Argument for Dem House for a long time

[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.

[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.

[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.