The problem with your theory is that Dems’ Senate prospects have been brightening across the board over the past month.
I could see the logic in the notion that Obama’s prospects are brightening, but it’s not having any effect on Congress. But it’s harder to buy into the notion that Obama’s prospects and those of Senate Dems are rising together, but the House is going its own way.
ETA: Oh, and most House Republicans are pretty extreme, including a fair number who won in moderate districts in 2010 only because Republican turnout was way up, and Dem turnout was way down.
I’d say, not likely, but not extremely unlikely either. I’m about where Intrade is: I’d say the Dems have about a 1-in-4 chance of retaking the House. I certainly wouldn’t want to bet even money that it’ll happen, but it’s enough of a chance that it’s worth opening up the wallet to help increase those chances a little bit, at least IMHO.
I agree with the general opinion that right now (27 Sep 2012) the probability is about 25% that the Democratic Party takes majority control of the House. The Senate may well go Democratic as well. But, that will not stop the obstructionist platform of the GOP. We will probably still have gridlock for another four years and that is not a good idea at this time.
Well, gridlock is a hell of a lot better than GOP control.
If the Dems (a) hold the White House and Senate and (b) retake the House, I’m hoping that (c) Reid’s sincere about filibuster reform, and (d) he can get 49 of his fellow Senate Dems to support him on changing the rules.
But of (a) through (d) above, I’d say (d) has the longest odds against. And that is why we will continue to have gridlock.
Filibuster reform is a great idea, but it will never be implemented because neither party is willing to accept control of the other. Partisan politics has become so toxic that even when good ideas are vetted they are destroyed or adulterated so greatly as to be mere shadows of themselves.
It is absolutely, 100% true that Democrats might take back the house. It may or may not be true that they will– We don’t know that yet. But there’s still a nonzero probability by any account, and it’s a nonnegligible one according to the usual best sources for this sort of thing.
Seems like it would be tough because of erroneous redistricting done by Republicans in 2010. Here in Ohio the Republicans drew up such absolutely absurd districts that we have a ballot initiative in November to change how districts are drawn. Some how they managed to combine Marcy Kaptur’s district in Toledo with Dennis Kucinich’s in Cleveland. Jim Jordan’s district stretches from just above Dayton to just below Lake Erie. All of the predominantly black neighborhoods in Cleveland and Akron were squeezed into the same district. It is absurd.
The odds of a Romney victory or the Democrats taking over the House are not small in my view.
Sam Wang disagrees: he thinks Romney’s odds are less than 15%. The Dems have a lead on the generic Congressional ballot of 4% +/- 2%, perhaps unsurprising given the wackos that the Republicans have thrown up. Extrapolating that gives a 74% chance of Democratic takeover. But this metric is a volatile and noisy signal. Meaning that it can change a lot over time and its a weak predictor of the final outcome regardless.
I tend to lean towards the intrade figures though.
Sam Wang: Using all polls and median-based statistics to address issues of outlier data gives the median of D+4.0% that I gave. That translates to a narrow 16-seat Democratic majority in an election held today.
This would be an unusual outcome. It would involve a Democratic net gain of over 30 seats, much more than the typical gain for a re-elected president’s party. But 2010 was also an exceptional wave year for the Republicans. Again, think of the pendulum. In any event, this is what the numbers are currently telling us.
The principal caveat. The main issue with this analysis is that it does not use district-level data. In the coming weeks, those surveys will become more abundant. In 2008, district polls did a very good job of estimating the outcome – on Election Eve. Six weeks out, the generic ballot preference is the week-to-week indicator that is available.
I disagree. Plain majorities can remake Senate rules, provided it is done at the beginning of the term. And Harry Reid has come out in favor of reform. The Dems could figure (correctly in my view) that the Republicans won’t hesitate to change the rules if they landed a 1 vote majority. So why not just cut to the chase and reform the system on their own terms?
I believe the state is of the view that it’s required to make at least one majority-minority district if at all possible. I think the population of the Cleveland area has declined enough to make it just impossible to get a 50% black district within Cuyahoga County. (I played with district-drawing websites for a while, and I was never able to get above 48% or 49% with the 2010 numbers. When the state had the redistricting competition using the 2000 numbers, I was able to get around 51%, IIRC.)
Pelosi’s saying that because it’s her job to say that, not because she thinks it’ll happen. As was mentioned, redistricting, which was carried out this time by largely Republican state legislatures, as well as the smaller, more ideologically consistent nature of House seats means that a Democratic takeover is really unlikely.
The only one I know who’s really looking at the House as a whole is Larry Sabato, and he’s got Republicans favored in 231 seats and Democrats in 190, with 14 too close to tell. So to win the house, the Democrats not only have to pick up those 14 too close to call seats, but hold onto all of the seats they’re favored to win in, and pick up 14 seats that are currently favoring the Republicans, which is a pretty tall order.
I believe the Democrats will have a net gain but not enough to take control. I wish it were otherwise. My own representative has the most name recognition of all – Boehner – and he seems to be running unopposed. I don’t think his district even got redrawn to any great extent, although it was pretty oddly shaped to begin with. I’ll definitely be voting Yes on Issue 2 to create a bi-partisan commission to draw up these districts in future.
But what does he base it on? Most House races don’t get any polling except on Election Day. The truth is we just don’t have any hard data to base a prediction on. I’ll go with my gut feeling that Romney toxicity will lead to a Pelosi speakership.
I think you’re way too optimistic, Bob. That said, Pelosi is probably trying to increase the odds of it happening by making people think it’s possible. If enough people think they can make a difference, D turnout might increase enough to actually make that difference.
But I’m down for “net House gain for the Dems but no majority” unless Romney does something that makes the entire party toxic (which is still also within the realm of the possible).
Not necessarily. Gerrymandering can blow up in your face if you get too greedy about it.
Spreading your party’s support over a disproportionate number of districts means reducing your margins in each of them. If you do too much of that, and the tide turns against you, each of your districts becomes more vulnerable than they would have, and you can actually end up with *fewer *seats than if you hadn’t gerrymandered. That would be erroneous.
I could believe this. I could easily believe that this race is no where near as close as the news outlets would have you believe. Where’s the viewership if they declare it now? Better to keep the ‘epic’ battle going, as long as you can. Makes better tv, higher ratings, and they have to fill a lot of air time between now and election day.