Dick Morris is usually wrong, but always interesting and entertaining.
That would be the most amount of seats we’ve held since 1920.
Would 100 seats be the largest ever lost by a party?? It seems like there some 80+ seat losses in the 1930s, but I’ve never heard of 100 seats.
I think Morris is a little off base right here. I’d be happy with a 40 seat pick up.
100? So 278?
IF Republicans drew all the districts in the country to maximize output and had well funded top tier candidates running in all of them I suppose we could win 290 in a good year. But that is not the reality.
Morris is off his nut in fantasy land if he was being serious.
+100 would require the biggest paradigm shift since the great depression.
Just taking back he majority would be an impressive enough accomplishment.
I don’t know if Morris mentioned the Senate but it is out of reach. Just to make a net gain of Senate seats this cycle would be a victory. Never mind that many potential challengers are RINOs. A Senate with 51 “Republicans” like Mark Kirk and Rob Simmons wouldn’t be too helpful.
Sickoflibs has posited that it would be best not to take the majority in 2010 but rather just leave the rats in narrow control so Obama can’t pull a Truman (run against the new congress, win) or a Clinton (move a bit to the center in order to work with the new congress, win) in 2012 or shift any of the blame for what is gonna happen the rest of his term.