Chelsea Clinton: Democrats will not regain the House in 2016

[former9thward]

She bluntly declared near the top of her 20-minute speech that Democrats will not regain control of the House this November. “Maybe in 2022,” she explained, after redistricting. “While I wish that weren’t true,” she said, “we have to deal with the political realities as we find them.” She then talked about how well her mom worked with Republicans like Tom DeLay and John McCain when she was in the Senate and promised she’d do the same as president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/

[Wilms]

1. Republicans love Hillary.

So there is that.

[Generic Brad]

61. Thanks for the laugh

I am pretty sure they hate Sanders and Clinton equally.

[oberliner]

96. She is deeply loathed by Republicans

All they take about is how much they despise her.

[daleanime]

2. With your Mom the House election in 2022....

would be the least of our worries.

[Jnclr89]

3. I don't understand defeatism

And I never will. Always look forward, always attack. Don't give into your fears.

[MADem]

8. It's MATH--and the way districts have been drawn.

It's a problem. It's not "fears." It's the way the lines have been drawn.

[Gman]

10. People didn't vote in 2010

And this is what we got.

[AgerolanAmerican]

17. She is likely correct on this

2014 was really really bad for us. A complete comeback in one election from those losses would be unprecedented and is not a realistic expectation.

[dsc]

44. actually it is 2010 that killed us in that regard

2014 was the cherry on top of the shit sundae that is our current position in Congress but 2010 built that. In 2012 we won the majority of the Congressional vote nationally and in several states where we faced lopsided delegations in favor of the GOP. NC is 10/3 GOP, PA is 13 to 5, OH is 12 to 4, MI is 9 to 5. In all of those states we won a majority of the vote in 2012 and were fairly close or won it again in 2014. 2010 is what built that.

[Silver_Witch]

80. Well said and so very true

Never say never and never ever accept the defeatism. I guess Chelsea is working to lower expectations about what her mother will do.

For me I expect us to kiss some ass and take some names and make changes - changes now. BIG changes and if we don't well then bummer - at least we tried.

[BillZBubb]

4. That is so disgusting. When have we become the party of "we can't"?

The Hillary fantatics are all on board for this defeatism--except in the case of their adored one. She must win!

But Chelsea is correct, with her mother at the head of the ticket, we aren't winning the House.

[Gman]

13. It's not defeatism

It's the way it is. Now if you know a way to get the GOP House to go along with a Democrat president, you can become the highest paid lobbyist and consultant in the country.

[WDIM]

21. Exactly right if Clinton is the nominee

Democrats aren't going to show up. Clinton has already declared defeat for all down ticket candidates.

[SFnomad]

25. What a steaming pile. n/t

[global1]

46. What Is A Superdelegate To Do? Oh My???.....nt

[mythology]

84. And Sanders has declared the party ideologically bankrupt and that he would be a hypocrite

to run as a Democrat.

Kind of hard to sell people on the idea of "vote for candidate Smith, he or she is ideologically bankrupt."

[TrueDemVA]

77. This is what happens

The 90's saw the further destruction of the Democratic Party no thanks to the Clinton machine. Compromised our way into letting the conservatives take over. Money and power was the bargaining chip and the Clinton's got all the money and influence they ever wanted. In the end, the people are the only ones paying the price. Chelsea is correct, but let's give thanks to her parents for the situation we are in today.

[Silver_Witch]

81. When did we come to this?

That is a very good question. When did we stop being people who believe. When did we start running candidates that couldn't win who couldn't. When did we face terror by hiding and not saying out loud - do you best assholes we will still win.

I am getting madder and madder and beginning to believe that I am not a really a member of this Democratic Party - I want my party back.

[xmas74]

92. I know in my congressional district it happened in 2010.

That's when Vicky Hartzler sucked up to all the farmers and lied about Ike Skelton's record. Her reward for lying and playing up was to win the seat and then to keep the seat in 2012 and 2014. Right now there's just not enough to fight her over, even though she's an awful excuse for an human being.

I think it's refreshing to admit that there are some races that cannot be won, at least at this time. No one can beat Hartzler in my district so why no take some of that money and time and donate that to someone who might make a difference. In my state Jason Kander is closing the distance on Roy Blunt's seat in the Senate and has a real chance of overtaking him. His race is now considered a "race to watch". Why not donate more time and money to his race and less to Hartzler's opponent? Kander winning will not only gain us a seat in the Senate but will get a staunch RW GOPer out of office, possibly turning the Senate over to the Dems.

I live in a very red area of my state. I've learned to be practical about what can and cannot be accomplished.

[xmas74]

90. Unfortunately, what she said is true.

We have a much better chance of taking the Senate. The House is a few elections down the road. There has been too much gerrymandering to take it back in one election cycle.

It doesn't matter who is at the top of the ticket-Sanders or Clinton. Either one cannot win both the House and the Senate for Dems. We need to focus on the races we can win and look towards the tight races, deciding where to assist in a win. We have no chance whatsoever of winning some districts so there's no reason to focus on them, no matter how much I wish this wasn't the case.

(FYI-I live in a congressional district that has no chance of a Dem win. I'd love nothing better than to see Vicky Hartzler get run out of town on a rail but I know it's not going to happen for quite some time. I'd rather they take that money and spend it, at least in my state, on Jason Kander, who is closing the gap on Roy Blunt's Senate seat. Sometimes you've just got to face facts and do what you can to make the most difference.)

[BillZBubb]

91. NO, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

The Democrats won't win back the House by running on their usual republican lite, we're not as bad as them platform. They need a platform that energizes voters and gives them a reason to vote for us.

If we do that, gerrymandering or not, we can win.

[xmas74]

93. I can tell you right now, at least where I live, we cannot win.

Ike Skelton held this seat for over 30 years. He was a conservative Democrat and well loved in this area. Hartzler lied and possibly cheated her way into this seat and she's holding strong. You could dig up George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and even Ronald Reagan and run them here-as long as they have a (D) next to their name on the ballot they'd never win. There are too many that vote the party line around here.

I'd rather focus on races where we stand a chance. We have a good chance of flipping the Senate and I'm proud to say that I've offered to do whatever is needed to help my candidate. To me it makes sense to focus on one goal, in this case the Senate, accomplish that goal and then focus on a new goal, chipping away at the House.

I live in a really red area. I've learned to be happy with smaller goals building up to something big. Nothing happens overnight and I'd never expect it to. 2020, 2022 seem like feasible goals especially if we can take the Senate in 2016 along with the presidency.

[BillZBubb]

94. There are plenty of house races held by republicans in districts the Democrats COULD WIN.

Enough in fact to change the balance. Of course there are many that we could almost never win. But enough are in play, or could be to give us control.

[xmas74]

95. But right now the biggest bang for our buck is the Senate races.

We have a real chance of flipping the tables. Shouldn't that be our biggest focus?

We focus on the presidential election, the senate races and a few key state races first, then build on that with 2018 and 2020, leading us into a much stronger position in 2022.

I don't know. I just try to think of what's best in the short term and how to play it out in the long term. It seems like our plates are almost full with some key races right now and that, given time, we'll be ready to dig in and really fight for the house in a few cycles from now. It gives time to really get donations, to find fantastic candidates all around and to really get the electorate excited.

I just want to be ready for each stage of reclaiming those seats. I don't want to run in, not ready and lose it all.

[Gman]

5. Exactly what I've been saying.

In 2010, an off year election, people stayed home out of apathy as well as ignorance of it being a redistricting year while the GOP stired their base into a rabid frenzy over the ACS. It was a redistricfing year, we got beat bad, they took over statehouses and legislatures and had a SCOTUS in their back pocket. We're stuck with this until at least 2022 with 2020, a presidential year, being the next redistricfing election year.

And THAT my friends, is why it doesn't matter if it's Sanders or Clinton, nothing will change until 2022 at the very earliest.

[BillZBubb]

18. Bullshit. That is pure defeatism and excuse making.

If we offer a program that people really want, they will vote for us and the gerrymandering won't stop us.

[Gman]

23. Regardless I can't change this fact

and for you too, if you know of a plan that can get Democrsts elected in those safe GOP seats, and if you know of a way to make the GOP house work with a Democrat president, you can be the highest paid and most sought after consultant around.

[Califonz]

30. "No we can't" seems to be the real Clinton campaign slogan. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. That's because, unlike Sanders, Clinton is running an honest campaign.

There are a lot of things that the Democrats will not be able to accomplish if they take the presidency.

Clinton is being honest about that.

Sanders is telling people what they want to hear, even though it isn't true.

[TrueDemVA]

78. That's rich

Did you read what you typed? That is hilarious. Good one!

[csziggy]

64. What we can do is fight the gerrymandering in the courts where possible

Florida fought it and the courts forced the legislature to redraw the lines of the districts. They were not finalized until this year.

I haven't studied the new lines to see how well it came out but we will find out more with the elections. Hopefully our elections will better reflect the will of the people.

Other states may have ground for lawsuits if the gerrymandering is as egregious as it was here in Florida. Until after the census in 2020 that is our only chance to change the situation.

[Gman]

66. The SCOTUS has ruled it's not illegal

To gerrymander along party lines. Goes back to what Tom Delay did in Texas. They redrew Texas and only 3 districts were thrown out. Texas went from a Democrat majority in Texas to minority.

[csziggy]

67. Florida had passed a constitutional amendment that made a lawsuit possible

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Florida gained two congressional seats. In November 2010, voters approved two separate constitutional amendments establishing that congressional and state legislative districts must meet the following criteria (Amendment 6 applied to congressional districts; Amendment 5 applied to legislative districts):[2][3]

“ [Districts] may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.[4]

https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Florida

The legislature drew up a redistricting map that they approved in 2012 and which was challenged almost immediately. The case dragged through the courts and the new plan was finally approved earlier this year. The link above has a decent discussion of how things went. We get to find out this year how much better than the other version the new one is.

If more states could get similar amendments passed then citizens would have a better chance of getting gerrymandered districts amended.

[Gman]

68. That is ideal. Good on the voters in FL

But something like that would never see the light of day out of its Texas legislature committee.

[csziggy]

69. The amendments were citizen originated

I don't know if that is possible in Texas but for the states where it is possible, it would be a very good idea!

[Gman]

70. Unfortunate Texas does not have initiative and referendum

Probably a good thing with all the fundy nut cases here.

[csziggy]

72. True - the flip side of citizen activism

In its worst form you get the Bundys.

In one of her bits a while back Rachel Maddow discussed how in many states it takes many more votes to elect Democrats to state offices that it does to vote in Republicans. I wonder if a gifted lawyer could make a case that gerrymandering that results in that should be considered theft of votes or something that is unconstitutional. (It's before coffee for me so I am not very articulate this morning.)

[Gman]

73. It just seems to me if the 14th amendment protections

Were good enough for Bush to prevail in Bush v Gore, it should apply to GOP redistricting. But that's expecting too much.

[csziggy]

75. I guess in many places the best bet is to turn out the voters

Overwhelm the system with Democratic voters and get our people in place. THEN the problem is to get the DNC to make voting fairness a priority. Howard Dean was working on that but DWS doesn't seem to care about voter suppression.

I can't volunteer for any campaign until the end of May - other things will be taking my time - but after that I think I will get involved. That works anyway since I do NOT want to get mixed up in the primary fights. Before when I volunteered it was after the nomination had been settled.

As a volunteer I want to concentrate on turning out voters. Long term, after next November, I want to work on registering voters and convincing them to actually turn out for every election. If we could do that we could beat the Republicans every time.

[1939]

74. By adhering to city boundaries as much as possible

you will tend to pack Democratic voters (who lean to be more urban) into districts. The kind of gerrymandering required by the Democratic Party is having a lot of rural districts with "tails" dipping into the city for enough voters to make the district lean D.

[csziggy]

76. Yes - Tallahassee has one of those "tails"

So heavily Democratic Tallahassee shares representatives with the very read area extending all the way across North Florida to Jacksonville AND with the deeply read Panhandle extending to Panama City. This effectively splits and weakens the strong Democratic presence in Leon County so we will have less chance of electing Democratic representatives. (http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2015/12/03/florida-supreme-court-picks-congressional-district-map)

And that is AFTER the lines were drawn to meet the judge's criteria in settling the case with the League of Women Voters vs the state legislature!

This article - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/16/florida-says-it-will-change-its-congressional-districts-a-judge-said-violate-state-law-but-after-the-election/ - has the map as it was in 2012. While Leon County gets dumped in with red areas, it was not split up.

With the new map I am not even sure which district I am in - my house is very close to one of the lines and I have not seen a detailed enough version to locate where I am!

[Nevernose]

65. Absolutely agree.

I'm still going to work my ass off, but I can't really do anything about gerrymandering.

[PSPS]

6. She's right. Gerrymandering makes it practically impossible.

There are some redistricting suits and activities going on that will help, but they won't be done this year.

[Trust Buster]

7. She's wrong about that.

Gerrymandering after the 2010 census has given the Republicans a lock on the House until after the 2020 census at the earliest.

[SFnomad]

11. That's exactly what Chelsea said. How does that make her wrong? n/t

[highprincipleswork]

9. I am not interested in the Clintonian view of reality. I especially don't wish it imposed on me.

[Gman]

14. It's the way the country is right now

No matter who says it, Democrats will not retake the House. Senate, yes. House, no.

[blm]

12. Unfortunately, this is in all probability. The gerrymandering that was done in purple states

and, especially purple states that lean blue, has assured that the turnover needed is highly unlikely.

In NC, based on the 2012 vote, Dems should have gained the majority of seats as they had 52% of the overall vote going to Dems. Instead, the GOP has 11 seats to Dems 3.

This happened in EVERY swing state, like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I wish Chelsea hadn't said it out loud, but, I can't fault her on the veracity of her statement. I can't. I live with the results of GOPs extreme gerrymandering every day. I live in NC.

[Gman]

15. And the common denominator is

The GOP took over those statehouses in 2010. But they'll still be purple.

[WDIM]

16. More "No we can't" from the Clintons

Why even hold elections they are already declaring defeat. Every seat in the house should be up for grabs. The defeatest attitude is going to end in defeat.

[SFnomad]

20. Bury your head in the sand then

The losses we took in the statehouses in 2010 is what will be responsible for us not being able to take back the House of Representatives until 2022 at the earliest.

Do you understand the process? Or is it just easier to have more outrage at the Clinton family?

[WDIM]

28. I completely understand and its about energizing the voters

Not declaring defeat before the race is run. Clinton knows she can't energize the voters so they already are down playing and lowering expectations.

Well things usually live up to their expectations and what good is it if you already expect to fail.

[SFnomad]

29. It's clear you don't understand. n/t

[Gman]

27. Sorry but your expectations are way too high

And you're only going to be disappointed and disillusioned. What we have today did not happen over night. Nor will it change over night.

I don't mean to kill your enthusiasm. Keep it and enjoy it. But in politics, you do the best you can then work from there. You won't change the world overnight. Many have tried for 50+ years.

[WDIM]

32. I have no illusions

But if you go into a conflict declaring defeat you will never win. If the Democrats adopt Sanders platform they will destroy republicans across the country. People are fed up with more of the same.

[Gman]

39. Or

How about we have been in a conflict for years and we're looking to plan the best time to attack and win? Because right now all we can do is hold our ground. But we build a firewall in November by electing a Democratic Senate and president, Hillary or Sanders, to appoint SCOTUS justices that favor us. And you've got to remember the Clarence Thomas is getting up in years and he is at risk for a lot of ailments that could make him retire for health reasons in the next few years, or worse.

[Loki]

33. ^This^

Thank you for trying to explain why this is the political reality right now. It's not defeatism, but until the next census, and electing people who will work to change the redistricting process to independent panels and out of the hands of the political parties in control of state houses, this will be what we are left to work with. It's not rocket science, it can be changed, and it's called reality, hard work and elections. I remember reading an article about the number of votes cast in an election favored the Democrats by a very wide margin, but the Republican's picked up almost all the seats because of gerrymandering.

[WDIM]

37. Flip voters

Run the better campaign and make your case to the people.

[Loki]

48. You actually think you would be able to overcome a deficit of over 100,000 registered voters in a

district that would be heavily tilted towards registered Republicans? These people don't flip.

[blm]

60. Here in NC us GOTV activists have to get out almost 2 Dem voters for every 1 of theirs

just to BREAK EVEN in the State House and Senate.

Those who don't understand this are the ones spreading doom. You don't focus on the SOLUTIONS - and the solution is with the Supreme Court and re-instating Voting Rights Act and extending that to include nonpartisan drawing of districts.

[hrmjustin]

19. She is right. Gerrymandering and poor candidate recruitment will prevent us from taking the house.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. no we can't must be the new official hillary campaign slogan.

[BillZBubb]

24. And apparently of half the Democratic party.

[Loki]

36. Then tell us how you expect this to change?

I'm curious not snarky. I want to know how you think this will be accomplished with the current districts being drawn to politically favor one party over the other. I've lived with this for years in Republican held states. Look at the districts in Texas for example and you can see just what a wonderful job Tom Delay did for that state. So tell me. I'm listening.

[mythology]

86. Magic apparently

Just like Sanders didn't have a valid answer when questioned by Chris Matthews about how he would get his agenda passed, they don't have an answer to this question.

[Enrique]

26. that's just like her opinion man n/t

[WDIM]

35. you're not wrong walter

you're not wrong.... you're just an a....

big lebowski rules!

[haikugal]

31. Ugh....SSDD....

Are we all settlers now?

[Cobalt Violet]

34. more no we can't

the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

[grasswire]

38. NO WE CAN'T!!

And don't you forget it!!

[Dr. Strange]

82. Daughter of No We Can't!

[NightWatcher]

40. What'd she say about her mom's chances of winning?

Or was she just saying that her mom will be republican-lite and get a lot of republican-ish bills passed?

[peace13]

42. Worse than that. It was the dog whistle of hopelessness.

Stay home, it really doesn't matter. The middle class will disappear completely by '22. Every time this young woman opens her mouth a distraction appears. Mission accomplished.

[NightWatcher]

45. Hillary's team is about as exciting as a piece of room temperature Wonder Bread

Obama had Hope and Change, while Hillary is running with "meh" and "we might win".

I predict the lowest Dem turnout since Dukakis.

[peace13]

47. And the Wonder Bread team knows that a low turnout is in their favor!

It's criminal to encourage hopelessnes. Have an awesome evening! : )

[peace13]

41. Sorry, Hill didn't give a hoot about election irregularities in AZ.

Absolutely nothing will change if she is elected. Election fraud, redistributing the districts and this from Chelsea. She is basically telling people, stay at home, it doesn't matter if you vote. Of course this strategy will help her mother. Really, the fact that people are defending her here is really disturbing!

[DonCoquixote]

43. and much of the blame and problem

Is that we have a party chairwoman who does her best to kneecap any liberals, and when Obama tried to fire her, made sure sh threatened to paint him as anti jew and anti woman, so that he knew he would face donor wrath. She is the one responsible for the fact that Marco Rubio was in the Senate, and that Rick Scott was governor due to her recruiting Charlie Crist

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz-circa-2013-was-set-to-pai/

[Zen Democrat]

50. How uninspiring.

[RandySF]

51. She's right

A majority of Americans across many states voted Dem for the House in 2012 and the Republicans kept their majority. After so many fair-weather Dems sat home in 2010, Republican state legislators and governors rigged the Congressional districts until at least 2021. I can see from the above comments that it's terrible because Chelsea said it, but she told the truth.

[dchill]

52. How uninspiringly incremental.

A better idea: nominate Bernie and the enthused turnout gets down ticket Dems elected!

Way better for America.

[B Calm]

53. The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any. –Alice Walker

[0rganism]

54. not necessarily true, a Democratic wave election could do it

remember, in the process of redistricting to get a house GOP majority, the GOP had to split up its "safe" seats, so now instead of one district where they'd win by 20 points they have 4 districts where they win by 5. it's a lot easier to tip a seat where your deficit is 5 points than it is to tip that 20 point seat.

if the Republicans nominate Trump, taking back the House becomes a real possibility.

imo, the punditry has had, up to now, a tendency to underestimate (publicly at least) just how much of a disaster Trump is for the Republican party. he is absolutely destroying it from the inside.

that said, if something happens to turn what should be a motherfucking huge Democratic landslide into another horse race situation, yeah the GOP keeps the House and avoids total demolition for a few more years.

[rufus dog]

88. What the hell is wrong with you?

Now you are talking like a fighter, a Change Agent!

I was never one of those who thought or stated Clinton couldn't win. I always thought she would eek out a victory. In the last three months, with the Trump/Cruz show, I now see she might exceed Obama's 2008 haul. If a third party candidate doesn't jump in, it is quite possible.

Yet for some reason Chelsea feels it necessary to temper expectations. Not in October in the middle of a tight fight, but in March/April as the Republican Party remains in meltdown mode. The question is why? And to be honest I don't like the expected answer.

For every Clinton supporter backing the Chelsea comment, I suggest you read 0rganisms post again, and again, and again, until you get it. Her comment is indefensible unless,...... it is meant to temper expectations. To put it bluntly, that is exactly what it was meant to do.

[ananda]

55. Thuck fat!

DeLay? McCain?

I want to vomit.

[dflprincess]

56. As long as "working with Republicans"

doesn't mean selling us out - and I"m afraid that's just what she'll do.

[hollowdweller]

57. I want Hillary to attack the republicans not try to work with them.

If she thinks that working with the republicans is possible she's more deluded than Obama.

I mean they might go along with her on some of her wars, but anything economic, no.

Plus they will double down on trying to remove her from office.

[Fast Walker 52]

58. well, not everyone agrees--- Trump is hurting the brand in the congressional races

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-gop-house-majority-jeopardy-221004

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. Probably right, I don't see it happening until the lines are redrawn following the next census

and even then only if redistricting is done in a less partisan manner and if Republicans control fewer state legislatures.

[Reter]

62. In other news the sun will shine tomorrow

I mean, tell us something we don't already know, Chelsea.

[closeupready]

63. Imagine entering an Olympic competition, stating "I am going to lose"

9 months prior to the game.

LOL These Cintons are ridiculous. Their supporters delusional, in big part.

[VOX]

71. Thread now belongs in GDP, since it's quickly morphed into...

a candidate-bashing thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. She should stick to topics like this, rather than health care or defending incarcerating drug users

She's correct, of course, although I would hope we could see some traction before '22

[rufus dog]

83. Well this should motivate the Youth vote for her mother

Although she is correct that it would be extremely difficult it doesn't mean you don't try.

It is the game of lowering expectations, thus insulating her mother from having to fight.

And it is complete and total bullshit.

Look, I am in my mid fifties, youngest kid heads off to college this year. Sanders efforts will have limited positive short term impact on me or my kids, I would likely end up paying more in taxes. So the best thing for me in the short term is not to pay more taxes. Continue to work, protect my investments and move on. Using that logic, I should pick Clinton over Sanders, but then I should also pick Cruz over Clinton.

Screw all of you I got mine, you want something more, go work hard AND in six years you may get some help from the Clinton's. This is the Republican mindset and is almost daily on display from the Clinton's. It is the mindset that got us to where we are today, the mindset Republicans use to motivate their voters. And I find it extremely offensive, extremely short sighted, and extremely self serving.

[pnwmom]

85. She is correct. But truth telling isn't the rage around here. n/t

[jmowreader]

87. Unfortunately, she's right

The path back to a majority will require four elections to accomplish, and three of them are at the state level.

The first thing we've got to do is to start regaining statehouses and governor's mansions - and we have three elections to accomplish it. If we can create a Democratic majority in enough statehouses at the 2020 election, we can degerrymander those states. And we win the statehouses NOT by promising pot and free chicken like some ultraliberals think we should do, but by a concerted program of real growth and fiscal stability. Once we hit 2022, we should have gained the trust of enough voters - along with a set of district maps that don't disperse the likely Democratic voters to the point where they have no power - that we should be able to win back Congress.

[craigmatic]

89. Chelsea Clinton isn't a prophet. She sounds defeatist. This is why we don't need more Clintons-

They give up too quickly. There hasn't been one vote cast for the house yet. It could be in play if they nominate trump. 10 years ago we took the house the same amount of time from the last census. Working with republicans isn't a selling point for me.

[Jefferson23]

97. Paving the way to excuse her Mom going rightward. lol

[Greybnk48]

98. Has everyone seen the commercial about "The Settlers?"

They continually settle for the status quo because that' s good enough. The Clintons should do a commercial.