Election Day looks good for the Democrats — with one crucial exception

[DonViejo]

By James Downie August 12 at 7:35 PM
James Downie is The Post’s digital opinions editor.

It’s all coming up aces for the Democrats. Hillary Clinton leads Republican Donald Trump by more than seven percentage points nationally in the poll averages. She is ahead by seven points in New Hampshire, eight in Virginia, nine in Pennsylvania and 11 in Colorado — enough to lock up the electoral college. Polls also look good for the Democrats to retake the Senate, especially because former Indiana senator Evan Bayh decided to run for his old seat.

But not all the news is good. Despite the Democrats having the inside track for the executive branch and the upper chamber of Congress, there seems little chance of a Democratic House.

Why? The easy answer is that the Democratic Party — and especially the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — has failed to take advantage of its opportunity. With the White House nearly clinched and the Senate ripe for retaking, the argument goes, surely the only reason a House takeover appears remote is institutional failure. While the DCCC would like to make between 45 and 60 seats competitive, outside prognosticators put the number in the mid-30s.

There is no doubt that the DCCC and the party could have done a better job preparing for a Trump-led ticket. Though Trump’s nomination helped the DCCC recruit, in many cases his victory came too late: By the time Trump essentially clinched the nomination in March, three-quarters of the filing deadlines had passed. Frankly, though, staffers at places like the DCCC are paid to anticipate things like a Trump victory. “There are a dozen districts where Democrats should have been able to compete with Trump at the top of the ticket,” says David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

-snip-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/election-day-looks-good-for-the-democrats--with-one-crucial-exception/2016/08/12/29c9cf46-6013-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html?utm_term=.77ef1268975b&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

[riversedge]

1. Maybe some blame goes to the DCCC but some states are solidly gerrymandered and

I do not blame them for not putting resources into those areas

[SCantiGOP]

3. Agree, gerrymandering is the reason

Every cycle Dems receive millions of more votes in Congressional elections but gerrymandering by the state legislatures dilutes that impact.
SC is roughly 1/3 AA voters, which simple math says should equal 2 1/3 Dem seats. Jim Clyburn's seat runs over 200 miles long to pack in AA voters in downtown Charleston AND downtown Columbia, and we are left with 6 districts that are 56-60% GOP.
A SCOTUS decision at some point in the future against this racially-inspired districting would give the Dems a lock on the US House for a generation or two.

[brush]

5. Won't realignment happen with the 2020 cencus?

2010 is when Delay and his crooks pushed through all the gerrymandering.

[SCantiGOP]

8. Not as long as GOP controls state legislatures

That is who sets Congressional districts. At least in the South there is no chance of the GOP losing those state legislatures by 2020. That is why there are millions of more votes every election for Dems in House seats but the GOP has a lock on the House.
Courts have been better lately about overturning the most obvious cases of drawing lines to limit AA influence. But in SC, Jim Clyburn's seat extends over 200 miles to take in large AA populations in downtown Charleston and downtown Columbia. With 1/3 AA voters SC should have at least 2 Dem leaning seats, but Clyburn's district is over 60% Dem, leaving 6 seats that are 55-60% GOP.
Ignoring race in drawing districts would not only level the field between the two parties, it would also create a hundred or more competitive seats that couldn't protect Tea Party reps who just ignore their Dem voters. But, it would decrease the number of AA Congressmen so that is a factor.

[Demsrule86]

12. There is a case pending

And this particular one includes a mathematical method for determining if there is gerrymandering...Kennedy has said if there was some way to determine if a state is using the Gerrymander...a concrete formula...he would vote for ending it.

“The failings of the many proposed standards for measuring the burden a gerrymander imposes on representational rights make our intervention improper,” Kennedy wrote. Nevertheless, he concluded that “if workable standards do emerge to measure these burdens . . . courts should be prepared to order relief.”

https://thinkprogress.org/the-most-exciting-attack-on-partisan-gerrymandering-in-over-a-decade-68ae8b6b2e5e#.d40qsl8p6

[SCantiGOP]

13. Thanks

That could be a significant development.

[Demsrule86]

14. It really could

Fingers crossed!!!

[OnDoutside]

2. Wasserman....that name rings a bell....

[brooklynite]

4. It shouldn't; the DNC Chair has nothing to do with finding House (or Senate) candidates...

[bettyellen]

7. Further proof of the lazy thinking of those who want to blame Dems for everything....

Sourest grapes I have seen in a long time.

[OnDoutside]

15. I wasn't commenting on that...he's a journal. are they related?

[Demsrule86]

10. I have no idea why she would be blamed for GOP

gerrymader. Also, maybe if some had not cried and whined about Obama in 10 because he could not get a public option and all the other stuff thrown at him by those who should have been supportive, we would not have had the big losses in 10 (both state legislatures, governorship,s and congress). Losing the statehouses and governorships made the census based gerrymander possible. And if we don't win back some statehouses before 20, it will continue another decade.

[Demsrule86]

11. Debbie is not responsible for the gerrymandering that has occured.

Also, maybe if some (including greens) had not cried and whined about Obama in 10 because he could not get a public option and all the other stuff thrown at him by those who should have been supportive, we would not have had the big losses in 10 (both state legislatures, governorship,s and congress). Losing the statehouses and governorships made the census based gerrymander possible. And if we don't win back some statehouses and governorships before 20, it will continue another decade.

[LAS14]

6. I've been concerned by the lack of chatter about house...

... contests. Maybe we can't win the whole thing this time around, but we surely can get a good start. I've "adopted" Carol Shea-Porter in neighboring New Hampshire. I invite anyone else who has adopted an house competitor outside their home district to speak up here. Let's get this to be a talked about thing!

[Demsrule86]

9. I suppose you forgot the gerrymander.

Here in Ohio, the Dems are shoved into four districts.