Can Dems win Back the House in 2014?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans will be anywhere from 217 to 251, but the likelihood of them actually losing the House with 217 is highly unlikely. We're living in an age with a Republican congress and a White House that goes back and forth every eight years with an occasional exception of Bush's second term. I like it.

Having this...

White House: Republican
US House: Republican
US Senate: Republican

or this...

White House: Democrat
US House: Democrat
US Senate: Democrat

.... is the most dangerous thing that can ever happen in elections. In 2008, when democrats had complete control we got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). When Bush fist became president I was still a small child so I don't really know what Bush and his fellow republicans pushed through for one year (until the republican from Vermont switched to an Independent who caucused with the democrats) with their majority, but it was still dangerous to have one party control.

All political parties are lucky to have at least one chamber of congress or the presidency. America is lucky we aren't dominated by just democrats or just republicans right now. And furthermore America is lucky to have a a republican house for the next decade no matter how disorganized they are. It is completely dangerous for America to have complete one party control (especially for more than 2 years).

Nothing, or not that much. The line from Fahrenheit 911 went, "He couldn't get his tax cuts passed, he couldn't get his judges through and he lost Republican control of the Seante (six months not a year in), so we went on vacation and caused the terrorist attack."

Okay maybe not the last bit, but that was basically his underlying theme.

Even before Jefford's switch, it was a 50-50 chamber and Lott had made a deal to split control with Daschle. The Republicans really only got complete control for four years between 2003 and 2007 and during that period the only thing they did domestically was cut taxes, pass NCLB, pass the Medicare Part D before the election, confirm two judges in 2005, and change the bankruptcy laws in 2005.

That is Bush's domestic legacy, aside from that first tax cut, Sarbox and the Patriot Act.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It will be close but they can do it.

It didn't happen in 2012 because the DNC was more focused on the White House (and to a less extent the Senate).


As for those saying it's gerrymandered... that makes it a little tougher, but not impossible. Republicans were able to win in 1994 despite the House being very gerrymandered to the Democrats.

Actually you could say that it was gerrymandered for them thanks to the VRA. You can see the first signs of this in the gains made in 1992 in spite of losing the White House. A lot of Democrats though got lucky in 1992 because of bad candidates or whatever but were doomed in their now much less diverse districts once the Republicans got serious at the NRCC.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

heavily penalize outsourcing in the tax code.

Really and what happens when the domestic based companies lose out to the foreign competition? You lose not only the production (which is what you are probably trying to preserve), but the corporate headquarters and whatever tax revenue not sheltered already as well. Brilliant!

That is precisely why, as what stated previously, having one party rule is bad. You are being governed by ideas fully vetted in an echo chamber, I cannot imagine how that could possibly lead to problems.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One party rule would be fine if the right checks and balances are there to upset that rule. You'd need several constitutional amendments to achieve that, though.

Mind detailing just what those would be?