One week to go and here's the poll

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 02:36:05 PM EST

Majority Watch polls say Dems have a 45 seat Democratic landslide in the House coming up next week.

If so, a huge historical election happens in one week:

Democrats have fielded the most candidates fielded by either party in recent history (since the 19th century?).

Democrats do not lose a single seat in Congress (another recent history record).

The biggest national repudiation of a Republican President since 1974.

Karl Rove farts eggs for George Bush's lunch.

Sweet dreams.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

  • 9 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

9 Comments

Shadow_head_small
If I recall correctly,

the Dems picked up 48 seats in 1974.  Could we possibly match that record?

by gobacktotexas 2006-10-30 02:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: If I recall correctly,

Things are certainly looking like it could.

I'd like to be cautiously optimistic for now, but 15 seats almost seems like a given. If we win more than 30, I will be absolutely ecstatic. Above 50 - all I can say is that it will be a testament to how much the GOP has screwed up - and how quickly Howard Dean's 50-state strategy turned us around in such a short time.

by PsiFighter37 2006-10-30 02:46PM | 0 recs
My-meetup1
Re: One week to go and here's the poll

Dreams can come true!

by eddieb 2006-10-30 02:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Site doesn't work for me-- no flash

Majority Watch polls say Dems have a 45 seat Democratic landslide in the House coming up next week.

What do they say about the Senate?

by Silent sound 2006-10-30 02:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One week to go and here's the poll

The number of House seats did not reach 420 until 1912, when it was set at the current number of 435.  If the record was not broken during the early part of the FDR era (1932-1940) it probably is the all time high.

A gain of 45 to 55 seats has been far more common than a gain of 30 to 44 seats since the end of WWII.  Hope the "history" holds true.

by David Kowalski 2006-10-30 03:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One week to go and here's the poll

I'm not sure your point about 420 is accurate, but I know the size of the House was fixed at 435 in 1913, following the admission of New Mexico and Arizona to the union in 1912.

I'd be disappointed if we don't gain 30 seats at this point.  Forty seem within reach, maybe even 50 if this wave really goes nuts.  The Rs gained 52 seats in 1994.  We lost about 47 seats in 1966.  Rothenberg has written that without incmbent-protection redistricting, we'd be on track to gain up to 60 seats this year.

The House is in the bag.  I'm more concerned about the Senate now.  I don't want 50-50.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-30 09:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
45? I'm Still Calling 55!

And if I'm wrong, I'll be underestimating it.

I'm thinking biggest Dem pickup in the House since 1948 (75 seat pickup).

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-10-30 06:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One week to go and here's the poll

I think we get 7 in the Senate, too.

by Bob H 2006-10-31 02:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One week to go and here's the poll

I don't buy the "huge wave" theory. I think 24 seats is more reasonable than +30 (although I hope I'm wrong).

The article in the Wall Street Journal about Republican absentee voting turnout efforts illustrates why Republican losses will be fewer than they should be given the size of voter dissatisfaction with their misrule.

First, many districts have been jerrymandered so that there is a partisan Republican edge. This means they have to turn out their base to win.

The key problem there has been that their base has been depressed and angry with Bush and Iraq and the scandals, so they might not turn-out to vote.

But, if they are handed absentee ballots, they will reluctantly turn them in and vote Republican like the good little Sheeple they are.

If you saw the Lehrer newshour last Friday you saw an example of this in their focus group. The rancher from easter Colo. who said that although he's angry with the President and Republicans in general, he simply does not see the Democratic party "as a serious governing party." So, no matter how badly Republicans screw up, he's going to vote Republican. Period. A perfect Sheeple.

He said he's afraid that many people (read many of his friends who are Republicans) are angry and might not vote. But, if they are given absentee ballots, all they are going to do is hold their noses and vote the swine back in.

This is but ONE example of the Republicans' real advantage in organization, making it easy to turn out their core voters no matter how bad things look nationally. That ability will not save their majority, but it will reduce the number of losses, by limiting the # of defections from their Red districts.

As for the bluer districts, there the candidates are really on their own. But, several Republicans from CT seem to be leading, so incumbency still works.

Whenver those Republicans retire those seats will be lost to the party, but not this year.

by Cugel 2006-10-31 05:26AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------