Argument for Dem House for a long time

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

Well, lets take that one at a time.

First, your slightly overstate the reelection ratefor members of the House seeking reelection (in 2002 it was 96%).  In addition, generally about eight per cent of the members of the House retire (many to seek election to other offices such as Governor or Senator).

Second, you are correct that some of the Democrat gains in 2006 were in northern districts which have been trending Democrat for years.

Third, there were several flukes in 2006 which went to Democrats which are very likely to go Republican in 2008 (I would estimate 4-5 Districts).

Fourth, it is questionable as to whether additional fund raising capabilty will translate into favorable elections results for Democrats in 2008 House races. 

Fifth, I think you confuse redistricting with reapportionment.  While about 4-5 (net) seats will go from states carried by Kerry in 2004 to states carried by Bush in that year (reapportionment) the varying growth rate within states are likely to further harm Democrats.

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that whoever controls the House for the next few elections is likely to do so by a very slim margins (no more than 17 seats),

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Democrats will likely control the House for at least 15 yrs.

1) Except in extraordinary times (1974 Watergate), 1994 (the realignment of the South post Reagan), 2006 (Iraq), incumbents win >98% of the time.
2) Many Democratic gains were in democratically leaning districts, they won’t revert
3) A few of the Democratic seats in very heavily Republican districts are likely to switch back, maybe 4-6
4) Democrats now have access to more campaign money from lobbyists and will be better able to compete in 2008 than they were in 2006
5) 2012 redistricting is unlikely to shift more than 6 or so seats, most redistricting will continue to be incumbent protection plans

Bottom line: Democrats will control the House for a long time

Well, lets take that one at a time.

First, your slightly overstate the reelection ratefor members of the House seeking reelection (in 2002 it was 96%).  In addition, generally about eight per cent of the members of the House retire (many to seek election to other offices such as Governor or Senator).

Second, you are correct that some of the Democrat gains in 2006 were in northern districts which have been trending Democrat for years.

Third, there were several flukes in 2006 which went to Democrats which are very likely to go Republican in 2008 (I would estimate 4-5 Districts).

The only ones that I can think of that are probably very likely to go Republican are TX-22(Nick Lampson) and PA-10(Chris Carney). 

I assume that you figure these two will probably go Republican in 2008, which I agree right now.

Then there a 2-3 other districts that you are thinking of.  I am betting they are FL-16(Mahoney), CA-11(McNerney), and KS-02(Boyda).

FL-16 and CA-11 are basically swing districts, they each gave Bush just three points more than his national average in 2004, meaning they are winnable for either party.  And McNerney and Mahoney now have the advantage of incumbency which is usually worth another seven points. 

KS-02 is a tricky one.  This district often elects moderate Democrats like Boyda.  It did so before Jim Ryun narrowly won the open seat in 1996 when Dole was at the top of the ticket. 

Well, we're not far off.

My bottom line contention is that neither party is likely to have firm control of the house.

If the Democrats maintain a narrow majority, it will because Democrats in several districts will buck national Democrat policy on several issues to get reelected.