Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Night Watchman

(743 posts)
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:04 AM Jul 2016

Democrats bet the House on Trump

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Politico

By Edward-Isaac Dovere
07/06/16 05:28 AM EDT

As part of an effort to nationalize the November elections by tying Republicans to their lightning-rod presidential nominee, House Democrats have begun collaborating with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to build what they’re calling their “Trump model” of persuadable voters.

With Donald Trump heading to Washington to meet with the House GOP Thursday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is also preparing to go up on television in districts earlier than in any previous cycle with an ad campaign designed to buttress the Trump-centric messaging guidance that’s already emanating from Washington — all built around a “party over country”-themed plan of attack for the fall.

The hope is that a combination of Democrats riled up by Trump, moderate Republicans and independents turned off to the party brand, and disaffected Republicans staying home will accelerate blue shifts in marginal districts to start their long road back to the majority. But more immediately, they’re hoping to pick off enough moderate Republicans to leave House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) squeezed by the Freedom Caucus come January, which they believe will neutralize him both in Congress and as a potential 2020 challenger to Clinton.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/democrats-donald-trump-house-225142



Personally. I think they're being too modest in their goals: with Trump as the Republican nominee, my view is that outright control of the House is possible this year, albeit a 60-yard Hail Mary.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats bet the House on Trump (Original Post) Night Watchman Jul 2016 OP
I like this approach, but a Hail Mary is being generous Cosmocat Jul 2016 #1
My hope is to win back the Senate Funtatlaguy Jul 2016 #2
That is possible Cosmocat Jul 2016 #4
Gerrymandering can work against them IronLionZion Jul 2016 #7
very high turnout and a landslide election needed karynnj Jul 2016 #11
YEP Cosmocat Jul 2016 #14
I think the outcome depends on bucolic_frolic Jul 2016 #3
As a Packer fan, I've seen a few Hail Marys succeed... Still In Wisconsin Jul 2016 #5
Excellent Scientific Jul 2016 #6
best effect.... getagrip_already Jul 2016 #8
...by tying Republicans to themselves... ffr Jul 2016 #9
This is Possible Night Watchman Jul 2016 #12
This is where Howard Dean's 50 state strategy would come in handy bigworld Jul 2016 #10
True, though likely not as good as 2006 and 2008 were karynnj Jul 2016 #13
A "60 yard Hail Mary" will not win back the House. yellowcanine Jul 2016 #15
They also need to pay attention to smaller states!!! Delmette Jul 2016 #16
An actual trickle-down process. sofa king Jul 2016 #17
it would only take about 20 seats NewJeffCT Jul 2016 #18
Dare I dream? sofa king Jul 2016 #19
as long as Democrats NewJeffCT Jul 2016 #20

Cosmocat

(14,667 posts)
1. I like this approach, but a Hail Mary is being generous
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:14 AM
Jul 2016

They have to try, and this is likely to be VERY effective.

However, the Gerrymandering of the House is SO ridiculous, it is a 1 in 100,000 shot.

I live in PA, we have voted D on POTUS for a few decades now, but I think out of 17 or so House seats, democrats have 5 or so, and I would be shocked if we could pick up more than one, two at the most here because of how well they gamed the lines. My district there is a zero, literally, zero chance a D could ever win.

You also have to factor in that the actual candidates of House had to be committed and have a campaign up and running for the primary late last year. A lot of these districts either don't have a D candidate or have a placeholder type who is not a real viable candidate.

Funtatlaguy

(11,120 posts)
2. My hope is to win back the Senate
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:17 AM
Jul 2016

And get the House down to a margin of about 225-210.

Cosmocat

(14,667 posts)
4. That is possible
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:23 AM
Jul 2016

and probably the best case scenario.

As bad as Trump has been, it somehow would have to be 100 times worse to get the House.

IronLionZion

(46,025 posts)
7. Gerrymandering can work against them
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:33 AM
Jul 2016

If they eliminated dem districts by packing dem voters into other districts. The new ones become more competitive. So in a major shift election with turnout higher on our side, we could pick some seats that were previously thought to be very red.

karynnj

(59,632 posts)
11. very high turnout and a landslide election needed
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:46 AM
Jul 2016

It is easier for the Republicans to create VERY high Democratic districts - some over 90% Democratic in urban areas. If a state was really 50/50 -- you could balance that one district with 4 60R/40D districts - note there is a 50/50 split over the 5 districts, but 4 of them have a very easy Republican victory.


It is hard to find districts that are 90% Republican.


Cosmocat

(14,667 posts)
14. YEP
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:09 AM
Jul 2016

And, they are flat out bold faced about doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File ennsylvania_Congressional_Districts,_113th_Congress.tif

bucolic_frolic

(44,634 posts)
3. I think the outcome depends on
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:21 AM
Jul 2016

whether HRC can accelerate in October and sell her considerable
record and skills to voters. She has potential upside. With all else
going on a 2-2.5% drift could, on the margins, deliver a lot.

 

Still In Wisconsin

(4,450 posts)
5. As a Packer fan, I've seen a few Hail Marys succeed...
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:24 AM
Jul 2016

Never say never, right?

Scientific

(314 posts)
6. Excellent
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:24 AM
Jul 2016

Republicans need to be nailed for all their lies, obstruction, mendacity and their ungodly hypocritical degenerate moral turpitude.

getagrip_already

(15,758 posts)
8. best effect....
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:42 AM
Jul 2016

Is it forces the reds back on their heels, forced to spend money on (or abandon) districts and states that otherwise would be dark.

They are in a hole. Keep them there and make it deeper.

ffr

(22,815 posts)
9. ...by tying Republicans to themselves...
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:25 AM
Jul 2016

Fixed.

Republicans, both elected and voters alike should be ashamed of the scourge they've inflicted upon us all. They are backwards, low information types that I wouldn't trust with my life.

ASHAMED! They should be put in their place at every turn. Enough pussy-footing around. Get Dems to the polls in 2016 & 2018 to sweep out the problem, Republicans.

 

Night Watchman

(743 posts)
12. This is Possible
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:52 AM
Jul 2016
If we're wiling to focus like lasers on annihilating the GOP in November.

bigworld

(1,807 posts)
10. This is where Howard Dean's 50 state strategy would come in handy
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:37 AM
Jul 2016

We have lots to offer voters in the deep south, in Utah, in many places thought of as traditionally conservative -- especially this year. We just need some good candidates in those areas and they'd have a decent chance of winning.

karynnj

(59,632 posts)
13. True, though likely not as good as 2006 and 2008 were
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:03 AM
Jul 2016

The entire idea is that the local parties have to be decent everywhere and have to work to develop candidates -- so when the tide turns in our favor, we have the best chance to succeed, where we have always failed.

From 2004 - 2006, Howard Dean insured that ALL states got money to help the state parties. It is sad, but likely true that 2004 was lost because the Ohio party did not have the resources to counter ALL (they countered some) of the Bush means of suppressing the vote. What was also clear was that in many states - not just Ohio - the DNC had not worked hard enough to insure the state parties were healthy.

In 2006, the Democrats reaped the benefit - when they almost ran the table in terms of the Senate. No one had predicted that we could regain the majority, but we did. In addition, many good candidates were fielded for the Congress who won. (Both Kerry and Wesley Clark used their money and fame to help many of the vets (and some other) candidates. Many districts that Rahm Emmanuel as head of the DCCC thought a waste of money were won by candidates funded by the DNC or Kerry and Clark.


I do not think - even if the parties are healthier this year and if their are candidates, that it will be as much of a wave at the Congressional level as it was in 2006. Obviously, we should be helped by what is likely to be a Hillary landslide, but unlike in 2006 where we were helped by the extremely high level of people saying the country is on the wrong track, we are now the party seen as in power - even though we control neither the House or Senate. I think the days when people voted straight ticket are gone, but there might be Republicans that simply do not vote because they are disgusted by Trump.

yellowcanine

(35,746 posts)
15. A "60 yard Hail Mary" will not win back the House.
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:27 AM
Jul 2016

But "Three yards and a cloud of dust," a la Woody Hays at Ohio State, might. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Hayes

In other words, a great ground game, focused and hitting hard in targeted districts.

Delmette

(522 posts)
16. They also need to pay attention to smaller states!!!
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:30 AM
Jul 2016

In Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke-R has a race against Denise Juneau the current Superintendent of Public Instruction. This is the one and only Representative Montana has. If the National Democrats get behind races like this it could be an easy win.

If every vote counts then every Democrat seat in the House counts.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
17. An actual trickle-down process.
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:47 AM
Jul 2016

As Trump keeps talking and thus adding to Mrs. Clinton's near-insurmountable lead, the Democratic Party is for once able to divert funds and effort to the undercard races in the Senate and House.

Add to that the fact that President Obama is going to be running directly against Republican Senators for their refusal to hold hearings on his Supreme Court nominee, and the fact that a couple hundred Democrats see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take a good crack at established Republican House Members, and the fact that Republican gerrymandering across dozens of states has watered down their dominance in many districts, and the fact that the Trump campaign is sucking Republican money from the bottom up, and all of a sudden it's looking like a possible clean sweep of all three branches of government.

NewJeffCT

(56,832 posts)
18. it would only take about 20 seats
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 12:03 PM
Jul 2016

to win back the House. I think Dems have 188 seats now, so +20 gives them 218 out of 435. While it will be tough, I think it's do-able. Republicans picked up 63 seats in 2010. I wonder what Rush's reaction would be to President Clinton and Speaker Pelosi being two of the three most powerful leaders in DC? And, VP Warren as head of the Senate?

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
19. Dare I dream?
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 12:22 PM
Jul 2016

There are as many as 14 tossup Senate elections going on right now, while Republicans have to spread thin money across 24 held seats out of 34 elections.

If we bag all of the tossups, plus one or two that aren't yet tossups, that's a Senate supermajority and the Republicans are effectively written out of the government for two glorious years, until the inevitable back-swing in 2018.

Honestly, that's still a one-in-a-million possibility and I don't really feel like the Democrats even need it. Republican Senate leadership is quite incompetent and they won't be able to marshal the brilliant opposition that Harry Reid did in the darkest days of the Bush disaster.

NewJeffCT

(56,832 posts)
20. as long as Democrats
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 12:36 PM
Jul 2016

can start filling up all those federal court vacancies - not just the SCotUS, but the lower levels, too - without having to get to 60 votes to break a filibuster every damn time.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Democrats bet the House o...