The circus was not for us. It was to feed the rage of their base.

Yesterday served its purpose just fine, so he has lost nothing. He had a slim chance to gain a lot with a "gotcha", but the Republicans aren't dumb enough to think Clinton was likely to hand them one.

Perhaps they should make a concentrated effort to turn around these "safe" Districts? Voters can be convinced as to what's right and good for this country. Aka Howard Dean's 50 state effort.

I just hate to see how we just give up on certain areas to Republican idiots. Gerrymandering be damned. Let's try and convince all voters of the rightness of our candidates.

but it ought to be possible to at least flip enough seats to win control of the House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4936813

Although I thought I made another list that was more recent, of Republicans who were in seats that Obama won in 2012.

Ah, here it is

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=157743&year=2014&month=2

A much shorter list than I thought, but ever the optimist I don't see why we should give up on a district that Romney only won by 3%, for example. Places like Michigan 7, and 8, Wisconsin 7, Pennsylvania 6, and so on. All you need to capture is 2% of voters.

That should at least be possible. We shouldn't just concede - well, Republicans are gonna control the House in 2017.

I think that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Obama's "giant" 2008 victory was 7%.

You go through add up the D+(some number) districts that currently have a Republican, and you don't reach 218. To get to 218, you need some R+(small number) districts. Winning those would require a large landslide in the national vote, roughly a 12% win.

all we need to do, in actual terms, to win the house is to win 218 seats by 51%. We can even lose the goddamned national vote and still do that.

Why should we need a landslide national win to win in, say, South Dakota?

All we need is a candidate who can win South Dakota. You know, somebody like Stephanie Herseth, Tim Johnson, Tom Daschle, George McGovern, etc., etc. All of whom have done it in recent history.

What does a 12% national win have to do with that?

South Dakota is an R+10 district that is at least theoretically winnable, even if Clinton is guaranteed to lose it. All you need is a candidate who reaches people. It would probably help if we had candidates right now though.

That still reads like a defeatist argument to me. If it is so impossible, then how did it happen in 2006? And how did we hold it in 2008?

Getting 51% in those R+(small number) districts will likely also result in a large national win for the party. Not because that district in SD votes for the Democrat, but because the environment where we win that SD district would also result in large wins elsewhere.

Because 2010 happened. And the Republicans did an excellent job gerrymandering. If the districts were still drawn as in 2006/2008, we'd have the House right now.

To overcome the post-2010 gerrymandering, we have to have a very large win, or insanely good luck in a lot of districts.

Herseth won South Dakota - a red state. Sebelius won Kansas - another red state.

Sebelius can win Kansas, Herseth can win South Dakota, X can win here, Y can win there - which has nothing to do with the national stats. It's simply about winning districts that are winnable - and even red districts can be winnable as Herseth and Sebelius both demonstrated - more than once.

I still think +12 is a nonsense statistic designed to create pessimism. For one thing, Pelosi can win her own safe district by +50 like she usually does and that edge doesn't make a damned bit of difference in South Dakota or Kansas-2.

One thing I think is scary, or disgusting, or both is the way the media seems to drive events. Prior to 2006, for something like a year, the media said over and over and over again "Democrats are gonna take the house, Democrats are gonna take the House" and then it happened. Good predicting, or at least partly self-fulfilling?

Now if we let the media keep saying for the next 12.25 months "Republicans are gonna keep the House" if, in fact, we add OUR voices to this chorus of inevitable defeat, then we are just helping to make it happen.

My own voice insists with all the power of this tiny soapbox - Republicans do NOT deserve to keep the House. We NEED to VOTE THEM OUT!!!1!!

I intend to say THAT for the next 12.25 months every chance I get.

To win back the House, we need to win a lot of unlikely races. That means we either need to "win the lottery" many times, or we need to have an election that is so lopsided that we have a large win nationally.

We should not expect to "win the lottery" many times. Which leaves winning large overall, such that the national results show us winning by a lot.

Again, this isn't a "big national win will make us win locally". It's "If we win locally by enough to win the House, then we'd win nationally by 12%"

Polling showed massive dissatisfaction with W, poor opinion of Republicans, and it is quite common for the President's party to do poorly in year 6.

Take that drag plus polling in individual races, and the individual races look bad for the Republicans. Add up all the "bad" races, and you get the "Win the House" prediction.

(Btw, that was the big fucking deal about Democrats winning seats in 1998 - year 6, yet Republicans lost.)

Big if, I guess. Another Tea Party candidate can hang that mantle upon him and claim to be a more effective warrior

But going forward, when (not if) he and his tea party friends are just as ineffective fighting Madame President as they were yesterday.....there could be some repercussions. Such as no campaign donations.

Or who knows, maybe people will get sick of the lot of these losers

I think if they determine what is happening helped to hand the Presidency to Clinton, the teaparty will determine it was TPTB not backing Gowdy that let that happen, not Gowdy himself. They will view him as a hero standing alone. They will paint themselves as victims to RINO's.

It was more than just a political exercise. It was a personal attack. It was unseemly. It was more than just "politics". And no one will be called to account.

Unless it comes out that laws were blatantly broken, that is what I am seeing and it pisses me off. Reporting has become an embarrassment. It was like Lester Holt reporting on Biden not running. His comment was..."And while Biden stated his reasons for not running, he wasn't willing to endorse Hillary."

It's like politics 101 and history are their enemies.

i see it here in tennessee on a daily basis....marsha blackburn

to be a right-center Dem but one with enough "balls" to fight hard, expose lies, inform and educate the voters on issues that have been protected from by listening just to Rush and FOX. There is nothing like town hall meetings and on on one face to face encounter.

I have the feeling the Gowdy feels so comfortable he doesn't feel the need to do this kind of stuff. Dems could fill in this vacuum by putting a ground game in place to stealthily educate the voters by giving them facts they haven't heard before. You almost have to drop leaflets over his district like we do in third-world countries to get the message to the voters.

Just one fact alone: "Gowdy makes $xxx,xxxx.xx per year and works only xxx days. How long do you work and how much do you get paid?"

These people thrive and envy and hate. I say we give them some other targets to envy and hate.

He had no control over the other members of the committee. The questions were not coordinated -- they were flailing away
at anything. He led the prosecution team and the prosecution team did a bad job.

I also read that he has had enough of Washington and wants to return home to run for Governor or be a judge. I don't think he showed
any ability to be a judge except maybe a state judge. He will never make the federal bench.

I was under the impression he hoped to finish this term and then receive an federal judge appointment. If that is indeed the case, I think he's lost quite a bit of credibility for those future plans due to his dramatic loss of control over the hearings he so desperately wanted to control.

I think that is what my op is about to me personally. What penalty will be placed on him for this sham. I appreciate your response as it made my smaller side smile. Those are actually pretty big aspirations of his that could have just ended.