Nope, although many of them were remotely financially competitive (I'd have to do a race-by-race check to confirm that), but we had two things going for us that year we don't have this year: genuine anger at the Democrat party/Clinton and excellent recruitment, not to mention a coherent, firm, and unified legislative agenda. We knew we were going to make substantial gains and you could feel it (at the time, I was personally not expecting a total takeover, but a closely divided body, better numbers in the Senate than the House).
"What all of those districts had in common was that, except for a couple of CDs in Iowa that voted for Dukakis but showed in 1992 that they were by no means Democrat districts, they had voted for President Bush in 1988 (even Rostenkowski’s district, as redrawn in 1992, had voted for Bush in 1988!). If the GOP is doing well in the generic ballot, a lot of those first-term House Democrats in Republican districts may get the heave-ho despite our lackluster recruiting."
I'm sure we'll win back some, but whether we win back enough to break even, I have serious doubts. We've just got far too many subpar candidates with no bucks and no particular unified message (drill now ! is fine, but we're gonna need a bit more than that). We were given an incredible opportunity with the moonbat-led Congress and all of their ethically-challenged members, and we've already blown it. Whether we gain seats or lose them, the whole leadership needs to be cleared out.
After the landslide, the country clubbers need to get out of the way and let us run conservative candidates for congress. We can get the house in 2010. I couldn’t believe we didn’t run an “R” for the senate in ARKANSAS? See if Huckabee can pull a Loutenberg.
I have been continually ANGRY about why the “R” party doesn’t nationalize the house elections. We did it ONCE in 1994, do they remember?????
They were afraid to run against a house with an approval of 9%, I hate the RINO decision makers, so timid. What scares them? Winning?