[dead]

While I don’t disagree with you, this article is a fairly worthless mish-mosh of “ifs” and “coulds” and “mights.”

He speculates:

substantially increased the likelihood…
is much more likely…
voters are likely…
Democrats are likely…
The risk for the Republicans is…
If they do, they might decide…
Even if GOP voters…
could depress Republican turnout...
could be enough…
could well be on the defensive…
could give the president…
would, of course, relieve…
If Bush's job approval…
it could increase…
would increase the odds…
could be muted…
couldn't be good news…

And concludes:

The bottom line is clear.

[babyface00]

IMHO, all the issues raised in the article point to the need to have a solid Republican majority in the House, and the same in the Senate.

Many people realize that a lot of these issues can be traced back to Clinton policies, and the Democrats have hindered GWB's attempts to fix them.

But, unfortunately, most voters get their info from the same news sources that claim Republicans want to "starve children" and "kill the elderly".

[Torie]

Let me help you with some of this, and translate Rothenberg for you: The GOP's chances of taking control of the Senate has dropped from 45% to 25%; the GOP's chances of losing control of the House has increased from 20% to 40%. I hope that helps.

[hsmomx3]

Let's see. We've got Senator Bundgaard (R-Glendale, AZ) running for the US House seat being vacated by Bob Stump. Bundgaard is for lower taxes, school choice, is pro-life, pro-2nd Ammend., and the list goes on.

Visit his site on where he stands:

http://www.bundgaard.com/issues/ontheissues.asp

How can a guy like this lose?

Sure beats the heck out of John Keegan who is also running for this house seat! He's just been accused of plagiarising with regard to where he stands on the issues! I wonder how Mrs. Graham-Keegan (former Supt. of Public Instruction-AZ) feels knowing what her husband has done?