Replies

I think W will lose at least one House to the dems.

I might have agreed with you last week, but not anymore. Michael Barone, btw, wrote a great piece, and there was another here this week, that points out that the only polls showing Republicans losing the Congress--either house--are generic polls; on the state-by-state level, in individual races, there's not a lot of evidence of it.

And the Republicans in most danger are apparently the most conservative. I doubt those who want to sit it out in Nov. will do so if they see their conservative reps in trouble.

More to the point, I don't think the WOT will be a drag. in fact, I think election night we will see what I and many others predicted in the past 2 elections: 9/11 is STILL the #1 issue with voters. They just don't want to risk giving the Dems veto power over our WOT.

And the Republicans in most danger are apparently the most conservative.

I disagree vehemently. The only exception so far is Chris Cannon who got a surprise upset and recruited a challenger for his primary. It's his own fault for being soft on in-state tuition for illegals. Sad that it happened to someone with a 10-year career ACU rating of 97% but people are very hot on the illegals thing all over the country. The other upset was the defeat of Coach Osborne in Nebraska as governor. He also went soft on in-state tuition and was defeated. And he was the most popular person in the state, universally loved and respected.

However, if Cannon is defeated, his successor will be just as conservative, only a little more so on illegals. And Heineman (who beat Osborne) is no more liberal and perhaps a little more conservative than Osborne was.

The heat generated over an issue the pols consider to be as peripheral as in-state tuition in two races with popular Republicans in the safest all-Red states in the country is an indicator of just how hot the electorate (not just Republicans) are on this issue.