NYT: Downballot Republicans running for the hills

[politicallefty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet's just ignore this stat...

I mean, that's only 3 elections--pretty small sample size.

I think that stat is really just a subset of larger trend where tossups tend to go disproportionately one way. It's something Charlie Cook last noted during the 2014 midterms. Adding 2014 to the list, the trend holds firm (Republicans won 7/8 tossups as rated by Charlie Cook). Averaging out every year from 1998-2014 has one party winning 81% of the tossups. On a side note, I don't think 2010 shows the big picture (Democrats had already given up four seats, the Tea Party cost Republicans at least three seats, and I'm not sure why Cook had California as a tossup).

It's worth noting that Charlie Cook rarely rates incumbents as anything worse than a tossup. Right now, Cook has the tossups as 1D/7R (not including the potential tossups of AZ, MO, and NC). Of the eight current tossups, Democrats need to win 5/8 assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency. (I've never heard of a scenario where Democrats win the Senate while losing the White House, so that's a moot point.) I think it's significantly more likely that Democrats win the Senate rather than not.

As for the House, I don't know. If current polling holds, I think Republicans could lose the House. It's definitely an uphill climb for Democrats, but it's now from from impossible or even improbable. If Hillary can win by 7-9%, I think the House is a tossup. I don't think either House of Congress could withstand a double-digit Hillary victory. If she actually wants to govern and pass some good legislation, she has to be relentless from here to the end to make it possible for Democrats to take back control of both the House and the Senate.

[politicallefty]

Gerrymandering will save the GOP house majority until at least 2022.

More than likely, that's right, as I've already said. But I think this year probably has the most promise to overturn their majority. I know the gerrymanders are far worse now, but I don't recall anyone seriously predicting the fall of the GOP House Majority in 2006 until after Labor Day. If Hillary can win by enough, I don't think the House can survive for Republicans. If the election were held today and Hillary won by about 9%, I think some of the gerrymanders could collapse and the House would fall.

You don't think there's a limit to what Republicans in the House can withstand before falling? My biggest concern with Congress is that the Establishment bails on Trump and puts primary focus on the House and Senate, which is what they did in 1996. I think the big difference there is that Democrats didn't follow them. Democrats didn't really try in 1996, which I remember reading Bill Clinton admitting to. If he had fought harder, I think he would have broken 400 electoral votes and taken back the House.

[politicallefty]

I'm thinking 2032 at the very earliest, as the Democrats are going to have to lose the presidency and win a massive victory in a census year to get the House back. Frankly, I'm just hoping to see a Democratic Congress at some point before I die. 

If Hillary is elected and at least gets the Senate, she'll get to name Scalia's successor. A lot on the left, myself included, believe that a liberal majority on the Supreme Court will strike down partisan gerrymandering. In Vieth v. Jubelirer, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have already placed themselves on the side for judicial action against partisan gerrymandering. I have a hard time seeing Sotomayor or Kagan voting against them. It would all come down to who succeeds Justice Scalia. So long as Hillary Clinton would fill that vacancy with a centre-left Justice, there would be at least five votes to overrule Vieth and establish limits on partisan gerrymandering. The Court could do a wholesale ruling and strike down every gerrymandered map in the country immediately for 2018 or 2020 or it could wait until the next round of redistricting after the 2020 Census.

[politicallefty]

Right, because only republicans engage in 'partisan gerrymandering'.

No one said they didn't. It would be the height of stupidity to unilaterally disarm. But given the results of the 2010 midterms, Republican gerrymanders are far more rampant across the country. The difference is that conservative judges and Justices aren't willing to rule for a judicial remedy. A liberal majority on the Supreme Court would almost assuredly rule against partisan gerrymandering as it currently exists. I don't know what the remedy would be, but the Democratic gerrymanders in Illinois and Maryland would be just as unconstitutional as the Republican ones in Pennsylvania and Texas (and at least a dozen other states). The end of partisan gerrymandering will be a win for democracy.

[politicallefty]

I really think too many people give too much credit to natural/partisan gerrymandering. Yes, Democrats need a pretty large win in the House PV to have a shot, but it is not impossible. Republicans are vulnerable when there are such large shifts in portions of the electorate that they depend on, such as in this cycle. If Hillary wins by a lot and the party's share of the electorate sees relatively large realignments among various subgroups, those patterns could reverberate downballot and sweep seats in places we may not have expected. That's the whole point of a wave (more or less)

At the very least, folks shouldn't act so confident. The polls are not at all favorable for Republicans right now and have not been for over a year now.

Exactly. That's one of the points I was really trying to make. Once you hit a certain number in the overall popular vote, gerrymanders start to disintegrate. In 2006, Pennsylvania blew up badly for Republicans. This isn't 1972 or even 1984. Split-ticket voting isn't remotely as prevalent as it once was. If current polling holds, I don't see how Republicans keep the House. I hope that their overconfidence in their gerrymanders will be their undoing and actually cost them the majority. I think this is the kind of year that Nancy Pelosi has been looking for. I think she want another two-year term as Speaker.

If Republicans do lose the House this year, they could probably take some solace in the fact that I think Pelosi would be almost certain to retire after the 2018 midterms (after over 30 years in Congress and 16 years leading House Democrats.). No matter what happens this election, I will be very sad  to see Pelosi leave Congress whenever she decides to do so. I know a big part of her staying as Leader has been to stop Hoyer from taking over, but I think Pelosi ultimately wants another term as Speaker and this year presents the biggest opportunity. I'd love to see Nancy Pelosi introduce the first woman President to Congress next year (not to mention it would be another first in its own right by having two women among the three you see when the President addresses Congress).

[politicallefty]

If somehow Dems take the House, if I'm team Clinton I dump the entire leadership in a second. I would use younger, new faces to attempt to build public confidence and get the country on track. That would be the only way Dems could hold it in 2018.

I don't agree at all. If Democrats can win back the House, it's a two-year deal no matter what happens. I want Nancy Pelosi back as Speaker for one last time. She's easily one of the most powerful Speakers in history. She knows how Congress works and how to actually get stuff done. Without Pelosi, I don't think the ACA would be law. I think she should get just as much credit as the President himself. If Democrats are lucky enough to win the House back, let Nancy Pelosi have two more years as Speaker and let her retire from the top and hopefully pass the leadership to her top ally, Xavier Becerra.