Generic ballots are notorious for that. When people are forced to make choices between people rather than concepts, things change in a hurry (Hence the 90 something percent House reelection rate).

Now the good. HOLY SHIT!!! That's just awful. And with DeLay, Ney et al and their Abramoff problems and Frist with the SEC up his butt, more horrible press is in the offing.

To the extent this creates angst in the GOP caucus and reinforces the notion of corrupt incompetence just as "the American People" are about to get slammed with home heating bills to match their gas prices, they got more than a bump in the road. They ain't got no road.

Ouch and ouch again.

Somebody call a Doctor!

Dr. Phil to Intervene in Troubled Republican Family

Dem candidates' follow-up:

I did and do believe these numbers. For various reasons. My question to you in this post is...

"This is the largest lead held by one party over another in the generic ballot in a decade."

Is this accurate? You've got data to back this up? That means since the Republican landslide of '94?

But who am I voting for?  That's an easy question.

The difference between the generic ballot and the approval ratings is huge.  The base can't really approve of what the Dems in Congress have done for them.  But there's no doubt who gets our vote.

I would hope that Republicans are booted in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Along with assorted Republicans around the nation.

One big thing I hope for is a good slate of candidates, even if some of the dark red districts. Force them to play defense, instead of allowing them to send their luminaries around the nation so easily.

This year could be worse because of Republican gerrymanders through the courts and legislatures.  The Republican goal was to pack as many minority and other reliably Democratic voters as possible into a small number of Districts creating 80-20 Democratic districts and 60-40 Republican districts  These have created a huge number of seats that are "safe" under ordinary situations but prone to be swept in a political tsunami.  In the Northeast, only 5 of the 35 Republican House members received 70% or more of the vote and Potts, Peterson and Platts in PA were essentially unopposed.  McHugh (NY 23) and Gilchrist (MD 1) scored over 70% as well. Lots of Democratic seats scored above 70%, not just in the cities but also in the suburbs.

So ordinarily we might plateau at 250 seats but under the Republican arranged circumstances we can actually do better.  Yes!!

The reality is that we have largely been snookered decade after decade.  In 1990 and 2000, we lost focus on the big picture and to a lesser extent we lost a lot of 1970 footing in 1980.  We must control as many Statehouses and state legislatures as possible in 2010. There are what 30 gubernatorial races next year (we need to win every blue state governorship that's up and try to purple up as many red states as we can.

The Republican machine knows that since 1994, they have had a majority that only works on absolute adherence the the party line.  If the dems won 12 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate, the Republicans would be sitting on a razor thin majority in both houses of Congress.  Given the congressional dictrict maps, this would be amazing.  But if we try to narrow their majorities down to fuzz and focus on gaining the statehouse edge for redistricting in 2006, we will not only have a Democratic controlled Congress but a progressive majority as well