Exactly the same thing is seen in the Senate.
President Bush won 25 states with >54% of the vote in 2004. Those states had 11 Democrat senators prior to Tuesday. Now they have 14.
John Kerry won 13 states with >54% of the vote in 2004.Those states had 3 Republican senators prior to Tuesday. Now they have two, both from Maine. IOW, except for Maine, NO STATE which Kerry won big has a Republican in the Senate. TEN STATES which Bush won big have Democrats in the Senate, and four of them have TWO Democrats in the senate.
Republicans are not competitive - at all - in deep blue states. Democrats are competitive - very competitive - in deep red states.
Unless this changes, the Senate cannot be won back.
The Senate in 2008 looks a bit thin, but there are maybe 3-4 or so pickup possibilities. We could win back the Senate, barely in a good election..
What make these rich pickings in the House IMHO is the ability to tie the Democrat 'blue dogs' to their very liberal Democrat leadership. We should definitely look for bringing back 10 or more of these seats, at a minimum.
We didnt have leverage to do that when the GOP was the majority, but the ballgame changes when the Dems are the majority.
Perhaps one way to calibrate this is to look at ADA, NARAL, ACU, AFLCIO, and NTU ratings... and tie every Congresscritter as a "Liberal Democrat" who did "XZ" and help Nancy Pelosi do ABC.... the issues will pop up like mushrooms after a storm as the liberal warhorses, Conyers, Waxman, Dingell, etc. do their predictable liberal, confiscatory, thing.
If Democrats are competitive in some place I don't see how those places could be considered deep red.
If Democrats are competitive in some place I don't see how those places could be considered deep red.
I could see us winning back the House as early as '08 though if we run the right Presidential candidate.