If Hillary is Elected, Democrats Will Lose the House of Representatives until 2030


On substantive issues of military belligerence and interventionism in the affairs of foreign countries, there is little difference between Hillary and the Republicans.

Same goes for such issues as political campaign financing, lobbyists, Wall Street, breaking up the too big to fail banks, and the appointment of industry hacks to departments, regulatory agencies, and even cabinet positions which oversee their very industries,

On most issues, such as immigration reform, women’s reproductive health, national healthcare, voting rights, expanding rights for the LGBT community, etc, Hillary is the far more attractive candidate to Democrats.

So, what’s the problem?

Apart from the power to appoint justices and judges, and to issue temporary executive orders, neither Hillary nor a Republican president can accomplish anything with a deadlocked Congress.

The Democrats are poised to retake the Senate in 2016. The Republicans are guaranteed to hold the House.

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives exists because Republicans controlled the majority of statehouses and governor’s mansions after the 2010 Census, and were able to reapportion Congressional Districts by the odious practice of gerrymandering (drawing district boundaries to ensure control by Republicans).

Congressional reapportionment occurs every ten years. The districts will not change until after the 2020 Census, which means Republicans will control the House until Hillary (or the Republican) seeks re-election for a second term.

Now imagine the political environment in which a President Hillary would lead the ticket in contests for state legislatures and governorships across the country, states that are must wins for Democrats if we are to control congressional reapportionment.

Even a popular president has limited coattails. But an unpopular one has virtually none.

Four years of a presidency that will be as stymied as has been Obama’s second term is unlikely to be popular in 2020. And defending an unproductive and unpopular incumbent will be a burden on both the president’s re-election and winning statehouses.

Basically, both the Republicans and the Democrats would likely do better in 2020 if they are not defending an incumbent president.

The Democrats will have the additional problem of having to defend Obama’s eight years in addition to Hillary’s four, and to make a credible case why Americans should extend Democratic control of the White House to a 16 year run, the longest run since it was held by FDR and Truman from 1932 to 1952.

If the Republicans keep a majority of chambers and governors, they will be able to draw Congressional districts which will give them control of the house for another decade.

If the Democrats run against a Republican incumbent in 2020, they will likely win the White House as well as ensure enough Democratic statehouse victories to end Republican gerrymandering of the House.

But the most important by-product of Hillary losing the presidential race to the Republican would be the opportunity afforded to Democratic progressives to take over the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has been controlled by Wall Street since Woodrow Wilson was president. Every Democratic president since has been a Wall Street Democrat.

On economic policy and support of Wall Street and corporate America, Wall Street Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans. They are free to differ on social policies in which Wall Street has no stake, but they are in lock-step with the capitalists who finance both parties and control the government no matter who is in office.

A threat to that system is currently sweeping in from the left wing of the Democrats with the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

If Sanders manages to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency in 2016, the entire analysis above is invalid!

Sanders would have no more success than would Hillary in the face of a Republican controlled House, but Sanders’ presidency would be spent in furthering his political revolution, substantially growing the party with new young recruits, the disenfranchised poor and working poor, and re-invigorating leftists who have been frozen out of Democratic influence for decades.

A Sanders re-election campaign would be unlike any in recent memory. And it would bring out all those new, idealistic, and enthusiastic voters in 2020.

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders could not be more stark.

Hillary is a capitalist. Bernie is not.

While Hillary’s public pronouncements sound very much like Bernie’s, their political and economic differences are profound.

When push comes to shove, Hillary will back Wall Street and the oligarchy. She is one of them. She raises millions of dollars from them. Her husband was their president. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W, and every president in modern times has appointed industry lobbyists and executives to positions in their administrations which oversaw those very industries.

There is no indication that Hillary would act differently. Her record certainly suggests that she is quite comfortable with Wall Street lobbyists.

Given that she has raised millions of dollars from Wall Street lobbyists, Monsanto, Big Oil, Big Banks, etc, it is reasonable to question her allegiances.

Sanders could change the future of the Democratic Party for generations. And would have a much better chance of securing the House for Democrats in 2020.

My choice for president in 2016 is Bernie Sanders.

I have no use for the Republicans, but abhorrent as they are, Hillary would be a worse choice for Democrats.


9 thoughts on “If Hillary is Elected, Democrats Will Lose the House of Representatives until 2030

  1. If Hillary (or Bernie) is president,and as it looks, the democrats take back the senate, wee will have a liberal supreme court. With the case to make gerrymandering unconstitutional, the democrats will retake the house, and most state legislatures with in 4 years.


  2. I recently read an interview with Hillary Clinton in Us Magazine. She said she fights for clean air for the children. Which means, dirty air for adults is fine. She said shortchanging women is bad because it shortchanges families, and thus, the country. That means she thinks shortchanging single non-breeding women is okay. Her supporters should try reading between the lines. The article included photos of her flipping meat burgers in 2007 at the Iowa State Fair and chowing down on dairy ice-cream in 2008.


  3. I would like to hear you support your assertion that every democratic president since Wilson has been “a wall street president.” It seems to me that Franklin Roosevelt, while certainly wealthy, also defined the term “progressive.” But, I am willing to hear your defense of your assertion.


    • To be accurate. I should have said “since and including Woodrow Wilson,” as Wilson was certainly a Wall Street Democrat.
      The only Democrat who, before close scrutiny, seems not to have been a Wall Street Democrat was FDR. We view Roosevelt as a progressive because his policies were the beginning of safety nets and modest regulation of banks and the stock markets. What is forgotten is that there was the very high likelihood of a Bolshevik style revolution in the US during Roosevelt’s presidency. Huey Long was challenging Roosevelt from the left within the Democratic party. Norman Thomas was challenging him with the Socialist party. Workers were in the streets. Insurrection seemed inevitable. Roosevelt’s half-a-loaf concessions to labor and the unemployed effectively saved Wall Street and prevented a socialist revolution. At the time, Roosevelt was seen a niggardly, Scrooge-ish president to the millions pressing for radical change in America. In retrospect we see him as a champion of those he betrayed.


  4. Some of your family and friends, and even some Bernie fans, will increasingly pressure you to support Hillary Clinton. They’ll expect you to abandon the considerable political leverage the Sanders campaign has created. They’ll ask you to transfer your vote to her, without reward.

    Bernie himself would be discarding his 55-year demand for deep change, and alienating those who demand change with him, were he to endorse a candidate who has defied what we have worked for.

    Cautious liberals who want mild reform without risk or inconvenience will argue that Trump is too crazy, too racist, too sexist, too dangerous. They will warn of his thugs, walls, deportations, and insults.

    So if you reply that both Hillary and Trump would serve a murderous military, big banks, big corporations, labor exploitation, the prison industry, fracking and other environmental destruction, they will call you a purist.

    If you explain that Trump and Hillary will begin to sound increasingly like one another, appealing to one another’s voters, you’ll be called uninformed. If you claim that Hillary is basically a liberal Republican and Trump a conservative Democrat, you’ll be dismissed.

    If you remind them that polls show Bernie beating Trump better than Hillary, and that polls show Bernie more trusted than Hillary, they’ll say that it’s time for a woman president. If you say it’s more important we have a president whose policies benefit women, they’ll be annoyed.

    If you persist, saying that Bernie’s political revolution goes to sleep whenever a centrist Democrat is elected, and that Trump appears less aggressive than Hillary on war and globalization, and that both candidates would be relatively isolated by Congress, you’ll be called unrealistic.

    Then If you let them know you’ll vote for a third party candidate sooner than an establishment candidate, they’ll call you a spoiler. But you can’t spoil something that’s rotten.

    Finally, if you declare that you’re committing your life to building a healthy society that serves all people and honors all species, and that you’ll risk your convenience to advance this, and that you’re more excited to create beauty than to consume stuff, that you’re more interested in sharing than owning, and that you’ll live simply so that the planet can revive, you’ll be called too idealistic.

    But when you embrace Bernie as a model for your life, even more than as a candidate, you’ll provide America with new definitions of success and practicality, exactly when we need these. http://www.paulglover.org


  5. Not being a student of political science my understanding is sparse at best, but in my uneducated way of thinking I believe if we disallowed the Special Interest groups to push for the business interests, we would have a more equal economy, more diverse and less likely to crumble!! Please correct me if I am wrong!! With 2 very different views on spending and how to grow the economy from both sides, and the possibility of a gridlock and nothing getting accomplished, both sides NEED TO WORK TOGETHER FOR SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE, instead of acting like spoiled children throwing a tantrum and ALMOST COMPLETELY shutting the govt down!!!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.