First up, we have the Cook Political Report which puts 214 House seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Democratic, while 181 seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Republican, and 40 seats are in the Toss Up column. No doubt, things are going to shift between now and the fall but I don't really see how the GOP is going to win 39 of 40 seats if we are operating in Cook's framework. This is especially true considering the fact that the Democrats have more money right now than the GOP.
The New York Times has a more realistic (and extremely cool!) map which I think illustrates the fluidity of the situation more accurately. They have 168-Solid Dem, 55-Leaning Dem, 31-Tossup, 18-Leaning GOP, and 163-Solid GOP. That basically puts 104 seats into play. The question is, if you are the GOP, where do you put your money? You would need to get all 18 of the leaning GOP (likely) which will put you at 181. Then you would need all 31 of the Tossups (doable) which would put you at 212. Now you need 6 of the leaning Dem (somewhat tough). Are these final 6 where you really spend your money? Again, I don't see an ass kicking here...just a possible eeking out of a victory or falling short. Of course, this could change but after looking at these numbers, I am revising my prediction for the House to 25 flips...which would put us at 230-Dem and 202-GOP.
As John Boehner said at a recent Monitor lunch, it will be an uphill climb. For once, I agree with him. When you look at the numbers this way, I guess I don't see the ass kicking.
Tomorrow: An early look at the Senate Races 2010.
3 comments:
So Obama's mouthpiece didn't know what he was talking about when he said the House could go Republican?
I believe your error is in continuing to see this as Team Red vs Team Blue. There are a whole lot of people that are fed up with both, more so than a fired up 'base' for either. That is worse for the Dems because they are in power. It certainly does not indicate a permanent swing of partisan sentiment. It could be that seats continue to be in play until one party or another actually comes up with a message that resonates with the public. Liberals are laboring under the delusion that 2006-08 was a transition to a permanent majority (just as the Repubs were all wrong about that 6 years earlier). Or it is also possible that the public will be fickle and foolish one election after another.
Of course I could be wrong.
I've said all this before, but in the spirit of your most recent Manzi conversion... :
Why are you still debating R vs D? We are on the Titanic, heading for the iceberg, and you insist that the deck chairs need to be labeled R or D. Instead of analyzing a dozen seats, why aren't we all outraged that 331 of the house seats are NOT realistically subject to removal? End Gerrymandering, establish term limits. Career politicians of any party are not the answer.
dw
"Or it is also possible that the public will be fickle and foolish one election after another.
Of course I could be wrong."
Actually, you are dead nut correct. There's nothing logical about how people vote. For the most part, they vote with their gut and don't look with any detail at the issues. They vote out of frustration with their own lives, not with the party that would actually do more for them.
DW, completely agree with you on term limits. 2 six year terms for Senators and 3 four year terms for Reps. The 2 year cycle is ridiculous and we could all benefit from seeing new blood that may not suck the corporate cock (as nearly ALL do now) as much. Imagine having to deal with new and energized people every 12 years. It could be amazing.
Post a Comment