Utah, he may find it convenient to register and send money to local Republican candidates for the same reasons.

Second, those who flee certain areas (such as Massachusetts) tend to be different from those who stay (i.e. the core values are different).

Third, especially amoung young people who grew up in heavily Democrat areas, when they move to suburbs, small towns, etc. they find that many of the myths which they had been led to believe were wrong.

[Mr.Phips]

No, I so NOT agree, for three reasons:

First, a couple of the seats Democrats picked up in 06 will be won back by Republicans in 08 (Florida and Texas).

Second, several of the seats Democrats won in 06 were the result of internal Republican feuding (both seats in Arizona for example).

Third, in 2012 the House will both reapportioned and redistricted.  Given that growth rates in predominantly Republican areas have been higher than those in predominatly Democrat areas.  Absent some very skillful gerrymandering, this will cost Democrats between 9 and 17 seats.

This is not true.  Democrats now control most state legislatures and that advantage will probably grow at least if a Republican is elected President in 2008.  There is a good chance that Democrats will be in control of redistricting in states like California, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  This will allow them to undo Republican gerrymanders and make give most of these states solid Democratic delegations.  This alone could give them possibly an additional 25 House seats to offset the losses that they will incur elseware.  A

Also, the large states that the Republicans are likely to control, Florida, Texas, and Georgia have delegations that are already so gerrymandered against the Democrats that it could not get any worse.

Back to the seats in Arizona, Democrats picked both of them up because of the growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats. 

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, your assertion that the "Democrats picked both of them up because of growing Hispanic population that is shifting those areas to the Democrats" is simply false.  Here is the registration data for the two Congressional districts (5 &

District         Democrats          Republicans

5                    86,743                 139,057

8                   124,932                144,642

Third, gerrymandering is becoming more and more difficult as many states have enacted measures to prevent this and the courts are acting to prevent it.

Fourth, let me provide an illustration using California counties of the interrationship between population growth and partisan preferences:

County   2000 to 2005   Kerry   Bush
   Growth Rate   2004   2004

Alpine          -4.1   53.2   44.4
Marin                        -0.1   73.2   25.4
Mono                   -2.7   49.2   49.1
San Francisco   -4.8   83   15.2
San Mateo   -1.1   69.5   29.2
Santa Cruz   -2.3   73   24.9
Sierra                   -3.4   33.2   64.1

Median                   -2.7   69.5   29.2

Calaveras                  15.6   37.1   60.9
Madera                  16   34.7   64
Merced                  14.8   42.3   56.5
Placer                  27.6   36.3   62.6
Riverside                  26   41   57.8
San Bernardino      14.9   43.6   55.3
San Joaquin           17.8   45.8   53.2

Median                 16   41   57.8

You are forgetting what often happens when these fast growing areas begin to cool down.  Look at states like North Carolina and Virginia.  For years, these states were blowouts for Republican Presidents.  Now they are often much closer. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

Second, the Democrat party nominees for numerous Congressional offices in Virginia and North Carolina have moved away from the national party on specific issues, which has helped them in electing candidates there.

[Gustaf]

The argument is dumb, because there are plenty of conservative leaning districts for the GOP to win back, so they don't really need the Northern suburban ones. It is true that it's a bit of an issue for the GOP, in that they have to work somewhat harder next time, but on the bright side there aren't many seats left that they can lose.

One can of course argue that a general point working against the GOP is Democratic minority strength. If we compare Democratic and Republican strongholds, New England states like Massachusetts or Connecticut are seeing the Republican party almost disappear. We all know the figure, 1 Republican and 21 Democrats in the House right now. In Southern GOP strongholds, on the other hand, there are plenty of Democrats left. Some are vulnerable, but most aren't. Because many of them are Hispanic or Black represenatitives that can not be out-gerry mandered thanks to the whole majority-minority districts rules. So in that sense it is a problem for the GOP. But the advantage of a rural base as compared to an urban one when using FPTP probably still out-weighs that.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think an interesting point to make here is that looking at Presidential totals in Congressional Districts is not neccesarily useful.  Either we can say Bush overperformed compared with Republican Congressional candidates or Gore/Kerry did vice versa.  Districts like IN-9, which voted 59% for Bush in 2004, have a record of electing populist Democrats like Lee Hamilton and Barron Hill.  It has to be said also that Districts that voted for the Republican Presidential nominee seem more willing to elect a Democrat to Congress.  But anyway, the point stands that there seems to be a difference, obviously, between local and national politics; another example is Dan Boren in OK-2.

[Mr.Phips]

Well Mr. Phips,

Now tht we have changed to North Carolina and Virginia, lets look at the record.

First, please note that achieving near parity in a statewide contest has no real impact on House races, as there is a tendency for Democrats to win predominantly minority districts by three to one (or more) margins and lose other districts by lesser margins.

In North Carolina, the Democrats did a good job of making sure that there are very few wasted votes by making the two minority districts barely majority-minority.  If they win back the Virginia legislature, they will make VA-03 barely minority while moving many black voters into VA-04 to win that district back.  Racial gerrymandering where it is not geographically compact is coming to an end.