Posted on 01/25/2006 6:50:33 PM PST by UCAL
Guest contributor Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, sees good things for House Democrats in the months ahead.
With a little over nine months to go until Election Day, Democrats are headed for gains in the United States House of Representatives. The only question is exactly how big those gains will be.
Democrats need a net gain of fifteen seats to get to the magic number of 218 seats and control of the chamber. That would make Representative Nancy Pelosi Speaker, install Democrats as chairs of House committees, and fundamentally change the political environment on Capitol Hill and nationally for President George W. Bush's final two years.
I recently raised my projections of likely Democratic gains to five to eight seats based on the continued deepening of the Abramoff scandal and continued voter sentiment for change. While it is still difficult to "count" eight certain Democratic House takeovers, the combination of macropolitical factors and credible Democratic opportunities add up to likely Democratic gains in the mid-single digits.
But, like the Federal Reserve, which often signals future interest rate shifts by noting that it has a "bias" to higher or lower rates, I like to indicate whether my projected range is likely to move one way or the other. And my current view is that projections of Democratic gains are more likely to grow than to shrink.
While Republicans could benefit from improved news from Iraq, perceived progress in the war on terror, an ethics/reform agenda, or future circumstances that no one can now anticipate, I think it far more likely that the political landscape, which currently tilts to the Democrats, could tilt even more toward Democratic House candidates later this year.
While a 15-seat Democratic gain remains difficult, I no longer think it impossible. Yes, Republicans do have a structural advantage in the House, and Democrats don't have as many top tier challengers at DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel would have you believe he does. But the electorate's mood allows for Democratic prospects to improve further over the next nine months. Stay tuned.
-- Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report and a columnist for Roll Call.
Abramoff's indians gave four million to the 'pubs, and three million to the 'rats (that makes the 'rats only a little pregnant, I guess)..........
Regardless of the reasons why, the incumbent party will be blamed--unfortunately
Five seats out of five hundred is 1% and that is portrayed as a good year? Wonder if cutting their pay increass to 1% would look good to them. I think the most important thing the Republicans must do is accomplish immigration reform. That and spending cuts wil reenergize their base and improve their numbers. However, if the budget reports show more surpluses and last month turns out not to be a fluke, Katie bar the door.
He should step away from the bong.
Bookmarked for future moonbat bashing.....
Rothenberg fails to consider a few likely issues:
1. Dims are bigger crooks than Pubbies and you know the
Pubbies are digging furiously. Look for Dim scandals to begin surfacing before March 1 and continue thru the elections.
2. Dims are inherently stupid and will make at least one huge miscue btwn now and the elections.
3. Voters don't have long memories, the Dims have probably peaked much too early on this entire culture of corruption garbage.
Hope springs eternal......*chuckle*
Harding died before Teapot Dome erupted in full - if memory serves; he staffed his administration with cronies who took advantage of him, but I don't ever recall reading that he was thought to be involved in the graft.
Republicans
immigration reform.
spending cuts.
Democrats
Honesty
integrity
Same chance. ZERO
Neither party has any interest in any of those things.
Expect biased reporting which makes today's look fair and balanced by mid August.
They are getting shrill and desperate, especially with the trouncing the Leftists took up north. Maybe they figure they can't run away to Canada any more.
As if the GOP controls gas prices.
Heck, we might as well let them have it. What difference would it make, really? Are they going to spend more than the Pubs? Are they going to try to pick a fight with the White House from the lower house, we've seen first hand how poorly that works. As long as we have Senate for the sake of judicial nominations we'll be just fine. IMO losing the house would probably make it much easier for us to gear up for 2008. All that said, we're not losing anything this year. We're in at least as good of a position as we were this time two years ago.
Imagine what we would know about the Clinton scandals had it been left to the Clinton/Gore Administration to investigate the Clinton Admninistration after Clinton's heart attack death? I wonder who Gore would have chosen as Clinton's Fall guy?
Stu is huffing paint fumes BUMP!
DRUGS
I will post the last of my series on: "Why the Democrats have no chance in 2006" soon. I defy stuie to answer any of my points.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.