[kabar]

You're hopeless. All politics are local. You have to go race by race to determine the factors that resulted in every Dem incumbent winning his/her race and the loss of over 30 Rep seats. A number of national issues affected local outcomes, e.g., the war, the Foley/Cuningham/Weldon et. al. scandals, the split between the WH and most Reps on illegal immigration, the big spending Rep Congress, voter fatigue with the Reps, poor candidates and badly run campaigns, FEMA's handling of Katrina, etc.

You must also give credit to the Dems who did a superb job of selecting candidates and targeting various races, especially in the Northeast. They recruited a bunch of ex- military candidates in an effort to change their image. The also did a good job of voter turnout.

The senate race in Viginia was a good example of effective Dem strategies in selecting and funding candidates and a poorly run campaign by the Rep incumbent. The Dems got Jim Webb, a former Marine, Navy Cross winner, SECNAV under Reagan, and a son on his way to serve in Iraq with the Marines to go against one of the Reps leading conservative lights. Webb ran a spirited primary against Harrison Miller who the WP endorsed over Webb. Webb got the nomination and capitalized on his military background and moderate stances in a state that is trending more liberal but with a significant military presence, retired and active duty. Allen ran a poor campaign including his famous macacca remark, for which the WP crucified him daily for almost two months. Webb barely won, much to my chagrin. I contributed almost $500 to the Allen campaign, but I was disappointed in the amateurish way he ran the campaign.

I think the constant bashing of the GOP for the border thing...overspending, the war..blah, blah...made too many stay home.

Do you have any hard data to support that assertion, i.e., "too many stayed home." What races specifically were affected by a lack of Rep voter turnout compared to the 2002 mid-terms? You can blame the media all you want and rationalize what happened, but the fact is that the Reps lost and the reasons varied district by district and state by state. We have a lot of work to do if we don't want to become the permanent minority party.

[Alas Babylon!]

Rassmussen has it. 2006 Republican turn out down 8% compared to 2004. While a lot of this had to do with fewer voters due to no presidential race, the dems turnout was only down 1%. Significantly, Republican turn out was down 4% over 2002.

I can't find figures for district by district, but these are the numbers for the nation.

[Txsleuth]

Gee thanks...I am hopeless.

I just might as well slit my wrists now??

[rodguy911]

All you said is basically true in addition to the dems turning out many blue dogs who acted like us but were dems in hiding. But sleuth has a valid point too,I would not be so quick to dismiss her.
There were many pissed off 100%ers who didn't get their way here or there and heaven only knows how or even if they voted, that cost us probably enough to tilt several races.
Shortly before the election those of us who follow politics closely as sleuth,you and I both do could not help but sense a huge disaffection within our party. Chances are good it translated into rat votes to some degree we will probably never know how much or to what extent but it should not be ignored.
Let's hope like you said, we get it together and soon, we have lots of senate seats up for grabs next time around.