Why is the House unwinnable?

[Gaffey Duck]

I saw a Ras poll that had the Dems 6 up on a generic House ballot.

[ibegurpard]

1. Not unwinnable, just very unlikely

Because congressional districts are drawn in such a way as to leave very few seats that are truly competitive.

[WI_DEM]

2. It's not unwinnable

There are quite a few vulnerable Republican incumbents. If the wind shifts enough we can win control--maybe not likely but possible.

[skylarmae]

3. tricks like DeLay's redistricting Texas last winter being overturned

and maybe picked up by democrats might help.

[apnu]

8. but the redistricting decision is too little too late...

and, I think, that it doesn't go into effect until AFTER this election.

[pmbryant]

4. It's not. But gerrymandering makes it difficult.

But by no stretch is it "unwinnable".

--Peter

[napi21]

5. Redistricting and not enough seats up for grabs.

It's no secret that long term congressmen have a big advantage, and they're very hard to throw out of office. The redistricting lines drawn by the Pubs have just made it much more difficult for a challenger tp pust a current office holder.

[aquart]

6. ALL the seats are up for grabs. ALL of them.

Just go to the polls and vote the bastards out. Our turnout can do that. This Congress has utterly betrayed us. Dump it.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Considering that 50% of the electorate doesn't vote...

That may be more true than we think. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to compete for 435 house seats.

[dorktv]

16. It also does not help that you have local parties who give

candidates NO support.

[VaYallaDawg]

10. Not in my district.

Incumbent rethug is running without opposition. Democrats gave up the struggle many years ago. It's possible to write in somebody's name (my own, for example), but that's like a fart in a windstorm.

[aquart]

12. Any neighbors on your side?

Any chance of agreeing on a write-in name?

Or spreading the word of what name to write in?

[IIgnoreNobody]

7. It's not. The odds are against it but the idea that it is unwinnable

is nothing but anti-democratic propaganda. Much like the whole phony 'safe' state idea.


We should never let the corporate media convince us in advance of an election that the result is a foregone conclusion.

[featherman]

11. Dominate turnout and you flip the House

It is what the GOP did in 1994 while too many DEMS stayed home during that nightmare off year election. We have paid a terrible price for that neglect. It is my fondest daydream that we go to the polls in massive numbers and take back the House but it is an uphill battle. The power of incumbents in this realm is enormous.

[IIgnoreNobody]

13. BINGO!

[Cocoa]

15. yep

it could happen this year. :bounce:

[aquart]

17. 227 Republicans, 205 Democrats? A difference of 22?

We can't take 22 lousy seats? 22????

[GOPNotForMe]

21. Don't even have to take the 22, just enough to flip the majority.

For each seat we'd pick up, it would be a minus for the Thugs. So we only need an 11 or 12 net gain. The Thugs got a LOT more in 1994, so I don't see why it's so far out of the realm of possibility to so many.

[Lefty48197]

14. About 85% of the seats are basically uncontested because of gerrymandering

.

[aquart]

18. NEVER leave a seat uncontested.

People will feel you don't care.

[dorktv]

19. That is why my new Hero Stu Starky is

so cool...I mean who would take on McCain? But he did.

[Lexingtonian]

20. it depends on a lot more than that

There is a surprisingly strong incumbency effect in House races, unfortunately. And since the House's real power is the power of the purse- federal taxation and spending- it tends to reflect where the country is on economic policy more than social policy. On the other hand, its majority is always being corrupted by 'business' interests, which becomes exploitable at the ballot box after a while.

An important aspect is that Democrats don't have a very good bench of political talent in many House districts and states that have been dominated by Republicans during the past decade or two. Then there's also an 'infrastructure' problem in the Party in these locales and districts and states- most Old Democrats are feeble and wavering, politically unreliable, but they still run the Party apparatus and in their hands it disintegrates or fails as a power concentrating mechanism. Have a look at the Florida Democratic Party, etc. before this year.

This is slowly improving, because everyone sees the oldest generation of Democrats (defined by politics before 1980) fail in their campaigns against Republicans, Republicans proving unbearable, and the younger (defined by the politics after 1990/1994) generation of Democrats becoming/proving successful and relevant. Essentially there's a political logic/pattern of Old Democrat > Republican > post-1990 Democrat. (Useless/Compromised/Corrupted/Irrelevant > Unbearable 'Change'/Corrupt > Adept/Smart/Relevant.) It's painful but the People considers it a solution to its problem of solving the problems of adapting to the post-Industrial economics and the social integration/equality that are its fate.

A lot of the improvement of the Party in the House is in fact due to loss/defection/retirement, which diminishes numbers but decreases liabilities. Pelosi is far better off with Ralph Hall and Rodney Alexander gone this year and a couple of other problem conservatives eliminated in '02- Jim Traficant and Jim Barcia, for example. And the small consolation for the Texas reredistricting problem this year is that the most endangered of the Democratic Reps are generally Blue Dogs who aren't much help in getting Pelosi a reliable and energetic moderate-to-liberal majority.

I see the Republicans emerge with a very small, fearful, majority from this election. Pelosi will have a more solid bloc and always be in striking distance, and she'll start taking it all away from Hastert and his imploding, failing, bunch. With DeLay neutralized- and that effort will continue relentlessly- she's the major force in the chamber. We'll see more Republican resignations and retirements, more special elections, more Democratic seats. 2006 is going to be a great year for her that will end with her as Speaker with a hard majority.

[endnote]

22. Because we don't have Gingrich types on our side...