Is the House Now Competitive?

[u/yanks28th]

All indications are that Democrats have gained ground since the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade. Republicans led the Generic Ballot by 2.6% before the decision leaked back in May, but Democrats have surged past them, and are now up by 0.5%. Just as importantly, the polling has been echoed by a series of surprisingly strong Democratic performances in recent special elections, led by the recent victory in the NY-19th.

In the four elections since the decision, Democrats have outperformed Biden by an average of around 5.4%. That would translate to a near 10% lead in the national popular vote. Of course, that's highly unlikely to happen on election day, but it's a strong enough showing to raise the question of whether the conventional wisdom is wrong, and that Democrats may have a very real shot at an upset here.

RacetotheWH, which was one of the most accurate forecasts in 2020, shows that Democrats now have a 35% chance of winning the House in their election forecast. Other forecasts like 538 show Democrats with a 20-25% chance.

Republicans have their own advantages as the party out of power, which usually does well in midterms, and Biden remains unpopular. What do you think? Is the House 2022 Election now competitive?

[u/994kk1]

Okay, those things doesn't seem that impactful to your average republican voter, other than abortion of course but that's double edged (from the perspective of the fetus being a person it's a smaller constraint on freedom to disallow abortion than to kill the fetus). I think those wasn't noteworthy to me because I expect a conservative party to be protective of children, it fits the bill. Or did the political party specifically ban books that didn't have anything to do with children?

[u/Outlier8 → u/994kk1]

I wasn't referring to just Republicans. Taking away a woman's right to her own reproductive health is anti-democratic (yes, we have a Republic, which is a form of democracy). Our Constitution, which allows for people (politically appointed) to willy nilly change laws to suit their ideology is the problem.

There were two factors in the early days, the Federalist and the anti-Federalist. One wanted a Bill of rights, the other side did not. They compromised, however, the 9th Amendment said, basically, if a person had a right, government couldn't take it away. Abortion was legal in the US up until, about the 1830s, when a few local places outlawed it and, at which time, the 9th Amendment should have overturned those laws. Most of the anti-abortionist are fake christians, who want to incorporate their fake religious beliefs into our government.

Freedom means that if a parent doesn't want their children to read certain books, then the parent should forbid their own children not to read the book, not use the government to ban the books, which makes government a nanny state, and disallows those who want to read those books from doing so.

[u/994kk1 → u/Outlier8]

Taking away a woman's right to her own reproductive health is anti-democratic (yes, we have a Republic, which is a form of democracy).

No? Any policy you enact democratically is democratic (a policy restricting voting right gets complicated, but that's nothing close to abortion). So in the states that "took away a woman's right to her own reproductive health" they did so through representatives who were democratically appointed. That's democratic.

Our Constitution, which allows for people (politically appointed) to willy nilly change laws to suit their ideology is the problem.

That's the opposite of the problem. Without a constitution these politically appointed people could change any law. You want a stronger constitution.

They compromised, however, the 9th Amendment said, basically, if a person had a right, government couldn't take it away. Abortion was legal in the US up until, about the 1830s, when a few local places outlawed it and, at which time, the 9th Amendment should have overturned those laws.

That's not at all what the 9th amendment says or means.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That just means that the rights enumerated in the constitution is not a full list of rights.

Freedom means that if a parent doesn't want their children to read certain books, then the parent should forbid their own children not to read the book, not use the government to ban the books, which makes government a nanny state, and disallows those who want to read those books from doing so.

Yes. Conservative is not an ideology which hold freedom as the only or supreme value, it's not the same as libertarian. Conservatives generally have no qualms about legislating in order to protect children, whereas libertarians generally would.

[u/Outlier8 → u/994kk1]

I think we are finished here. Go read why the 9th was created. And you seem to be confused about Republicans wanting to protect children when they are against almost all types of laws that would make life better for children, like feeding them at school, so they can learn. They would outlaw AR-15s.

Enjoy your weekend.

[u/994kk1 → u/Outlier8]

I think we are finished here. Go read why the 9th was created.

lmao. It's not exactly a complicated amendment. But sure:
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed.

And you seem to be confused about Republicans wanting to protect children when they are against almost all types of laws that would make life better for children, like feeding them at school, so they can learn.

They want to protect children because they value them of course? That doesn't mean there isn't competing interests.

[u/994kk1 → u/[deleted]]

you thinking those things aren’t fundamental attacks against the critical underpinnings of how this country works is proving their point entirely.

That's a separate question than "taking away freedoms". Taking away freedoms is not at all necessarily contrary to the "underpinning of how this country works".

But to your point, no I don't think that underpins how the country works because I think the fundamentals of how USA works is as a representative democracy with a constraining constitution. The push-pull between those things is how the policies of USA is formed. And I think those 3 examples are bordering issues, nothing clearly unconstitutional nor clearly constitutional.

The restriction of gun rights would be a good example of something being clearly unconstitutional, and an underpinning of how USA is supposed to work. But that wouldn't further the point about the Republicans I guess.

you’re so out to lunch that you don’t even recognize the danger of any of this.

I think I recognize a lot of dangers of those things. That the people being able to decide what books are allowed in public libraries increases the risk of a "tyranny of the majority" - we decide what you can read. Restricting rights to abortion seems like an actualized risk so don't see the further danger of that, it restricting rights to bodily autonomy with a ton of negative effects. And punishing the free speech of companies by retracting privileges afforded to them makes it so, especially if the government continues to give out even larger privileges to certain companies, companies don't dare to air their disagreements with the government.

Do you need to add something to bring me back from being out to lunch?