I'm leaving Ron Paul land

[Minimalist]

G'morning.  Here's one from the Wall Street Journal.  Can't get much more conservative than that...at least as far as the money wing of the party goes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/09...e-in-2016/

Why the GOP House Majority Is Safe in 2016

First, the math is simply too tough for Democrats. They now hold just 188 House seats, which means they would need to win 30 seats now held by Republicans. Even in a good year, that’s too steep a hill to climb.

So while Republicans do have more seats in danger in the changed environment of 2016, the numbers aren’t big enough to suggest a change. The Cook Report lists 22 Republican-held seats that are among the most vulnerable this cycle, and just seven Democratic ones, but even a clean sweep of such seats by the Democrats wouldn’t be enough to change control.

Second, that difficult math is the result of years of Republican efforts to draw up congressional districts that are safe for GOP candidates. Using their control of more governor’s offices and state legislatures in recent years, Republicans have been in the driver’s seat for reapportioning congressional districts and the advantage shows. The vast majority of Republican House members are safe from serious challenge from Democrats; only 16 of them won their seats by fewer than 10 percentage points, the Cook Report says.

#2

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics...ginia.html

In addition to all this, Wisconsin Democrats recently filed a challenge against the state's legislative maps, arguing they represent a partisan gerrymander designed to keep the GOP in power and disenfranchise Democrats.

While no one doubts that is true, proving it in court is another matter. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but has never set standards to delineate just how far partisans can or cannot go.

Sort of like "natural-born citizen," eh?

#3

But there is another aspect to this problem:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...n-996-vote

Ever-fewer races for the House of Representatives are closely fought, leaving four-fifths of that body’s 435 members with little to fear on polling day. Their doomed challengers—formerly stirred to action by a mix of idealism, ambition, vanity and (at times) self-delusion—seem at last to be noticing the odds against them. Add on the soaring costs of any election, and a growing number are quitting the field.

In 2014 Republicans have put up no challenger in 37 House races, while Democrats are ceding 32 districts without a fight, according to David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. A further eight House districts will see no contest between the main parties, thanks to a “top two” primary system used in Washington state and California, in which ordinary voters (rather than just party members) can pick the two candidates who compete for each seat in the general election—a move sold as a cure-all for partisan extremism, but which can turn safe districts into blue-on-blue and red-on-red fights. That total of 77 single-party House races is high by recent standards and marks a big jump since 2012, when there were 45 of them. Stephen Colbert, a comedian, once persuaded a Florida congressman running unopposed to tell the camera that he liked cocaine and prostitutes, by arguing that it didn’t matter what he said because he couldn’t possibly lose.

Yes, the only thing these incumbents have to worry about is a primary challenge from someone who is even more ideologically extreme.  And this is where we sit now.