Civics Question: Is it Mathematically Possible to WIN back the House and/or Senate in 2016?

[2banon]

Maybe this is a math problem rather than a civics question for number crunchers - or statisticians?

I realize it's unlikely, just wondering if it's even possible.

If anyone has that answer... tia!

[tritsofme]

1. Every member of the House is up for reelection in 2016.

Of course it is mathematically possible, but the map makes it unlikely.

[2banon]

3. Thanks for that..

now wondering about the Senate..

[okieinpain]

2. the senate yes, but i believe dems have to run the table. house

probably not.

[2banon]

4. Mathematically speaking, it's possible.. just not likely

sounds like what you're saying..

[Savannahmann]

5. Yes it is possible to win both back.

However, the problem is that the Republicans have to lose it. Then when we win it, we immediately put the people in conservative districts in jeopardy. When they lose, we laugh and say good riddance to those damned Dino's. You see, we want a majority, but we don't want anyone who doesn't fit in with the cookie cutter vision of a Democrat.

Yes, I know. I saw it here when John Barrow lost the election.http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025761043

So getting a majority might be doable, but we'll lose it right away when we screw over those people from the red/purple states. When they lose the elections, we mock them as being too right wing for the Democrats anyway. So how we're ever going to get the majority is a mystery to me, but I'm sure the experts here who said that the Democrats were in no danger of losing the Senate have a great plan. If it was a plan based in reality instead of fantasy, that might help too.

[BillZBubb]

6. Did we really win it back if it was by electing DINOs?

If someone a great deal of the time votes against what other members of the party are voting for, a majority doesn't mean anything. That's not a cookie cutter problem.

The republicans, for all there many faults, don't have that one. They seldom stray from the party line no matter where they come from. For them, even a small majority is sufficient to pass what they want.

[Savannahmann]

7. That is frankly baloney

First having the majority means chairs of committee and the Speaker. Second the republicans don't have a lockstep. Senator Collins for example votes with democrats fairly often. Twelve republicans voted for the immigration bill in the senate.

The republicans are way smarter that we are. They recognize that a republican in Maine can not be as conservative as one from Alabama. We pretend Barrow can be as liberal as Pelosi or Sanders. Then we get mad when they aren't.

[BillZBubb]

12. Your reply is baloney

Collins ALWAYS votes with the right wing on substantive issues. They give her a pass to vote on side issues or where they have enough votes to do what they want without her.

Republicans voted for the immigration bill because they knew as it stood it would never pass reconciliation.

Did a republican like Collins EVER vote against filibuster when his/her vote would have broken the filibuster? EVER?

[Savannahmann]

21. Read the history

Several votes failed because democrats voted against the measures.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/379/susan-collins#.VF3tooo8LCR

Take the funding to shut Gitmo prisoners down. Warren voted no while Collins voted yes. Several Democrats also voted no.

If you don't know the record how can you complain?

[GeorgeGist]

9. So we either play their game ...

or we don't play at all.

Sounds about right.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. Senate yes, House is gone for a long time

Hard to imagine a logical scenario in which we take back the House within the next 3-4 cycles. It would require a string of favorable cycles for Democrats and you're not going to get that minus a very low sustained approval rating for a Republican president or very lofty for a Democrat.

Redistricting adds another obstacle, along with significantly more money used to defend vulnerable House seats.

We need more big cities. If anyone has a plan to uproot and transfer another city of 1 million+ people into each state, we can coast. The applicable math will be in our favor, not the other way.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. The GOP is likely to hold the House for at least a decade-plus - maybe 15-plus years.

The gerrymandering killed any chance of the Democrats winning it in a long time.

[napi21]

28. It's true the gerrymandering makes it impossible, BUT, isn't there another census in 2020?

I realize that's still a long time, but not as bad as some predict. I THINK the year the census takes place, the boundry lines are redrawn according to the population. It's after that they gerrymandering begins. Isn't that true?

[Thor_MN]

30. 2020 is a Presidential Election year.

With any luck, the voters will actually show up and give the redistricting opportunity a more liberal leaning.

[OldHippieChick]

11. My 2 cents

The only way we will ever win back the House is by winning state legislatures, so that, in 2020, when they re-district, we stand a chance of making the "safe" Republican districts no longer safe. Until then, Dem chances are grim in the House. People must be encouraged to vote down-ballot for the next 3 cycles for us to accomplish this.

[2banon]

13. good point and good time to elect actual progressives en masse. n/t

[BillZBubb]

14. Correct. The real battle has to be at the state level now.

The republicans own the states, so they can gerrymander majorities forever unless that changes.

[gratuitous]

15. Yes, it's a multi-step process for the House

As for the Senate, the Republicans will be facing many of the same problems that Democrats did in 2014. Remember the Republican "wave" election in the last off-year, 2010*? Those Senators will be facing the voters for the first time since they ran on that platform of jobs, jobs, jobs that never quite materialized. There are 34 Senate seats being contested, 10 Democrats in states like Oregon, California, Washington, Connecticut and Hawaii, and 24 Republicans.

I like the Democrats' odds.

*Isn't it odd how wavy the Republicans are in low-turnout off-year elections? And how much less successful they are when turnout is up?

[2banon]

16. Yes, isn't it odd, indeed.

Thanks for this perspective. I see that it's not *impossible* for genuine progressives to win control of either house or Senate (vis a vis technical structure of the system itself) but highly unlikely given the reality of the Oligarchy who own and control everything.

[Savannahmann]

22. Pfui

We took the house in 2006. We lost in in 2010 not because of gerrymandering but because we shat on the rural Democrats who couldn't take the more liberal agenda and survive.

[bhikkhu]

27. Which goes against the other narrative -

that we have lost the house and most state elections because of not running liberal-enough candidates.

I'm prone to thinking that left-wing purity testing has the same problem as right-wing purity testing. Most people are in the middle, and bitterly polarized campaigns alienate the majority. 20% of the electorate just staged a senate takeover, which is an impressive demonstration of dysfunction, to me. More of the same next time around is unlikely to fix things.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. Republicans have more seats to defend in 2016

Off the top of my head, we can take New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

We can do this.

[joshcryer]

18. You need blue dogs for the gerrymandered house.

Unfortunately.

Seems the dems are employing a longer strategy that will level the playing field around 2020-2024.

[Yo_Mama]

19. Pretty easy on the Senate. The numbers favor our side in 2016.

The House? I don't know. A lot will depend on the Dem presidential candidate. If people are really excited about the Dem candidate, you'll have higher D turnouts.

I think it's a 70-80% probability to at least get a tie in the Senate in '16, and well over 50% to get 51. That's assuming we end up 54 R in this cycle.

[2banon]

25. That's indicative of something really wrong with how we seek representation

the fact is that it's Congressional Representation that should be laser focused with at least as much weight as we give to the white house. but that's not how this country rolls, unfortunately.

[KinMd]

20. Republcans have 24 senate seats up in 2016..Democrats just 10

[Recursion]

23. Mathematically the House can switch every two years

And with 23 GOP Senate seats up for election in 2016, it can switch too.

Realistically the Senate is doable. Taking back the House before the next redistricting would surprise me.

[2banon]

24. that's pretty much how I see it... thanks for confirming so succinctly n/t

[BlindTiresias]

26. I'd be surprised

[onecaliberal]

29. Gerrymandering makes it unlikely

All seats in the house are up for re-election

[customerserviceguy]

31. The House, I don't see that

Redistricting has it baked into the cake up until 2022, but the Senate, yes, it's possible. Of course, that depends on how the next two years go, and whether or not Hillary can gin up the vote the way that Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012.