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 ...
"No, the GOP gave us 8 long years of Clinton."
Last I checked, the *VOTERS* decided who got to be president.
And a lot of conservatives got taken in by that larry King scam, called Ross Perot, so that Larry King's candidate, bill Clinton, would have a leg up. I guess it worked.
"The Perot voters gave us 8 long years of Clinton."
That is such a common myth.
1. 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.
2. The American people did. They had the chance to throw Clinton lying carcus out in 1996 and they didn't.
Voting for a RINO is basicly voting for a DEM.
" the idea that things would have been "little different" after eight years of Al Gore is so demented and demonstrably false, only a buffoon could believe it."
====
You don't mince any words, do you? But you put it well.
"What I will no longer do is vote for a RINO"
===
You don't want to vote for a "RINO", but you vote for a leftist Dem instead?
Success has a thousand fathers, etc.
We put them in office. We have to ride them hard. But anyone who wants to put these looney lefties in charge NOW just to have a hissy fit are fair-weather Americans. Yes, because this country needs us to stand by it and not let the dems slip in and screw it all up just because we disagree on some important issues.
Did I miss a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden or something?
L
Yep. The dem's "advantage" is overblown. In Cali's 50th, they couldn't do any better than 44% after that POS Duke dragged good Republicans through the mud. We'll win in November, and we'll win in 2008.
We're believing those this week?
I know John Kerry still believes them, but I thought he was the only one.
You are doing more to destroy conservative unity at FR then unite it, imo. Keep it up.
Is what got us Clinton, no action on the bordern will have a similar effect.
"You don't want to vote for a "RINO", but you vote for a leftist Dem instead?"
That is nowhere near what he wrote and you know it. He doesn't want to vote for a RINO. Big deal. Despite what you may want to believe, voting libertarian or constitution is not tantamount to voting for a democrat. Would you vote for Zell Miller or Lincoln Chafee for senate if they ran against each other in your state?
PS: I like my republican representative, and will vote for him in November.
As long as you folks keep voting in RINO's, the RINO's will keep acting like DEMS.
---
Some folks just will not listen.
We need a reality check!!
Does anyone have some of the horror that was going on during the 40 years the RATS had control?
We need a reminder thread devoted just to what the RATS really did during their 'glory' years!!!
Who can dig up some of that reality for us please?
[Voting for a RINO is basicly voting for a DEM.]
I don't agree. The individual might not be a whole lot different but even if the difference in the majority are rinos, the Repubs control the committee's.
What information do you suggest I use?
If you have some kind of proof that about 85% of Perot voters would have voted for Bush Sr. had Perot not been in the race, show it.
I've come to the conclusion that folks like you just like to bitch, and you engineer circumstances in life so that you can always be on the bottom, whining and crying that "the man" has his boot on your neck.
I hope some of these FReepers hang onto these posts of theirs, and come November have their heads clear enough to re-read them and say "What was I thinking?!"
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.