# So let's say the Democrats win the House in 2014 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131 "2013-10-13T10:32:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/21 "2013-10-13T18:03:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, if government were unified under Democratic control in 2014, the question of what would happen in 2016 is more of a function of who the presidential candidate are, since both will be running for a first term, rather than how the last 2 years went for the Dems. The biggest factor of course is the Presidential candidates, but the national environment they run in matters a great deal. In 2004, McCain wipes the floor with any Democratic candidate who runs against him. He’s such a popular figure that the Democrats want him as their VP nominee. In 2008, that all changes, not because of anything McCain does, but because the national environment is so hostile to Republicans. I dare say no one would have come closer to beating OBama than McCain in 2008. Also, not all Presidential candidates have long coattails. Presidents do win elections and lose seats in Congress from time to time. Vote splitting is still in vogue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/22 "2013-10-13T18:07:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The last part, “ramming legislation through” was meant for the majority. I don’t know of any objective way of determining whether that was done or not. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/23 "2013-10-13T18:10:48Z")
It’s pretty easy to tell when Congress is in a hurry to pass something before the public can properly scrutinize it. Patriot Act, the last few copyright bills. They tried it with the health care bill but failed(Obama wanted it by July, before recess). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/24 "2013-10-13T18:39:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In 2004, McCain wipes the floor with any Democratic candidate who runs against him. Oh yeah? What if FDR ran against him? Because you can’t prove that McCain would beat FDR. > [@](#): > > He’s such a popular figure that the Democrats want him as their VP nominee. I really wish you’d pay a little attention to the words you use. John Kerry, whose judgment is continually suspect, wanted McCain. Most Democrats thought he was bonkers. (“He” in that sentence refers both to McCain and Kerry.) > [@](#): > > Also, not all Presidential candidates have long coattails. Presidents do win elections and lose seats in Congress from time to time. Vote splitting is still in vogue. How often does that happen? Tell me when it has and when it hasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/25 "2013-10-13T18:41:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s a lot more ambitious than what Democrats did just before 1994 or 2010. Why do you think that would go over any better? Because it’s a lot more ambitious. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/26 "2013-10-13T18:47:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Oh yeah? What if FDR ran against him? Because you can’t prove that McCain would beat FDR. Well, simply by being on the ticket with Kerry would have made a Kerry win a near certainty, so we know McCain could beat Bush from the bottom of the ticket, and Bush beat Kerry. Thus, McCain beats Kerry. [http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160\_162-619786.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-619786.html) > [@](#): > > How often does that happen? Tell me when it has and when it hasn’t. Most recently, in 2004. In 1984, the Republicans did gain seats in the House, but lost two Senate seats. And that was with a historic landslide. The Democrats had also won two Senate seats in 1972, another otherwise awful year for them. Obama and Clinton did see gains in both chambers as part of their reelections, so maybe it’s a Democratic advantage that Republicans don’t share. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/27 "2013-10-13T18:49:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because it’s a lot more ambitious. So, if they’d actually passed cap and trade, that would have been a help? Because that was the big item on the agenda that passed the House but died in the Senate. Sorry, but this sounds to me more like the wishful thinking my side engages in. “If only we were MORE conservative ,more ambitious, fought harder!” BTW, roid, now we’re starting to debate. So tune in and we’ll let you declare the winner on the next page.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/28 "2013-10-13T19:28:37Z")
I feel like German must have a word for the emotion expressed in the OP. Schadenfreude doesn’t quite fit, but… ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/29 "2013-10-13T19:44:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > a winning presidential candidate tends to have coattails that bring Congress toward the winning candidate. In the 1988 election, when George H. Bush won, the Republicans gained no seats in the Senate and _lost_ two in the House. Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado) commented: “Not only was Bush not wearing coattails, he was wearing a bikini.” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/30 "2013-10-13T19:52:08Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > adaher vs. Qin > > Sorry Adaher, although you both have infantile views of the world, Qin wins on the ability to reason and make logical arguments - a skill you never mastered. > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > You’re the one who put your concern-troll “debate” question in the Pit, Thumbelina. > [@Raygun99](#): > > I feel like German must have a word for the emotion expressed in the OP. Schadenfreude doesn’t quite fit, but… I am actually encouraged by this thread. Now, I could simply have blinders on, but **adaher’s** OP and subsequent posts and queries in this thread do seem to me to be genuine. Color me Naive, but I think even **adaher** is beginning to see the Republican horror show for what it is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/31 "2013-10-13T20:33:14Z")
All his droogies at the molokai bar think its real horror show. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/32 "2013-10-13T21:27:22Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > I feel like German must have a word for the emotion expressed in the OP. Schadenfreude doesn’t quite fit, but… Dauererektion des männlichen Geschlechtsorgans. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/33 "2013-10-13T21:29:01Z")
Losing 13 seats doesn’t sound like “pissing off the country”. It sounds like losing 3% of the seats in the House. So, just for comparison, how many times have the Republicans gained some seats in the House and lost some in the subsequent election? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/34 "2013-10-13T21:34:45Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > -Removing the payroll tax cap for Social Security > -Immigration reform, more or less based on the current bill in the Senate > -A massive infrastructure-energy bill, including repairs to roads and bridges, building a national high-speed rail system, and building dozens of new nuclear power plants to expand America’s nuclear capacity > -Close tax loopholes and raise the estate and income taxes for those making over 250k back to Clinton-era loopholes. Consider some modest cuts to the corporate tax afterwards > -Raise the minimum wage > -Restore many of the spending cuts made due to sequestration > -Universal background checks for guns > -Full expansion of PBS into something resembling the BBC or CBC in Canada > -Marijuana legalization, ending the war on drugs, and lowering the drinking age to 18 > -Ending the embargo on Cuba Change “closing tax loopholes…” to “tax reform” I don’t see an increase in the minimum wage. Last time, most states were already above the federal minimum wage, we were really raising the minimum wage for fewer than 10 relatively low population states. This time there are only 20 states above the federal minimum wage and only 7 states are above $8 (only 3 above $8.25). [State Minimum Wage Laws | U.S. Department of Labor](http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) Not sure we can do much more than peg the minimum wage to inflation at this point. You can drop the gun issue, no Democrat in a swing district is talking about it unless they have to. Terry McCullough here in Virginia is deafeningly silent on the assault weapons ban that he supported previously when someone asks him about guns. Look at how close the swing states are and then look at gun ownership in those states. Guns are simply not worth losing elections over right now (there are too many more important things on deck). Democrats have probably screwed the pooch on any sort of gun control for at least a few election cycles. We don’t need PBS to be like BBC, we already have almost a THOUSAND channels and CSPAN. Forget about reducing the drinking age to 18, noone over 20 really wants that. Marijuana legalization might be possible but the general war on drugs is not going away. > [@adaher](#): > > 2010 featured independents going for Republicans by a huge margin. If they’d gone for the GOP by the same margin in 2012, we’d be talking about how President Romney and the Republican House and Senate repealed Obamacare. So no, I don’t think demographics will save Democrats if they do “more of the same” that they did in 2009-2010. There is a lot of reason to believe that the recession had a lot to do with 2010. Do you honestly think people would have given a shit about Obamacare if the economy had a V shaped recovery? > [@](#): > > My own view is that the best way to avoid a backlash is to create a contrast. Voters don’t like irresponsible minorities. Voters don’t like majorities that overplay their hand. Since the Republicans have been so irresponsible, why not just spend the following two years before 2016 governing like adults? Have you ever had an argument with a young child? Well the one that Democrats are arguing with are holding a grenade in one hand and the pin in the other. > [@adaher](#): > > The biggest factor of course is the Presidential candidates, but the national environment they run in matters a great deal. In 2004, McCain wipes the floor with any Democratic candidate who runs against him. He’s such a popular figure that the Democrats want him as their VP nominee. In 2008, that all changes, not because of anything McCain does, but because the national environment is so hostile to Republicans. I dare say no one would have come closer to beating OBama than McCain in 2008. Do you remember how far McCain tacked to the right before the general election? Those words came back to bite him in the ass. Do you remember his Vice Presidential running mate? That didn’t work out so good for him either. > [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I am actually encouraged by this thread. Now, I could simply have blinders on, but **adaher’s** OP and subsequent posts and queries in this thread do seem to me to be genuine. > > Color me Naive, but I think even **adaher** is beginning to see the Republican horror show for what it is. This board breeds a particular type of conservative. SDMB is like the Salusa Secundus [Organizations of the Dune universe - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salusa_Secundus) for conservatives. The weak don’t last very long. I think most conservatives on this board are unhappy with the Republican party right now. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/35 "2013-10-13T23:08:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s right now. And is it really more problematic than an economic crisis and a misguided war? If voters can turn out Democrats in favor of the GOP after what Bush did, I don’t think they’ll be too deterred by the mostly procedural sins of the Republicans. As I above, I believe the Democrats failed to campaign hard enough against Bush’s legacy in 2010 and in addition the economy will be far more robust in 2016 then in 2010. > [@](#): > > That’s true, Democrats seem to be developing a natural advantage. But on the other hand, the last time the Democrats went into a Presidential election with unified control was 1980. The result of that was also a shellacking. The demographic situation in 1980 was quite different-the Democrats were on a downhill slide as they were steadily losing the South along with white working-class voters elsewhere. > [@](#): > > 2010 featured independents going for Republicans by a huge margin. If they’d gone for the GOP by the same margin in 2012, we’d be talking about how President Romney and the Republican House and Senate repealed Obamacare. So no, I don’t think demographics will save Democrats if they do “more of the same” that they did in 2009-2010. And how did Democrats do differently in from 2010-2012 which resulted in a Democratic victory? “Independents” may include conservatives who are unaffilaited with the Republicans for various reasons, and considering the demographics of midterm voters, it was probably skewed toward such voters rather than say young, college-age independents who usually go for Democrats. BTW, the Independent vote went for Romney in 2012 too. > [@](#): > > My own view is that the best way to avoid a backlash is to create a contrast. Voters don’t like irresponsible minorities. Voters don’t like majorities that overplay their hand. Since the Republicans have been so irresponsible, why not just spend the following two years before 2016 governing like adults? When did I say the Democrats should be irresponsible? “Governing like adults” in my mind includes passing long-needed reforms. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Change “closing tax loopholes…” to “tax reform” > > I don’t see an increase in the minimum wage. Last time, most states were already above the federal minimum wage, we were really raising the minimum wage for fewer than 10 relatively low population states. This time there are only 20 states above the federal minimum wage and only 7 states are above $8 (only 3 above $8.25). [State Minimum Wage Laws | U.S. Department of Labor](http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) Not sure we can do much more than peg the minimum wage to inflation at this point. Fair enough. > [@](#): > > You can drop the gun issue, no Democrat in a swing district is talking about it unless they have to. Terry McCullough here in Virginia is deafeningly silent on the assault weapons ban that he supported previously when someone asks him about guns. Look at how close the swing states are and then look at gun ownership in those states. Guns are simply not worth losing elections over right now (there are too many more important things on deck). Democrats have probably screwed the pooch on any sort of gun control for at least a few election cycles. This would certainly be true if we were talking about an Assault Weapons Ban (which is silly and unconstitutional IMO) but universal background checks have support of roughly 90% of the population according to polls and swing state Democrats such as Joe Manchin who sponsered it haven’t been hurt in the polls by voting for it. > [@](#): > > We don’t need PBS to be like BBC, we already have almost a THOUSAND channels and CSPAN. And most of these channels are either highly specialized or leave much to be desired. In addition, none of them represent a unified American voice overseas much as BBC does for Britain > [@](#): > > Forget about reducing the drinking age to 18, noone over 20 really wants that. Marijuana legalization might be possible but the general war on drugs is not going away. I personally support it not just because its right but because its politically plausible as letting the states decide on their drinking age who appeal to many libertarian-leaning Republicans along with ending the War on Drugs while strengthening youth turnout in favour of the Democrats in future elections for whom this is a big issue. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/36 "2013-10-14T02:19:06Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > -Removing the payroll tax cap for Social Security > -Immigration reform, more or less based on the current bill in the Senate > -A massive infrastructure-energy bill, including repairs to roads and bridges, building a national high-speed rail system, and building dozens of new nuclear power plants to expand America’s nuclear capacity > -Close tax loopholes and raise the estate and income taxes for those making over 250k back to Clinton-era loopholes. Consider some modest cuts to the corporate tax afterwards > -Raise the minimum wage > -Restore many of the spending cuts made due to sequestration > -Universal background checks for guns > -Full expansion of PBS into something resembling the BBC or CBC in Canada > -Marijuana legalization, ending the war on drugs, and lowering the drinking age to 18 > -Ending the embargo on Cuba Jesus. Where are you going to get the money for these things? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/37 "2013-10-14T02:25:34Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Jesus. Where are you going to get the money for these things? It’s right here: > [@](#): > > -Close tax loopholes and raise the estate and income taxes for those making over 250k back to Clinton-era loopholes. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/38 "2013-10-14T03:08:08Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It’s right here: I really don’t get this attitude. For one thing, doing that isn’t going to raise the kind of money needed to even, say, fix all the roads etc. But also, why is it that if someone has earned some magical limit of money, you all seem to think you have the right to tell him that he has to give it to people who haven’t earned it? Where is the incentive to get an advanced education and work hard if the government is just going to go communist on your wages? Yes, I get that we all need to pay for the roads and all that, but the answer to any budget shortfall seems to be “tax the rich!”. And “rich” is defined by a number, not by what debt might be there, who/what that person might be supporting or anything else that might end up putting that “rich” person in the middle class in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/39 "2013-10-14T03:19:14Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Jesus. Where are you going to get the money for these things? Besides the revenue increases indicated below, I would also cut spending elsewhere (including military spending, farm subsidies, and ending the Drug Wars as indicated below). Also while this will probably result in an increase in the deficit, the deficit already is rapidly going down when the current economic conditions call for deficit spending. [QUOTE] > [@curlcoat](#): > > I really don’t get this attitude. For one thing, doing that isn’t going to raise the kind of money needed to even, say, fix all the roads etc. But also, why is it that if someone has earned some magical limit of money, you all seem to think you have the right to tell him that he has to give it to people who haven’t earned it? Where is the incentive to get an advanced education and work hard if the government is just going to go communist on your wages? Because we’re not going “communist”. These tax rate increases would be an increase of a few percentage points and taxes are even higher in foreign countries or even in the past in the United States. > [@](#): > > Yes, I get that we all need to pay for the roads and all that, but the answer to any budget shortfall seems to be “tax the rich!”. And “rich” is defined by a number, not by what debt might be there, who/what that person might be supporting or anything else that might end up putting that “rich” person in the middle class in reality. I’m willing to adjust tax laws in accordance with such realities. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/40 "2013-10-14T03:39:32Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Besides the revenue increases indicated below, I would also cut spending elsewhere (including military spending, farm subsidies, and ending the Drug Wars as indicated below). Also while this will probably result in an increase in the deficit, the deficit already is rapidly going down when the current economic conditions call for deficit spending. I can get behind most of that, tho I’d have to know more about what is going on with the farm subsidies. I’d much rather see cuts made than taxes raised. > [@](#): > > Because we’re not going “communist”. These tax rate increases would be an increase of a few percentage points and taxes are even higher in foreign countries or even in the past in the United States. I didn’t say we were going communist, I said that forcing those who earn to give part of their income to those who don’t is going communist on wages. I couldn’t care less what the tax rates are elsewhere or were in the past. Those as facts all by themselves are worse than nothing because it doesn’t say anything about those societies, what was done with the money, what the results were. It’s like saying that gas prices are far higher in Europe, without talking about their transit system. > [@](#): > > I’m willing to adjust tax laws in accordance with such realities. You might be alone there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131.md?page=3)