Gallup:Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive (GOP "could regain control of U.S. House ...")

Gallup ^ | September 12, 2008 | by Lydia Saad

[DustyMoment]

A bad republican is far and away better than ANY demonRAT in the field.

I respectfully disagree. A bad republican is just another weed that someone wants to call a rose. Roses are roses and Democrats are weeds.

[Deb]

There’s no turn in the polls...the Republicans are just getting home from vacation.

[HallowThisGround]

We've got a long way to go here. Remember just yesterday how they reported that Palin said we had to go to war with Russia (see here here here) when all she did was take the position--which McCain has taken--that Georgia needs to be admitted into NATO and as such would be obligated to "help" Georgia. The media will twist and turn things all they can. No coat tails for Congress if McCain/Palin are fighting those kinds of battles. They can still win, but no coattails.

What you are seeing is the coat tail effect caused by the Obama campaign playing defense. If that keeps up, you have reason for hope.

Long way to go.

[Red in Blue PA]

If you run a nutty candidate, why should this come as a surprise to anyone?

[Mr. Silverback]

Do you have an opinion on the Illinois 16th? I know Manzullo usually blows his opponents out (IIRC, last time was 65-35) but for some reason I’m still a bit worried.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Logistically, this is nearly impossible. Our recruitments, especially on the Senate side, are subpar, some don’t even HAVE a Republican challenger for seats we held 6 years ago (Arkansas). Most have a fraction of the $$ the Dems have.”

---

All that is true, but you can’t tell me that the Republicans that won in 1994 all had more money than the Democrat incumbents. What all of those districts had in common was that, except for a couple of CDs in Iowa that voted for Dukakis but showed in 1992 that they were by no means Democrat districts, they had voted for President Bush in 1988 (even Rostenkowski’s district, as redrawn in 1992, had voted for Bush in 1988!). If the GOP is doing well in the generic ballot, a lot of those first-term House Democrats in Republican districts may get the heave-ho despite our lackluster recruiting.

But I agree that the Senate will be much more difficult to win back, although I think we can keep our net losses to maybe one or two.

The Democrats benefited from anti-incumbency in 2006, and now that they’re the incumbents payback may be a bitch.

[Impy]

I can only hope you’re.

We need the old man to stop praising Berry though (”tremendous record”. WTH). I worry about him in a debate, he could still blow this.

[Impy]

Eh the word “right” should come after you’re.

[Impy]

Actually we are supposed to hold Wilson’s seat. (good candidate apparently).)

[CottonBall]

You think "ain't never gonna happen" is reasoned debate?

That wasn't all he said. Perhaps it was all you heard (or read), but there was much more to the post - and subsequent posts. Again, rather than attack the poster, how about discussing his ideas and coming up with some of your own to counteract his? THAT would be a reasoned debate. (You're actually doing exactly what you are blaming the other guy of doing - making statements without any facts or data.)

I'm not saying he or you are right or wrong. I just get so tired of seeing people attacked here for having a different opinion. It's getting as bad as a bunch of libs.

[Arrowhead1952]

I thought it was someone clapping, but I think it may have been dim a - holes slamming shut.

[Ciexyz]

Expect more vicious attack ads blanketing the airwaves from the Democrats, that's how they took over Republican seats last time, the ads were non-step and hammered away at the incumbant with ceasing.

[impeachedrapist]

You're absolutely clueless if you think I don't provide data to back up my stances.

Your post resembles a steaming pile of feces. For data points go read through this and other threads again. How's that?

[CottonBall]

Your post resembles a steaming pile of feces.

If your other posts are as intelligent and rational as this one, I'm sure I don't need to waste my valuable time reading them. You've proven the other guy's point.

[impeachedrapist]

Awww, darn. And I was SO hoping to have your approval.

But if it's simply a question of you not being able to figure out how to review previous posts or get back to the beginning of this thread, I'll be happy to assist you. Just let me know.

[Scarchin]

Rush outlined this scenario MONTHS ago!

[wardaddy]

wow.....get the body bags ready

[wardaddy]

I hate to say I told people so

When, where?

I hope so, I'm, just baiting you....I realize it may have been a rhetorical statement, I do that too

XR750

[wardaddy]

I hate to say I told people so

When, where?

I hope so, I'm, just baiting you....I realize it may have been a rhetorical statement, I do that too

XR750

[fieldmarshaldj]

Actually, I don't think that's half the battle. We all want to believe our candidates can win, even when the odds are badly stacked against them. But this is a different era where you can't have next to zero bucks and hope to win a Congressional race. In the 1970s, you could still do that. Even in 1982, Sen. Proxmire of Wisconsin spent nothing on his final term (his GOP opponent, future Gov. Scott McCallum spent between $100-$200k and still lost handily). You need a fortune now, and more than half the battle is in the bucks department. You outraise your opponent in a competitive district, and you have a better than 50% chance of winning. If you can't, the odds aren't in your favor. I don't like it, I'm sure you don't either, but that's how it is.