[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[impeachedrapist]

Agreed, I’d be happy if the GOP broken even in Senate races. I’m more optimistic about the House.

[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.