Hoyer: Romney's '47 percent' comments could help Dems's bid to re-take House

[BostonPirate]

Hoyer, the House Democratic whip, said Romney's remarks could alienate on-the-fence voters in battleground districts, fueling Democrats' push to snatch the 25 seats they need to win back the lower chamber in November.

"It's gotta help us in every swing district in America because a lot of those swing-district voters are ... looking to find a party that they believe cares about them, their interests and their future," Hoyer said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/2...ercent-comments-could-help-dems-re-take-house

I have long thought that this was the inevitable conclusion of an Obama victory. If the people choose him, they need to give him a congress to work with. It's clear that the GOP in the house will never be cooperative, so it's time for americans to change the house.

It's looking more and more likely every day.

The senate is now firmly out of reach of the GOP and now the house is more in play than ever before.

Will the Dems seize the moment? Will they fumble? Will Mitt save them in a block buster debate performance.

We saw how he does with an hours notice on an answer now, twice. Once with the response to the 47 percent tape, and also when he reveled in the death of an american Ambassador as he smirked and tried to use it as a political point.

Will the Do nothing congress's record, and the American people's record hate for them, build a new House of Reps in Democratic control?

 

[CoolBlue71]

The Democrats would have to go after the House aggressively.

This obviously includes the presidency and it involves going more after the states that have potential from the South.

• Texas is so mammoth, John McCain won there by over 950,000 (which would require getting more than 475,000 to flip from 2008 Republican to 2012 Democratic). This state, No. 2-ranking in population in this nation, gained four congressional seats and that makes Republican dominance (especially given Tom Delay is gone!) tougher to retain.

• Georgia, won by McCain by over 200,000 (which would require getting over 100,000 to flip from 2008 to 2012 D) is more doable but, to this date, there hasn't been much effort from the national Democratic Party to go after the Peach State.

• Border-south Missouri is very doable, given McCain won there by 3,903 votes (requiring the president to get 1,952 of its electorate to flip from 2008 R to 2012 D), and it would be the best shot at a Democratic pickup.

What they all have in common is that the House would be won over getting something like 26-plus seats to flip — about five to seven from the south and the rest stretching from the northeast to the midwest.

 

[BostonPirate]

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/house-outlook

This is a really great interactive map that shows the house and which seats are leaning GOP and which are toss ups.

219 seats are needed to have a majority, and it now appears only 220 seats are considered safe or leaning GOP at this point. Yu will note the little red empty dots? those are the ones that are leaning now, no longer safe, and there are many in places like Ohio and Florida, places that the president has surged recently.

I think few of the seats in the lean GOP category are actually NOT in toss up states besides Texas.

 

[rareboy]

hmmmm

I think that if people vote for Obama, they will likely punish the Dems at the House Race level.

You know. To spite their face. And end up with 4 years more of paralysis and dysfunction.

I'm not that confident about the House shifting away from the Republicans.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think the anger against Romney will come out in the house of reps, where people are less likely to vote on racial lines, and more on issues.

But...

I am aware that while the approval rating of congress is around ten percent, when polled, 83 percent of people think they are happy with their own congressman.

I think that it will be a close one in the house of Reps, and I think that IF romney keeps up this blow out, it's going to hand the House to the GOP.

 

[CoolBlue71]

hmmmm

I think that if people vote for Obama, they will likely punish the Dems at the House Race level/

It depends on shift (from 2008).

The previous presidential election, a pickup year for the Democrats, saw just one of the nation's congressional districts flipped from 2004 Democratic [John Kerry] to 2008 Republican [John McCain]: Pennsylvania #12 which, at the time, was represented by the now-late John "Jack" Murtha.

Now that was a wave election. But ultimately we have had plenty results where an incumbent gets re-elected and nothing dramatic happens in the House and/or Senate.

Forty years ago, the Democrats bombed with George McGovern (party establishment didn't really help him; his campaign was a mess). Richard Nixon was re-elected with an uncommon shifting increase of R+22.45 (in addition to his first, in 1968, at R+0.70) … yet that didn't flip the 1972 elections for Senate or House from Democratic to Republican. In fact, now vice president Joe Biden was a Democratic Senate pickup in his home state of Delaware. (Since the 17th Amendment, in the 1910s, Nixon is the only two-term-elected president who never once had same-party control in either house of Congress.)

Nothing is foolproof. And the election waves in the House and/or Senate tend to happen in midterm years. (That's because the electorate is between 30 to 40 percent less than presidential cycles. Motivation for turnout tends to go to one party over the other. And it is usually the opposition party.) If President Obama gets the House to flip from R to D, he would become the second to do this in a presidential election year (for an incumbent) since Harry Truman won a full term in Election 1948.

 

[BostonPirate]

That gives us some historical reference !

Thanks!

 

[rareboy]

It depends on shift (from 2008).

The previous presidential election, a pickup year for the Democrats, saw just one of the nation's congressional districts flipped from 2004 Democratic [John Kerry] to 2008 Republican [John McCain]: Pennsylvania #12 which, at the time, was represented by the now-late John "Jack" Murtha.

Now that was a wave election. But ultimately we have had plenty results where an incumbent gets re-elected and nothing dramatic happens in the House and/or Senate.

Forty years ago, the Democrats bombed with George McGovern (party establishment didn't really help him; his campaign was a mess). Richard Nixon was re-elected with an uncommon shifting increase of R+22.45 (in addition to his first, in 1968, at R+0.70) … yet that didn't flip the 1972 elections for Senate or House from Democratic to Republican. In fact, now vice president Joe Biden was a Democratic Senate pickup in his home state of Delaware. (Since the 17th Amendment, in the 1910s, Nixon is the only two-term-elected president who never once had same-party control in either house of Congress.)

Nothing is foolproof. And the election waves in the House and/or Senate tend to happen in midterm years. (That's because the electorate is between 30 to 40 percent less than presidential cycles. Motivation for turnout tends to go to one party over the other. And it is usually the opposition party.) If President Obama gets the House to flip from R to D, he would become the second to do this in a presidential election year (for an incumbent) since Harry Truman won a full term in Election 1948.

The gerrymandering of the entire US is almost there.

 

[CoolBlue71]

The gerrymandering of the entire US is almost there.

That does a job, mathematically, in manipulating numbers and results.

Yes.

But keep in mind: three consecutive decades have had House elections with one party in control that lost the majority despite the gerrymandering. Democrats were the majority then lost control with 1994. Republicans were majority and then lost them with 2006. And Democrats were majority going into 2010 … and lost.

 

[rareboy]

There really is no major shift though is there? There is always only the delicate balance of which branch of the single peoples' party of the US is going to get the opportunity to be the 'kingmaker' this term.

The US legislative branch is broken. Totally. The country needs to implement geographic districting that is blind to the political demopgraphic.

something that would finally put all the Reps on their toes each election and make them work harder for all the people instead of their corporate owners and niche demo.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think it's going to flip.

It's admittedly just a gut feeling, but I feel that it's going to happen.

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

I think it's going to flip.

It's admittedly just a gut feeling, but I feel that it's going to happen.

Unfortunately, I think this is wishful thinking. We need A LOT more help for this to happen- like a revealed Mitt Romney tax scandal. But, then again, if he gets desperate enough, he might just spout off all sorts of ridiculous things and spiral out of control... you never know with this candidate... he truly is the gift that just keeps giving...

 

[BostonPirate]

I think he's a man in meltdown, unable to see what is around him, or be able to control himself in any way. At this point he has nothing to lose by becoming more of what it is that got him screwed.

 

[White Eagle]

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/house-outlook

This is a really great interactive map that shows the house and which seats are leaning GOP and which are toss ups.

219 seats are needed to have a majority, and it now appears only 220 seats are considered safe or leaning GOP at this point. Yu will note the little red empty dots? those are the ones that are leaning now, no longer safe, and there are many in places like Ohio and Florida, places that the president has surged recently.

I think few of the seats in the lean GOP category are actually NOT in toss up states besides Texas.

Dammit! I was hoping to see Blake Farenthold listed as in danger. Of course this is Texas I'm talking about.

 

[MisterB]

Think he'll feel pressured enough to release his tax records? Or does he roll the dice and not? So many factors that are in play for me:

Daddy released 12 years
Romney gave more than 12 years to McCain
McCain picked Palin instead ???
Romney released 2010, partial year only
Romney required several years from Ryan
Romney to release 2011 October 15 (partial again I believe?)

What the impact to release/non-release of tax records?

 

[MisterB]

Lifted from Above: Unfortunately, I think this is wishful thinking. We need A LOT more help for this to happen- like a revealed Mitt Romney tax scandal. But, then again, if he gets desperate enough, he might just spout off all sorts of ridiculous things and spiral out of control... you never know with this candidate... he truly is the gift that just keeps giving...

Think he'll feel pressured enough to release his tax records? Or does he roll the dice and not? So many factors that are in play for me:

Daddy released 12 years
Romney gave more than 12 years to McCain
McCain picked Palin instead ???
Romney released 2010, partial year only
Romney required several years from Ryan
Romney to release 2011 October 15 (partial again I believe?)

What is the impact to release/non-release tax records?

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

Lifted from Above: Unfortunately, I think this is wishful thinking. We need A LOT more help for this to happen- like a revealed Mitt Romney tax scandal. But, then again, if he gets desperate enough, he might just spout off all sorts of ridiculous things and spiral out of control... you never know with this candidate... he truly is the gift that just keeps giving...

Think he'll feel pressured enough to release his tax records? Or does he roll the dice and not? So many factors that are in play for me:

Daddy released 12 years
Romney gave more than 12 years to McCain
McCain picked Palin instead ???
Romney released 2010, partial year only
Romney required several years from Ryan
Romney to release 2011 October 15 (partial again I believe?)

What is the impact to release/non-release tax records?

No; there is clearly something in there that he never wants released and would certainly hurt him both politically and personally. At the most innocent, it is stuff that would be used to paint him as un-American; far less innocent, there could be stuff bordering on criminal.

 

[chance1]

The same reason Republican support for Romney was less than sterling is the same reason why it should not be a tidal wave

Obama does not have support - he has anti Romney sentiment

I would normally think that we'd be better off doing SOMETHING rather than NOTHING - requiring a Dem House to follow Obama's lead

And if that something was a smart and strategic stimulus package around public works projects and job re-training - I'd be all for it

But this current President hasn't a clue on the economy - and would spend money badly - and would focus on tax increases and other goodies to please his ever widening constituency of the needy

so fuck that

that'd be a speeding up the current misery and wrong direction that the country is in

So on the economy he's shit for brains

And the Middle East is a mess - despite the lie that the video caused the protests AND deaths - and likely to get much worse before it gets better

anyway ....... I'd be surprised if Romney's demise prompted a House flip

 

[BostonPirate]

Chance, the republicans have a lower approval rating then Obama. And Obama does have support and he has a very strong ability to raise money at the grassroots level (he's broken several fundraising goals). And this current President has good ideas on how to get the economy moving again, something republicans have never suggested. So no, he's not shit for brains. Lets slow down and present a coherent argument please.

Not the same old desperation.

Obama's favorability ratings are frustratingly high for the GOP faithful. One thing that can't stomach is how much people like the president, even if they don't think he's done a good job. It's upside down for Romney.

There will be some anti Romney vote now, but that does not discount the real fact that the people at the Dem convention had genuine affection for the President and the first lady. There is a difference, Giancarlo, some can't see it, because they cannot conceive of a genuine affection for the president.

The greatest mistake the GOP made these past few years, was assuming that their hatred of Obama was duplicated by the public.

It is simply not.

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

I would normally think that we'd be better off doing SOMETHING rather than NOTHING - requiring a Dem House to follow Obama's lead

And if that something was a smart and strategic stimulus package around public works projects and job re-training - I'd be all for it

But this current President hasn't a clue on the economy - and would spend money badly - and would focus on tax increases and other goodies to please his ever widening constituency of the needy

I obviously disagree with your premise, but even buying it- second-term presidents wouldn't have to pander to their constituents nearly as much and historically are more willing to compromise and get things done- they actually tend to shift to the middle. They also tend to learn things from their first term and worry about their legacy. And, to suggest that he wouldn't attempt to fund public works projects, retraining, etc. is, of course, not remotely true... but these do happen to cost money... and the Repubs would actually have to get on board... which they might actually do after they see what happens to their numbers in November...