Can We Get 17 Seats Next year?

[Left Coast2020]

Watched MHP interview Speaker Pelosi tonight. She says we need 17 to get House back. Can we make it happen? Time to brainstorm who can be replaced and which district.

[wercal]

1. In a midterm election....tough.

[derby378]

26. It wasn't that hard for Republicans

We just have to figure out the issues that will energize the voters in the same way they were energized in 1994 and 2010 by the Republicans. Then we run candidates on those issues, take back the House, and spend the next two years trying our darnedest not to do anything stupid.

[wercal]

28. In both of those years, they were the opposition party

Just like democrats in 2006. Opposition is in and of itself the big issue that is rallied around during mid-terms.

I predict the consultants on both sides will identify shaky districts...and pour a ton of money into them...effectively nationalizing theselocal elections. Its too early to know how it will all turn out...but it will certainly be tough.

[thucythucy]

39. Didn't they pick up seats in 2002?

Though the circumstances--extreme war hysteria--would be difficult to duplicate now.

We picked up seats under Clinton in 1998--backlash against the GOP attempt to remove him from office. Which might be more applicable in 2014, if all this talk about impeachment is any indication.

[wercal]

40. In 2002, Republicans picked up 8, in 1998 Democrats picked up 5

It would be very tough to reach a 17 seat pickup in a mid-term, with your party in the executive office.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Or do things that will energize voters against us...

unfortunately, many have already seemed to do just that.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

2. I would not be surprised if...

...it takes 10 years to get those 17.

I'd love to be proven wrong this time, too

[No Vested Interest]

3. Our only hope is to run candidates

in every district.
some would have to be sacrificial lambs, but sometimes even they could work out- an unhappy event on the other side could open up even a set believed unwinnable.

It's much harder now, due to gerrymandering of districts, but that doesn't mean throw in the towel.

[msongs]

4. will they run as democrats or repub clones? nt

[Deep13]

5. Yes, but the Senate Rs. will still block everything. nt

[handmade34]

6. Sí, se puede

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/01/poll-democrats-slightly-ahead-in-2014/

[treestar]

45. +10000000000000000000

Love the guy in the video!

[TnDem]

7. Nope...

We'll lose more seats in this upcoming 2014 election than we have in years...It may be as bad as 1994 depending on what Congressional leaders do with their constant harping on the gun issue.

I was here in party leadership positions in 1991 and 2000 and I feel the same local sentiment that I did back then.

If we as a party don't SHUT UP about guns, we will totally lose the south and, (in doing so), lose all hope for remaining anything viable in rural areas.

You heard it here first.

[Chan790]

24. Counterpoint.

There's at-least one Senate seat that is ours for the taking if we stick to the gun-control agenda. Kelly Ayotte is toast as long as it remains on the agenda, her support base is crumbling because her constituents wanted a AWB overwhelmingly, then she lied to them and said she'd voted for it. The local newspaper was more than willing to disabuse NH of that lie. Gun control has her reelection DOA.

Pretty much everywhere outside the South it's a winning agenda...RKBA is not popular. In fact, I know of at least 5 seats where a strong gun control platform nationally means the GOP has no chance of contesting those seats. (Not coincidentally to reality, those 5 seats are CT1, CT-2, CT-3, CT-4 and CT-5. Based on local responses here in MD, you can probably consider all of the MD seats except Roscoe Bartlett's old district to be in the same boat.)

You say we'll lose seats over gun control in rural areas...I say we've got to stick to it to hold the line in most of strongly-Democratic territory.

[TnDem]

33. Incorrect

Ayotte will win because she held the line in the Senate...

She will have millions and millions of dollars of free advertising from GOA, NRA, and others..

Remember, polls mean NOTHING on this issue because many, many gun owners will crawl over 2 miles of broken glass to vote against a candidate that wishes to make gun control a major plank of their campaign....That's how serious this issue is, especially in rural states and places with quirky constituents like New Hampshire.

It's all about voter intensity, (or lack therof).

The more this shit is touted by us in the south, the more voter intensity disintegrates...

You heard it here first..

[tabbycat31]

46. Kelly Ayotte's seat is ripe for the picking

Except she is not up until 2016.

[Chan790]

47. I jumped the gun, I thought it was next term.

Nevertheless, regardless what it costs us in the South...I think we need to hold the line on gun-control or we'll feel it in the ballot box outside rural America.

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Add NJ 7th district

And a rep out tweeting today that he wants answers on Benghazi, IRS, and and when Obama last clipped his toenails.


That's one seat.

[customerserviceguy]

27. Agreed

We won't have Barack Obama at the top of a ballot any more, and right now, the top of our 2016 ballot looks more like it will be Hillary Clinton than anyone else.

I agree with you on the gun issue, at least when we were pushing the ACA, we were talking about making people's lives better. We just don't have that kind of issue in 2014, unless things change in that time.

[virginia mountainman]

31. Yep. I was their in 1993 too...watched it ALL go down in flames... and saw it coming months out.

BTW, the NRA is over 5 Million DUES PAYING Members now...

Brady is up to what? 50,000 free mailing list subscribers?

I wonder who is more likely to vote on this issue?

[TnDem]

34. Holy shit....

Another Democrat that understands this issue...

I am heartened that there is sanity here...

[NoMoreWarNow]

41. there is growing passion on the gun control side however

doubt that it will be enough, but it's stronger than ever.

People who vote guns over any other issue are sickening, I just don't know what Dems can do about them.

[TnDem]

44. It is what it is...

And Democrats better face the fact that unless they completely STFU about guns, they will totally lose all rural areas in 2014 and 2016...I hate that because all I have worked hard for is slipping out from me with every pronouncement by VP Biden....He thinks it sells nationally and it does NOT sell...It makes blue dog Democrats stay home by the millions and wonder why they are even involved with a party that keeps killing themselves with unpopular issues like this.

You heard it here first....

[Chan790]

48. Some DUers (and Democrats) want to kill the Blue Dogs anyways.

If we're going to make a stand against rightward creep, here is as good as anyplace.

[NoMoreWarNow]

49. you are probably right

but I don't think rural areas will ever go Dem. It's just the Republican base, and I'm not sure what will change that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Agreed.

It's more than just the South.

There are Democrats in Western States as well. Those who keep pushing this issue - and I think that there is at least a percentage of them who are Republican sock puppets - are going to find a replay of the 1994 election.

Even in rural parts of the Midwestern States like Illinois, some firearm-owning Democrats are going to be less than enthusiastic. The same may be true in cities such as Chicago where some Democrats just want to be left alone and have a way to defend themselves when the police are not available.

Incidentally, Illinois requires background checks as a condition to being able to have a FOID card and be able to possess or purchase a firearm and/or ammunition. Every state can impose similar background checks if that is what is really wanted. However, the Illinois background-check requirement doesn't seem to have reduced the criminal use of firearms in Chicago. (Of course, when the background-check argument is pushed even more, maybe no one will notice.)

[YarnAddict]

8. A year and a half is an eternity in politics

Anything can happen that could potentially effect the election, for either party: the economy, the stock market, implementation of the ACA, the Middle East, more terror attacks . . . A year from now we will have a much better idea, but even in the last six months, things can change drastically. IIRC, didn't a terror attack just a couple of weeks prior to an election in Spain (I think) change EVERYTHING? So, who knows?

[mmonk]

9. No. Those of us who have been gerrymandered

in the last few years can't help. It will be up to Republican voters and independents to switch to voting for Democrats. I don't see it on the horizon. Only courts siding with challenges to the gerrymandered districts can turn it around. It's why I don't post much in General Discussion much anymore. I'm out of the loop by design and currently concentrating on fighting bad laws being initiated back home.

[Savannahmann]

10. No we saw the test run in South Carolina

Sanford won, and he was a candidate that all the conventional wisdom said was a dead man. Right now, PolySci students all over the nation are waking up from hangovers, and still holding onto the discussions they had last night with friends. They dreamed of running against a candidate who was an adulterer who used taxpayer money to visit his paramour while lying about it. They had that opponent in South Carolina, and they lost.

Republicans will probably pick up another ten seats. Here in Georgia, they stand a fair chance of getting John Barrow out, assuming that the Republicans can get a halfway decent candidate to run. Romney won this district, but Barrow held on because the Republican didn't bother to show up. I've heard that the Republicans are targeting Barrow to pick up the seat, and I'd say they have a better than even chance of doing it.

We will be lucky to hold onto a majority in the Senate, because the Republicans are running hard, and contrary to the opinions of so many here, they are not window licking idiots. As for their policy positions? When you consider that so many of our policies mirror theirs, then why should the people vote Democrat when we are working so hard to be just like the Republicans.

[librechik]

14. +1

sadly true. I will be very surprised if much of anything changes in the House. surprised and THRILLED

But those 17 are in safe districts due to various quirks in the corrupt elections system here and there. Most of the country is on the right track. Certain states, including OHIO hold us back. It's not all in the South, but mostly.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

23. The thing with Sanford, though, was...

The South Carolina 1st Congressional District went OVERWHELMING for Romney in 2012. He won in that district by 18%. In our Democratic eyes, Sanford was just a terrible candidate with a terrible record, but Republicans will look at him differently. Elizabeth Colbert-Busch was a great candidate, but she was going to have a VERY tough time from the onset just because of the political make up of the district.

[SoCalDem]

11. Unlikely

..and we will struggle mightily to maintain our razor-thin majority in the senate..

I predict that the first thing Micth McConnell would (will) do is to eliminate the filibuster...just as a poke in the eye to Milquetaist Mushmouth, esq.

[MineralMan]

12. A lot will depend on turnout. We can do it, if we're willing

to put out the effort to GOTV. Whether that happens nationwide or not will determine the outcome.

GOTV 2014!

[TnDem]

15. Turnout

Turnout will go to the voters with the most voter intensity..

Guess who that is in my area?

[MineralMan]

16. I know that there will be a huge GOTV effort in

Michele Bachmann's district here in Minnesota. Tennessee, I don't know about. We can't win every district, but we need to take over 17 districts to gain the majority. I'll be working here in MN to get Democrats to the polls. They only lost by 1% in 2012 in Bachmann's district. We have to just do better.

[premium]

13. Highly unlikely.

Mid term elections historically go against the party that holds the presidency, we'll be lucky to maintain our ever so thin majority in the Senate and will probably lose more seats in the House, but, you never know, voters can be fickle.

[MineralMan]

17. Well, that will certainly happen if people don't try, I'm sure.

[premium]

18. I'm certainly doing my part,

although I live in a very red part of Nevada.

I'm just saying that historically, mid terms go against the party in power.

[MineralMan]

20. Then let's try to make history.

[premium]

21. I'm there withya brother,

although you'll probably have better luck than me, like I said, I live in a very red part of Nevada, we don't have 1 dem. holding any pol. office in my town/county.

[Brother Buzz]

19. My Magic 8-Ball® says: Net gain for Democrats but....

the house will not flip

[Left Coast2020]

22. My mind is telling me there are some "inside" people working to make it happen.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/11/the_supreme_court_may_gut_the_voting_rights_act_and_make_gerrymandering.html

BTW, I found this article on gerrymandering. If we are going to win anything, perhaps its time to play "Hardball" and form a colitation to make gerrymandering illegal. Good grief, why in the fuck didn't anyone think of this a long time ago?

[MrSlayer]

25. Probably not. Even when we came out in force last year we couldn't take the House back.

And our side never comes out like that in midterms. I think we'll probably lose seats in the House and quite possibly the Senate.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. "our side never comes out like that in midterms"? Never? Until the AWB and the 1994 election,

the Democratic Party controlled Congress for Decades.

The number of Congressional Democrats varied, but Congress was in the hands of the Democratic Party in election after election.

[MrSlayer]

55. That's 20 years ago.

Things are different now.

[TnDem]

56. Wrong

Things are most definitely NOT different now...

Who do you think is buying every gun and piece of ammo that hits the shelves and have been for months?

It's your neighbors...Your voting neighbors...NRA members and non-NRA members alike...Just folks that distrust the Congress not to take their ability to do so.

And they all vote and they all can't wait for 2014...I here it from Democrats every week in my neck of the woods.

It's going to be bad...

[MrSlayer]

57. I'm not sure if we're arguing against each other.

I say that Democrats don't come out heavy in mid-terms, the GOP comes out the same in every election. So we're automatically at a disadvantage.

I also think the Democrats are going to take a bad beating next year because of it.

What exactly are you saying?

That guns are going to kill us? Or help us? Or what?

[Demo_Chris]

29. Unlikely. Several reasons...

1. The GOP has always been exceptionally good at getting out the social conservative vote during midterms.

2. Gerrymandering.

3. Obama and other moderate / conservative Democrats have all but sucked the life and enthusiasm out of the left wing of the party. These were the folks on the ground, checking off names, knocking on doors -- the men and women who make it happen. At this point, after all the betrayals, it's hard to imagine them bothering. I know I certainly wont.

[virginia mountainman]

32. Ditto...

These were the folks on the ground, checking off names, knocking on doors -- the men and women who make it happen. At this point, after all the betrayals, it's hard to imagine them bothering. I know I certainly wont.

...I am completely with you on this....

[Safetykitten]

35. No. Not a chance.

[Recursion]

36. I mean, on any given Tuesday...

Could we pick up 17? It's not existentially impossible.

As a realistic partisan, I have to say I'm much more concerned about keeping the Senate.

[davidpdx]

37. I have made the argument that we probably will pick up a few

but not enough to get the majority in the House. On the Senate side I think we will lose a few. My take is both parties will still control the chambers they do now, but with narrower majorities.

[lovemydog]

38. I sure hope so

- it's very important that democrats vote this next election, or we'll be watching more redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra-rich.

[grahamhgreen]

42. NOT BY CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE A FRUSTRATED CHUMP.

[NoMoreWarNow]

43. there's got to be some more vulnerable teabagger types

I hope the Dems use some smart strategy here, but still, I would be shocked if the Dems took the house.

[MNBrewer]

50. I donno. Mine is Blue within Blue!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. How can we get 17 more seats while (1) offering to cut SS and (2) alienating firearm-owning

Democrats?