I was intrigued by a comment Nate made in his latest (Oct 1) House forecast :
[Democrats] have only about a 10 percent chance of holding onto 230 or more seatsin the new Congress, according to the model, which might allow them to retain a reasonably functional working majority.
I have posted this question on the NYT Comments thread, but we all know how that song goes. So let’s discuss it here.
Does the same math apply to the Republicans? That is, can they govern with 218 members of the House, or do they need 230 (plus or minus) as well? If you think that they can govern with 218, why? If you think they need 230 like the Democrats, why?
What disturbs me is that (if the election were held today, and if Nate’s model is reasonably accurate) that there’s about a 2 in 3 chance that the number of House seats will fall in the “dead zone” between 230D/205R and 205D/230R. That means two years of gridlock in the House. I don’t claim perfect knowledge of what the American people want this election cycle, but I’m almost certain that very few Americans want gridlock in the 112th Congress.