Posted on 04/12/2006 10:21:27 PM PDT by FairOpinion
An 18-month recruitment drive by the Democrats has produced nearly a dozen strong candidates with the potential for unseating House Republicans, but probably not enough to take back control of the House absent a massive anti-incumbent wave this fall, according to House political experts.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said his party was able to avoid a primary fight in California and is emerging from Tuesday's balloting united and ready to go after independent voters. In contrast, he said, Republicans will have to unite a fractious party around a nominee who still has not been officially named.
Currently, there are 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, one independent and two vacant seats in the House. It will be up to lesser Democratic lights -- running in Republican districts with less-than-glowing résumés -- to help provide the 15 net victories Democrats need to take back control of the House, which has been in GOP hands since the 1994 election.
In that context, Busby's performance -- respectable but not surprising -- is not encouraging to Democrats, said Stuart Rothenberg, a congressional analyst and editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Do you have any idea of how foolish that you sound?
I'll ping Jim so he can make comment if he wishes...
I love when people say that, like it is authoritative. ROTFLMAO
Close dis.
When was it that they were in power?
[When was it that they were in power?]
When Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito were put on the bench.
Please point to where I said anything about voting 3rd party.
Of the items on your list, I will concede #9. The rest are more illusory than real. I will repeat what I wrote before: pubbies are never more conservative as when they're in the minority.
When they're the majority party, they collectively act more like RINOs than conservatives.
If they lose the majority in 2006 or 2008, it will be their fault, not voters' fault.
I love when people tell delusional jokes!
Also might be that they are trying to make Republicans complacent.
Those who have exceedingly high opinions of themselves sometimes fail to recognize how well off they are.
"But I guess you have your source and it gives you the answer you want...."
Pot, meet kettle.
"History is proof. The Perot voters gave us 8 long years of Clinton"
Clinton gave us Bush. What is your point? It's cyclical.
Rothenberg is the smartest most well-informed man in American in these issues.
Testify-our domestic enemy would see the Islamist agenda advance worldwide if it meant their return to power in D.C. As disappointed as I have been with the Republican majority, Dhimmicrat control of congress would bring us speaker Pelosi from San Fransisco home of the city government that has voted to make the city a "military-free zone". The choice between ineptitude and evil is no choice at all.
if DEMS have 201 and need 218 for a majority, how is that a net 15???
"". Exit polls showed that Perot took about equal support from both parties, though a little more republican. But the split was nowhere near enough to suggest that Bush Sr. would have won had Perot not been in the race. Bush Sr. would have gained votes, but still lost.""
this is actually some what of a myth. The GOP won 10 seats in the House in 1992, indication that Perot did infact take more votes from the GOP than from the DEMS. Fact that Clinton won NV, MT, CO and GA while Bush won no DEM leaning states is another indication that Perot took more votes from the GOP than from the DEMS.
based on the 1988, 1992 and 1996 voter turnout it is likely that 1/3 of Perot voters would not have voted had Perot not been on the ballot. Roughly the remaning 2/3 would have voted GOP.
The result state by state is that Clinton would have won 50.5% of the vote and 300EVS with Bush winning, CO, GA, MT, NV, OH, NJ
Ironically had that happened Clinton likely would NOT have lead off his term with gays in the military and national health care but with welfare reform. His 370 EV win in 1992 made both him and hillary arrogant.
Had Peor not run, it is possible Bush could have won because Perot added greatly to the climate of negativity in 1992. That cannot be factored by looking at voting results.
Bush lost because he broke his no new taxes pledge which prolonged the recession, led to Buchanan's run.
No tax increase, no buchanan insurgency and the economy rebounds not in the fall of 1992 but in the fall of 1991.
And anyone who thinks there has been anything remotely like conservatism in the last 19 yrs, is clueless.
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.