Posted on 04/04/2006 7:35:40 AM PDT by SmithL
Washington -- The good news for Democrats is that the 15 seats they need to win a majority in the House of Representatives is, by historical standards, well within reach.
In the 10 elections that fell in the sixth year of an administration over the past century, the president's party lost an average of 30 seats, double what Democrats need to elect House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco as the first female speaker of the House.
The bad news for Democrats is that just a small fraction of the 435 House seats -- as few as 1 in 10 by most estimates -- are considered even remotely competitive. Ninety-eight percent of incumbent House members have won re-election over the past decade -- and a low number of lawmakers are retiring this year.
Pelosi's strategy is built on nationalizing the election.
"This is a referendum on whether you want to continue the course that President Bush and the Republicans have set,'' said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat chosen by Pelosi to head the party's House re-election committee.
Democratic strategists figure that playing up voter discontent over such issues as the Iraq war and ethics scandals can provide the difference in a handful of races that could tip the balance in the House.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
tough to play defense. Hopeful NSA terrorist surveillance gives Republicans a good opportunity if able to expose bureaucrat/ Democrat/ media network that led to exposure of "most secret program of government" (Hatch)
It will all come down to which party has the most articulate candidates and how well they present their case for being elected. And, of course, how much money they spend...
Yes, and the Honorable Georgia Represenative Cynthia McKinney.
Translation of the LEAD sentence...
"The good news for Democrats is..." = "The good news for our side is..."
ALL news reports are always focused on what the Rats need to do for/to keep a majority (and not changing their posititons on the issues, rather which regions they need to focus on with natioanl election funds).
Where is the press celebration when Republicans win? THEN we are told how America threw a temper tantrum. That was not considered a referendum on Democrat majority.
I know I have said this before, but the GOP should put her in ads against dem congressmen in tight elections..reminding voters that voting for the dem candidate would make San Francisco Pelosi Speaker of the House..could hurt in close, especially in the south..imho
First off, I am not sure that nationalizing the elections would actually be a benefit to the dems. When Gingrich did it in 1994 the Republicans had a SPECIFIC platform in the form of the "Contract With America." The dems simply can't produce anything like that because they: 1)have no specific plans, well, at least that they would admit to; and 2) the voters would never support the specific plans they have (raise taxes, turn over national security to the UN, pretend 9/11 never happened, withdraw from Iraq, nationalize healthcare). If there is any issue that will nationlize the elections, it will be national security and the dems don't have enough lipstick for the pig that is their national security policy (read surrendur to the French).
Secondly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid simply are NOT the faces you want out there if you are going to nationalize an election. Pelosi faces a revolt within her own party and Reid is just boring and, well, scary to look at.
I disagree. It will come down to the bill the GOP adopts on immigration. If the GOP sends an "amnesty" version to the President, the base will not turn out this Nov and I expect the dims to take 30-40 seats.
you nailed it Mariner. The elections are for the Republicans to lose. They had better figure out which voters to listen to, their Conservative base or the maurading Mexicans. They can's have both. (And if they are stupid enough to think that all these Illegals are going to vote Republican, they're delusional.
Isn't the House version the one without amnesty? Why should the voters take it out on the House Republicans? They will most likely vote against a Senate/conference committee version if it has amnesty in it. I can't see the sense in the alternative: voting in Democrats who are 100% certain to be even softer on immigration, the war on terror and every other issue I can think of. How will that gain us anything? I don't buy the notion that we vote out the Republicans to teach them a lesson and, then, in two years we can vote them back in. Once the Dems get back control of the House it will take an act of God to get them out again.
What a line of crap.. The Contract With America got a grand total of 72 seconds of national TV coverage on all the major networks combined. Not one voter in a thousand in 1994 had ever heard of the Contract with America before the election.
The Republicans won the house in 1994 becuase they had gerrymandered a majority of seats in the house. From 1940 until 1990 a majority of house seats were Gerrmandered for Demcorats. Thus even though Reagan won the presidency by 58 percent and Republicans got more votes for house seats than Democrats, Democrats held the house in 1984.
It was Ross Perot who kept hte Republicans from taking hte House in 1992.
EVen though Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000, the Democrats did not come close to taking the house. That is because the House was Gerrymandered to elect REpublicans.
The redistricting of 2000 gave the Republicans an even bigger Gerrymander lead than they had in 1990.
It is interesting to note that the Democrats despite the Aramoff stain on Congressman Bob Ney, have decided not to waste money challenging him. Ney's Ohio district is so pro Republican Gerrymandered that even with the scandal the Democrats don't think they can beat him.
The 'Contract with America' was a total non issue in 1994. It got next to zero coverage and it was not used in any of the races where Republicans won former Democratic seats. It only got attention after the election. It was Newt Gingrich's way of taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.
I disagree, the MSM used the Contract to make fun of the Republicans, thinking that it was silly, i.e. that "all politics was local" and the Republicans were going down. Yes, you are correct that winning the state houses was key to the Republicans, but so was nationalizing the elections which was accomplished by putting forth a specific agenda.
As for it being a line of crap, I'll make sure to tell that to Michael Barone who obviously lacks your profound, deep experience in politics and doesn't share your opinion. He feels the contract was a key element. I tend to agree with a man who will forget more about politics than you and I will ever know.
You are exactly correct!
This bill is a Ted Kennedy/McCain bill, which should make it DOA.
I think there is a great effort on Free Republic to divide the GOP and hope for a Democrat win.
If you are really concerned about the Immigration issue, write your Representative and let him know about it.
But don't sit home like a petulant child and let the treasonous Democrats gain control of anything.
Didn't 9/11 teach us anything?
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.