The line so far
Roger Ailes (not THAT one) lays it out:
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post today have articles about the number of Republican seats in play. Various folks in the newsletter industry are talking about 36 to 42 seats, with the Dems needing only a 15-seat gain to win back the House of Representatives. The best news is that Dick Pombo (R-CA) shows up on the endangered species list in both papers.
But: Stuart Rothenberg, who claims there are 42 Puke seats in play, is currently predicting a Democratic gain of only 8 to 12 seats. That result would weaken Bush more, but keeps the Republicans in control of the House. If the Democrats want to win Congress, they and their supporters have a lot of work to do. November is six months away. And, as recent history informs us, there's very little the Republicans won't do to gain or keep power.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 5/20/2006
3 comments
3 Comments:
Oh, you are so right about diligence and urgency. Even the most hard-nosed, grizzled veterans among us forget that there are dem held seats in play too. Two, at least in Illinois, one for sure in Texas (yes, Delay's map LIVES) and at least one in California.
Then there are also dream outcomes indicated by MARCH polling data. In the Cunningham seat for instance, the personal favorability of the dem was good but the cross tabs were not showing any disaffection with congress. Dream outcomes tend to happen only in our dreams.
Rothenburg is a smart man and he enjoys being a moderate repub and, therefore, having credibility on both sides. He is kind of the Ray LaHood of commentators. Still, here he has a point. Dems are fighting a bad map.
Frankly, this is one reason, despite my personal admiration and affection for Phil Hare, I think the committemen oughta be thinkin' "electability". One mistake here and even the dream outcomes won't give us the gavel. OTOH, a good polling butwhipping for the Wicked Witch of the North in mid-Sept. Will have Boehner's money gone from here by Sept. 30th.
Bottom line we can't lose any of our safe ones and this should have been, and still can be, a safe one.
I cannot understand why ekectability has to be the overriding factor. George Bush was electable, so what? Doesn't integrity count? I'd rather vote for someone I trust and has a dependable record than someone who is a 100 percent electable candidate. Losers would be labor, progressive Democrats and women if we were to beleive the "electable" candidates. Hare is a winner. He has been educated by Lane, and the political system. Several college parchments lie in my drawer. No one sees them or asks about them. The world is full of educated derelicts.
Tacky you make a good point. I have often heard that you can't take someone's education away....
True if he/she had it in the first place and we all know attending a higher learning institution does not really guarantee a person learns much. It proves someone can stay in one place a while but unless they truely broaden their mind, the sheepskin isn't worth as much.
Post a Comment
<< Home