Replies

The issue at hand is that many older Democrats will retire in 2004 leaving vulnerable open seats because of disillusionment at their prospects to retake the House that year.

I could not agree with you more. Hollings has aready announced that he will not run for re-election to the senate in S.C.

The Democrats in the house are very very socialist leftist and getting more so as the years roll on.

The Democrats in the house are very very socialist leftist and getting more so as the years roll on.

It's the radical sixties generation gaining seniority status in the congress...I say good the farther to the left they go the easier it is to take back the middle ground!

The Democrats in the house are very very socialist leftist and getting more so as the years roll on.

Not entirely. Don't forget Ralph Hall--who may get booted from the Dems anyway (ala Traficant) when he votes for Hastert--and some other Dems hungry for a piece of the pie. Pro-life, pro-2a Rep-elect Lincoln Davis (D.-Tenn.), anyone? Will a man like that want Nancy Pelosi as majority leader?

Any seat that switches to the (R) side--particularly if it's held by a conservative--is good news, since switchers are not likely to switch back, and they tend to get more in line with the conservative legislative agenda.

Plus, it's good to get the numbers up, to save the majority in future elections when things may not go so well. The Senate looks very good for 2004 (Hollings and Miller will likely both retire; maybe Daschle; Boxer, Edwards, Lincoln look vulnerable; Bayh and/or Daschle's seat will be winnable if they run for prez), but we'll need moderate Dem retirements to save us in the House. We won almost all the competitive House seats this year, and they will take a lot of resources to defend, even if Tex. and Ga. have another round of redistricting.

The issue at hand is that many older Democrats will retire in 2004 leaving vulnerable open seats because of disillusionment at their prospects to retake the House that year.

You both hit it on the head. I think the average year has around 20-25 retirees per party. The last three to four congressional elections have been basically the same story... Gebhardt has talked dozens of Democrats into putting off retirement for "one more term" because "this is the year" that they were going to take the House back. They just couldn't afford too many retirements because it would jepordize their chances of regaining the majority.

Now with Bush actually on the ticket in 2004 and showing that his tux actually does have coattails... how many will believe they have a shot at the majority in 2004?

How many House Democrats aren't willing to hold on "just one more time"? And for every one that switches or anounces retirement, retaking the House becomes more difficult and encourages more to bail. This thing could snowball if they don't get a handle on it quickly.

And who is out there in their party with the clout to reign in this horse? Clinton? Gore? Daschle?