The GOP’s House Majority Is Safe...Right? -- Cook Political Report

[Bill USA]

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9710

House Democrats probably need a Donald Trump loss of historic proportions to have any chance at a three-part (White House, Senate, House) sweep. But not even a Clinton rout would guarantee that scenario thanks to structural factors and because voters skeptical of both nominees could well anticipate such an outcome and respond to a Republican message of “checks and balances” — a tactic that’s worked before.

Republicans hold their largest House majority — 247 seats to 188 for Democrats — since the 1928 election, in part because they have some tremendous built-in geographical advantages, both natural and engineered, that their counterparts in the Senate don’t share.

First, Democratic voters have never been more concentrated in big urban areas than they are now. In 2012, President Obama won by 126 electoral votes while carrying just 22 percent of America’s counties — even fewer than losing Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis’s 26 percent in 1988. That means Democrats are wasting more votes than ever in safe congressional districts they already hold. For example, an additional straight Democratic ballot cast in Chicago or Madison might help defeat GOP Sens. Mark Kirk in Illinois or Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, but it’ll do zip to put a dent in Speaker Paul Ryan’s House majority, because Democrats already hold all the House seats anchored by those cities.

Second, Republicans’ astounding state legislative gains in the 2010 midterms — the year before the decennial redistricting cycle — allowed them to redraw four times as many congressional districts as Democrats in 2011 and 2012, stretching their geographical edge even further. As a result, in 2012, Democrats won 51 percent of all major-party votes cast for House candidates but just 47 percent of all seats. In 2014, Democrats won 47 percent of all major-party votes but just 43 percent of the seats. Amazingly, just 16 of 247 House Republicans won their races by fewer than 10 percentage points.
(more)

[font size="3"] It's a bit of a longshot, given the strength of GOP Gerrymandering, but isn't it good to set challenging goals?[/font]

[randome]

1. I liked it better when it was just an amorphous possibility.

Oh, well, guess facts and figures needed to come into view eventually.

Weakening their majority, though, that would still be a victory.

[mcar]

2. Oh please, oh please!

A long shot, to be sure, but if she wins in a landslide? Could happen.

[Blanks]

3. Ryan should be the target...

And his 'accomplishments'.

How hard would it be to point out how little has been done since the republicans have had control.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. MineralMan offered the strategy to defeat the gerrymandered advantage ...

each one of us convince someone that typically doesn't vote to vote this time out. Since turn-out, typically, is under 50%, flipping is doable, if we put in the face to face work.

I, personally, have 4 people that I will be driving to the polls in November!

Let's do this!

[Bill USA]

5. You are one of the warriors!

[MFM008]

6. It could happen

They said the same thing about us before we lost 50+ seats. Blah blah.

[0rganism]

7. the house should not be the initial stretch goal, but rather state legislatures

before we have a solid chance of a house majority, we need to tip state legislatures - a lot of them, like 10.
we need to do this by 2020 for the next census-mandated redistricting.
then there's a shot we can win back the house in 2022, if Democrats can bring ourselves to turn out the vote in an "off year" election.