February 29, 2004
EARLY SURRENDER:
Democrats Scale Back Ambitions for House (CARL HULSE, 2/29/04, NY Times)
Strategists, independent analysts and House members of both parties say that after a decade out of power, Democrats are unlikely to reclaim control of the House in November. [...]One major reason Democrats are pessimistic about taking back the House can be found in Texas. In redrawing the boundaries of Congressional districts last year in favor of Republicans, the Texas Legislature built a fire wall against potential losses elsewhere in the country. The formerly Democratic-dominated House delegation from Texas is now evenly divided, with 16 members of each party, and Republicans say they hope to end up with a minimum of 20 seats. That number, they say, would better reflect the state's political bent.
The new lines have already persuaded one Texas Democrat to switch parties and created one district where Democrats are not even fielding a candidate. "We've already picked up two seats and we haven't even had an election," observed Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, who was a main architect of the redistricting.
It is not just Texas that is vexing House Democrats in their quest for the majority. The party does not appear to be putting enough House districts in play to pick up the 12 seats now separating Democrats from the speaker's chair. Some top candidates are trailing their Republican opponents in financial resources. And the House Republican campaign organization is raising more money than its Democratic counterpart.
"I don't believe you can win back the House without candidates or money," said Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. By his count, he said, 21 of the 40 Republicans he rates as most open to challenge do not yet have Democratic candidates running against them.
Indeed, given that the House will remain Republican for at least the rest of this decade and that the Senate will more likely approach 60-40 GOP before it will be Democrat-controlled again, anyone care to explain how John Kerry can put together an Electoral College majority? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 29, 2004 1:20 PM
Even before the Texas redistricting the House was going to be difficult for the Dems to win. However, because of previous gerymanders, will Reps ever attain majorities that come even close to what the Dems had in their hey-day? Not very likely. I would be surprised if it ever got to be as wide as 250 to 200.
The Senate offers more potential for sizeable gains in paper. However, I would caution the optimism as follows:
Senate seats will become must win targets for Dems, and they will put all the money of the millionaires/celebrity legions to work in buying them. Expect more Corzines, Daytons, Cantwells, Clintons, Hulls, Bowles, etc. to join the old money club of Kennedy, Kerry, Rocky, Kohl, etc. Expect Dems to be willing to institutionalize 60 a working majority for more than just judges and get away with it. And then pray that over time all the RINO seats begin to vote like Reps. This is why the GOP needs to ensure that elections are nationalized in all Red States because the barriers against achieving true legislative control are enormous.
Given House rules, large majorities are unnecessary to pass legislation.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at February 29, 2004 3:44 PMKerry can't because is going to spot bush the south and the intra mountain west. The Dems have been talking about this kind of strategy since the first Dixiecrat rebellion in '48. IIRC, in '72 they (Ben Wattenberg?) called it QuadriCali (Northeatern Quardent and California. Of couse, in the 3 censuses since then the Northeastern quarrant has lost electoral votes. and the south and the West have grown more important.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 29, 2004 5:25 PMHow ? Fairly easy. By winning all the states Gore won (possibly minus New Mexico, but he has a strong governor there to back him) and adding Ohio, West Virginia and Missouri. The latter won't be difficult if he picks Gephardt as his running mate and continues his protectionist rhetorics. The former is an absolute certainty, as the Gore states would vote for Saddam if he were running against Bush.
The way I see it, the Republicans have a good chance to maintain majorities in both houses of Congress (because they're relatively stronger in more but smaller states than the Dems), but the Dems can only lose the White House if they screw up like Al Gore, who lost his home state. They're bullet proof in 15 states and have an edge in 5-8 other states, but since these states tend to have large populations, a majority in the electoral college is just around the corner for the Democrats.
Abolition of the electoral college was quite a popular theme in the liberal media in 2000, but I expect that those media will learn to love the EC in the future.
Posted by: Peter at March 1, 2004 3:12 AMPeter:
Ohio may go for Kerry, due to high joblessness, and if Gephardt's the running mate, maybe Missouri.
However, Kerry may have a tough time re-taking the Gore states of Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and especially New Mexico, which was Gore's by only a few hundred votes.
Michael -
I would delete MD from the pick-up list and add MN and MI way before that happens. Either way, same conclusion. Also, make CA competitive (Dems spend unnecessary time and money), and a lot of marginal Blue states start breaking away.
By the way, a Kerry-Gephardt ticket would be the most business unfriendly ticket since the late 1800's.
Posted by: MG at March 1, 2004 8:00 AMRight now I'm thinking a repeat of '88 (modest but solid GOP win). As the summer goes on, and if the economy and Iraq continue to improve, a repeat of '72 or '84 (GOP dominates) is possible).
Posted by: AWW at March 1, 2004 8:05 AMPeter: The Dems aren't bulletproof anywhere. If the Republicans have a fighting chance in my home of Washington State (which they do), and a very, very good chance of picking up my surrogate home of Minnesota (which they do), then the Dems are in trouble.
Posted by: Timothy at March 1, 2004 1:53 PMPeter, whether the Democrats can cobble together an EC majority isn't the question, it's whether John Kerry can. And against a popular wartime incumbent with a strong economy, he can't. Heck, Bush's father was not well liked, and had a not-so-great economy, and without Perot in the race in 92 he would have been re-elected.
Posted by: brian at March 1, 2004 5:12 PMPeter does a good job making the standard Democrat argument, which I also heard Harold Ford make this morning on Imus. The Ford formulation goes: Everyone who voted for Gore will vote for Kerry and polls show weakening support for the President among Republicans and Independents because of the economy, civil rights, jobs, etc.
Basically, it comes down to the Democrat's determination to campaign as if 9/11 never happened.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 1, 2004 7:31 PM