Excellent. Every single vulnerable seat held steepens the climb the Democrats face.
There is entirely too much talk of parallels of 2006 to 1994. The FUNDAMENTAL reality is that in 1994 there were over 100 seats thought to be vulnerable. There are far fewer than that now.
The Democrats have to run the table to make this happen. Odds are against that happening.
How vulnerable? Who said they were vulnerable? At what point in 1994 was that said?
It was nothing more that a liberal fantasy slowing being flushed down the toilet.
The ratio is actually about 90 Dem seats in 1994 and about 50 GOP seats in 2006. The biggest difference though is that the vulnerable Dem seats in 1994 tended to lean considerably more GOP than the vulnerable GOP seats in 2006 lean Dem. In other words, the Dems have to push against the inherent partisan nature of the districts much more so.
In any case, just going by the ratio, a reverse 1994 would net the Dems about 27 seats or so, and that's more than enough to take the House.
He makes Michael Bloomberg look like a supporter of the Second Amendment.
He opposes the Iraq war, insisting on cutting-and-running.
He has long supported government funded abortion-on-demand.
He actually authored the BPCFRA travesty (McCain just got the credit).
He is an anti-property rights environmental wacko extremist.
Shays supports gay "marriage".
He was one of Clinton's closest Congressional allies in the impeachment vote.
Do ultraliberals like Chafee and Shays really strengthen the GOP Caucus or do they weaken it from within?