I could see everyone down to Shea-Porter on your list

losing. And actually, that's a scary thought. However, and I think this is a really important point, they all see it coming. And that counts for a lot.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:32:26 PM CST

Rememberr in the spring

when it was "how many more seats will Democrats win in Congress?"

How has it become "will we even keep Congress?"

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:41:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who was saying that?

Nobody here. Maybe the Senate because of the playing field. Certainly not the House. I think it was pretty much unanimous that Repubs would pick up seats.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:44:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My position is basically the same

I was never irrationally exuberant, and it was always clear to me that we were essentially tapped out. I said then what I think now: it's all about the economy. If the economy a year from now is anywhere close to this bad, I believe that we will either come close to losing the House or lose it outright.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:48:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure

But I think the best evidence is the economy won't nearly be as bad. And I don't think that is blind faith either. I continue to think they'll net about 20 seats.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:51:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

20 seats wipes out all the 2010 gains

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:53:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So?

Better than lose 41 and losing control. What an odd comment.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:54:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

true

I was just pointing out that losing 20 seats puts us back close to where we were before last year's elections.

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:57:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Alright

But the exact same people won't lose. In fact the trade might not be so bad if conservative Dems lose which is most likely. People like Heinrich, Peters, Connolly, Himes etc should be fine. They are all reliable votes. The people most at risk - Bright, Minnick, Griffith, Childers, Kratovil are not.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:01:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This economy will not get better

Democrats probably have a 25% chance of keeping the House and may even be on edge of coming close to losing the Senate.  This is the kind of cycle that I have never before seen in my life.  This is bigger than 1994, bigger than 2006.  This election has the potential to wipe the Democratic party off the map with the exception of black majority areas and inner city districts.  

---

by: CaptainKirk @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:01:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right

Whatever. The sky is obviously falling. The Mayan's say its ALL over in 2012 anyway so who cares!

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:04:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BillNolan?

Is that you?

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:28:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I actually agree with you

in the rural South.  It will be one of the worst elections ever for either party in the rural South in 2010.

I strongly disagree with your assessment for the rest of the country, however.

---

by: JSmith @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:45:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ooookay.

---

by: SC @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:59:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So how do you explain CA-10 and NY-23

Did all the white people forget to vote?

---

by: panhandler @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 20:09:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hahahahahahaha

not even worth it

---

by: xcave @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:35:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You know what

Yeah, not so good with the analysis there, Lou.

But I will say...

I'm going on record, right now, one year out, and saying that when placed in a post-WWII historical context, the percentage loss of Dems in the House will be below average of those expected for a first-term President.

And it definitely won't be a 1994.

---

by: arealmlc @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:15:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You must to be kidding

Enjoy the kool aid.

You would think that we have been a VERY high chance of winning the following:
DE-AL
IL-10
LA-02
PA-06

And a 50/50 shot in the following:
CA-03
CA-45
FL-10 (If Justice picks up his fundraising)
MI-11 (If a decent candidate steps up)
MN-03 (If Bonoff runs)
NJ-02 (If Van Drew runs)
OH-12
PA-15
WA-08

Dems to get essentially wiped out - not gonna happen.

2010 Race Tracker Wiki

---

by: benawu @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:08:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

lol welcome to SSP n/t

---

by: skaje @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 02:25:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well

I believed Democrats would pick up more in 2010 soon after the 2008 results came in.

And I still do believe we will net seats next year, just not as many as I originally believed.  Call me crazy, but I just don't see incumbents like Dodd, Reid, or Lincoln getting tossed out a year from now.  I just don't.  I also don't see Republicans managing to hold open seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, or Ohio given the candidates running.  Now that's just the Senate, but I am similarly more optimistic about the House.  We do have a bunch of threatened seats, but the GOP has 4 that are almost guaranteed losses: LA-02, DE-AL, PA-06, and IL-10.  For the GOP to net seats, they're going to start four in the hole already.  Sure we might lose Minnick, Bright, Griffith, Kratovil, and Melancon's seat.  But we might not.

I also don't see such a big GOP advantage among second-tier House races as others do.

---

by: skaje @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:58:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, the House

The optimism was extremely limited to something like the top 4 seats and California.  In the spring a slight Democratic gain looked possible.  That was a more accurate read back then than doom and gloom, frankly.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:01:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not me

Matheson, Rodriguez, Pomeroy, Hill, Kagen, Space, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Boccieri, Arcuri, Davis, Mitchell and Altmire unlikely in my view. Even if a couple did lose the majority won't. And some of the others like Carney, Massa, Edwards, Marshall etc don't have opponents yet. But your second point I agree with.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:43:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I figure everyone Shea-Porter and up

has at best an even shot at staying in Congress. Of course, that could change with the national political climate.  

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:49:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think a few below CSP

Are more at risk than several above. Like Titus and Driehaus.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:52:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed

But ultimately, I think the GOP has plenty of targets--if they get the candidates and the case.

---

by: andgarden @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:58:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But do they have the funds?

It could come down to that. Being spreading too thinly. I mean the DCCC should be able to save lots of these seats with their CoH advantage since I don't think any are in Corzine territory.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:03:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Driehaus

I was actually going to mention him.  I think he's the most vulnerable out of all democrats in Ohio's house delegation, because his seat was won mostly due to increased minority turnout in Cincinnati.  There's a lot of racially polarized voting in the Cincy area, so 2010 is going to be tough on him.  I could honestly see him losing to Chabot in the 2010 rematch, then re-beating him if there is a 2012 "rubber match" for all the marbles, because the black turnout will be sky-high again with Obama on the ticket.  

Kilroy is an odd case.  Columbus is getting more liberal at a fairly rapid pace, but her win margin was miniscule in 2008.  I just don't think she's very well liked.  I think she's not great at pulling in the vote from within her own party.  Plus, her victory was very dependent on students, as Ohio State University is in OH-15.  So she could have some of the same turnout problems as Driehaus, though I will gladly put my money on Columbus supporting the Democrat through thick and thin moreso than Cincinnati.

Can't see Boccieri or Space going down, they are pretty well liked by their constituencies.  Especially Boccieri, that guy is seen by many as a rising star in the party.  The rumor is that he might run for Governor in 2014, or maybe even Senate in 2016 if Brunner/Fisher don't win.    

---

by: StephenCLE @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:29:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ciro Rodriguez

is completely safe. 100%

5/6 of Bright, Minnick, LA-03, Kratovil, Griffith, and Childers are gone. I am guessing it is Kratovil that survives.

We'll lose one of Edwards, Pomeroy, Matheson, Spratt, and Skelton - it will be a surprise.

Maybe lose 10-15 of the rest.

All in all, a loss of 16-21 seats, balanced out by a pick up of 6 - the 4 easy ones, and 2 unexpected others.

I reserve the right to change my mind. :)

---

by: MattTX2 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:11:37 PM CST

Childers?

I think he'll be fine in the end; he's a good fit for the district, and he won it without any huge Obama turnout boost in the general (though some increased black support early in the special did help).

---

by: SC @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:23:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree.

Childers will have to work, but in the end, he should win fairly easily.  Voters in the Deep South tend to be very loyal to incumbents.

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:29:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What's the evidence

that voters in the deep south are particularly loyal to incumbents?

Childers may have a NE Appalachian MS district that is better for white Democrats than the rest of MS, but it is still MS. If the economy is bad, and white southerners are up in arms about health care and global warming legislation, he's probably gone.

---

by: MattTX2 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:35:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The evidence is largely anectdotal

based on my following congressional elections for over thirty years.  However, how many House incumbents lost in Nov. 2008 in SC, GA, AL, TN, MS, and AR?  Zero. Two lost in LA under very unusual circumstances. Cazayoux would have won without a third party spoiler, and Jefferson would have if the election hadn't been postponed.

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:49:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Candidate recruitment

The big difference I see this cycle is that the GOP is actively targeting their recruitment efforts towards districts they have largely given a pass to previous cycles, but on paper have shifted increasingly into fertile GOP territory and whose incumbents now look like potential "marks".

---

by: wtndem @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 20:35:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Incumbency is a powerful thing,

especially in the South.  LA-3 is gone, and Minnick, Kratovil, Edwards, Perriello, and Kilroy will probably lose.  Otherwise, NH-2, and PA-7 are the most likely losses.  I rate all other incumbents as favored to win.  Overall, I say the Democrats will hold their House losses to a net of ten or less. BTW, how do you pronounce Kratovil?

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:27:48 PM CST

CRAT-oh-ville is how I've heard it

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:32:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:34:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards will not

probably lose. If he were going to probably lose, he would have probably lost in 2004, when Bush blew away Kerry in his district, or in 2008, when McCain blew away Obama in his district.

Kilroy could maybe win, and maybe even Perriello.

---

by: MattTX2 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:37:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards, Kilroy, and Periello

could all three win, and I hope they do.  I just think that they are less than 50-50 to do so as things stand now.  As a percentage of the two party vote, Edwards dropped from 59% in 2006 to 54% in 2008, a very ominous trend.

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:10:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chet

Midterm versus presidential turnout. He barely scraped by in 2004. He is clearly vulnerable but not as much as he looks at first glance.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:14:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, the 59% in 2006 was an improvement

over 51% in 2004 against a firebreathing wingnut.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:15:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd bet that Kilroy will win

Edwards is a tossup, IMO, and Perriello, unfortunately is probably gone.  I say the last statement with a great deal of sadness, as someone who donated $150 to Perriello's reelection campaign this week to reward an enormous amount of courage for his votes on cap-n-trade and health care.

---

by: JSmith @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:30:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards' vote percentage rises in non-presidential years.

2004:  51%
2006:  59%
2008:  54%

The district's most likely voters are more favourable to him than when everybody turns out.

He should be fine (though he'll never be comfortable).

---

by: SC @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:02:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chet's Re-election

It comes down to one thing.

State Senator Steve Ogden (R) is retiring from the legislature this cycle. His district includes the Bryan/College Station part of Chet's district. He is 59 currently.

And there was this very ominous statement released as part of his retirement notice as found on his website:

"Though I have no immediate plans to remain in politics beyond my present term, I am not, by today's announcement, ruling out a future candidacy for elected office."

If Ogden goes in, Chet's re-election odds go down significantly (likely loses). Otherwise, Chet survives (by varying degrees).

I wish Rep. Chet Edwards and Fmr. Rep. Jim Turner would run statewide someday in the future  (2014?) . . .

---

by: trowaman @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:53:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

TX-17

The race Ogden was alluding to was likely LG, but that's also not likely. If he does jump in, however, it will be a real race. Although Ogden's never really had to run one and Chet is the exact opposite.

---

by: Anesthetic @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 23:16:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think NH-2 is fine

It's around 55% D now.  And D's have the superior talent pool in the state.

I'm anticipating more Southern/Midwestern losses.  Parker and Griffiths likely and this could be the year they get Marshall.  Nye doesn't seem to be solidifying the support he got a year ago.  I'm not sure beating Cao is the slam dunk it's imagined to be, either.  And we don't know the retirements- average stay in the House is about 10 years, i.e. an average turnover of 40 per cycle (in aggregate).  The R's seem to think Skelton is going to hang it up.  Could be that Boswell joins him.

I'm toying with a sense of about 20-25 Red district Democratic seats going over to Republicans, countered by a gain of around 8 in Purple and Blue districts.

---

by: Baystater @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 23:36:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nye and Periello

Can those two sell each other their houses and move? They each seem like such better fits for the other's district.

---

by: trowaman @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:15:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cao is going down, plain and simple

No Democrat holds a district that is as Democratic as Cao's.  (Are there Republican districts even that solidly to the GOP?)

He's dead meat.  I just absolutely do not see it happening.  

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:21:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I realy hope an anti-incumnbency mood in CA-44

Flips that seat to Bill Hedrick.  If you have seen any of my comments regarding the subject, Calvert just sickens me.

Bill Hedrick for Congress

---

by: daman09 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:52:24 PM CST

Look to 2012

if Hedrick loses again.  If a Democrat wins the governship, we could and should get a redistricting plan favorable to the Democrats.  Right now, the Republicans hold at least six more House seats in California than they would with such a redistricting plan.

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:19:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps 10

if you look at some of the plans here on SSP for California.

---

by: JSmith @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:31:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

AHh, but here in lies my problem with CA-44 in general

I live in the San Clemente Portion, not the Riverside portion, so after redistricting, I will likely get a new loony representing my district.

But Im not sure, OC is become more liberal with its social views, and republicans can tolerate that, so maybe an eventual shift to the dems will emerge sometime in the future.

Bill Hedrick for Congress

---

by: daman09 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:45:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and republicans can not tolerate that***

Bill Hedrick for Congress

---

by: daman09 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:46:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I can certainly sympathize.

I live in Duncan Hunter Jr's district.  I.e., Son of Duncan Hunter, the sequel.  Definitely a horror story.  There are few districts anywhere more hopelsssly wingnutty than this one.

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:37:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Californian R's are vulnerable

Agreed. Along with him, McClintock, Lungren, Bilbray & Bono Mack, I think there will be five vulnerable CA Republicans. And it's a stretch, but Howard McKeon, John Campbell & David Dreier could conceivably be knocked off, too. I know Campbell, Bono Mack, Lungren and Bilbray have fairly top-quality opponents. Anyone know if McKeon or Dreier have drawn opponents yet?

Btw, that's 8 competitive, Republican-held seats in California alone, alongside maybe 1 Dem (McNerney). And if Gallegley retires or Gary Miller (CA-42) or Lewis (CA-41) finally gets indicted, their seats could be vulnerable, too. Gotta like them odds.

---

by: arealmlc @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:46:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Should do to them

What they did in Texas. Legally of course. Not mid-decade redistricting.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:57:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bahahahahahah

RedState is also looking at competitive seats coming up for the 2010 election, basing it solely on Cook PVI and Cook's ratings.

Except they are so inept that they dont realize that even if a PVI is in the red, it absolutely does not mean that district voted for McCain.  They simply call R/D+0 even districts, and then an R+1 or greater a Republican district and a D+1 or greater district a Democratic district.

Love to see that when we analyze PVI's, we get Cook to change his system.  When RedState analyzes PVI's, they dont understand what they are reading.

---

by: Andrew @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:00:26 PM CST

To be fair

Redstaters don't understand anything.

---

by: Hamtree @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:13:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's for sure.

If Redstaters had any brains, they wouldn't be Redstaters.

---

by: jward373 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 19:32:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Blue Dogs

Some Democrats like Jason Altmire who voted against Health Care deserve to lose.  Why should we support a Democrat who votes against his President, his leadership, his party caucus and the liberal democrats who got him elected?

With Democrats like him, who needs the Republican label?

ABowers

---

by: ABowers @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:59:33 PM CST

Read Charlie

http://www.nationaljournal.com...

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:55:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My Top Ten

The SSP index is an interesting way to rank House candidates, that's for sure. But it just doesn't quite capture all the factors...yet.  :)

If I was to pick a Top Ten Dems Most Likely to Lose, I'd go with:

Minnick
Kratovil
Perreillo
Teague
Schauer
Altmire
Bright
Griffith
Nye
Grayson
...in that order.

Although I'd say any but perhaps the top three could make it through with a strong campaign.

Among Republicans, the most interesting pair of numbers has to be Bachmann and Dent. Dent's got a margin score of 58, so he's doing well holding down the sixth-toughest district, while Bachmann's barely holding on in the 58th-toughest with the sixth-closest margin. Yeah, conservatives are sooo much more electable than moderates.

---

by: arealmlc @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 00:43:06 AM CST

Why do you think Schauer is very likely to lose?

n/t

---

by: Pan @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:35:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Depends on his opponent

I don't think his district's a particularly good one for a Dem going forward, he won with less than 50% of the vote, Michigan's economy perma-sucks, and he faced a crappy, unpopular opponent. If Walburg gets through the primary, I think he's safe. If he faces a non-wingnut (which, granted, is an unlikely scenario with Republicans these days) he may be in trouble.

That's the tough part about this--when an opponent isn't known, it's a tough call to make. Honestly, I think most of these folks may actually pull out a win--I'd only bet on the top three losing. But then again, I'm definitely in the "bullish" camp when it comes to Democrats' prospects in 2010.

---

by: arealmlc @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:15:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you saying the Democrats

would be blamed for the economy? You might be right, and it's a real concern. What's more of a concern is that actual economics, not the politics of it.

---

by: Pan @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:53:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No...not really

Especially not in Michigan, where the economy's been bad for so long and would've been worse if not for the auto bailouts. BUT, it certainly won't be helpful. I think the under-50% share of the vote he got is the most important factor to indicate trouble.

---

by: arealmlc @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:11:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree that your top three

are the top three.  I think Kilroy, Kanjorski, Edwards, and possibly Davis of TN sre more likely casualties than Altmire, Griffith, Schauer, and Grayson.

---

by: jward373 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:25:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

GOP still talking about targeting IA-03

but I just don't see it. They tried hard against Boswell in 2002, 2004 and 2006 and came up short. He is not a particularly strong incumbent, but with the NRCC having so many better targets, I don't think they would invest money in IA-03. Besides, even if a Republican got elected here, it wouldn't be a net long-term gain, because probably the IA-03 representative will be thrown into the same district as Tom Latham (currently IA-04) after redistricting.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 07:42:48 AM CST

I don't quite see the wave yet

I tend to think that the economy will eventually improve, and by November 2010, there will be much less anxiety about the economy.

I think it'll be a fairly quiet election cycle net-gain wise. I think we'll lose net 4-8 House seats, while we gain net 1-2 Senate seats. It'll be most like a 1990 or a 1970 cycle.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:34:27 AM CST

jobs are a lagging indicator

so we could be in a jobless recovery a year from now. That won't help Democrats.

Poppy Bush's recession had ended by the time of the 1992 election, but voters didn't feel that.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:54:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A year is a long time

To start creating jobs. We just had a quarter of growth. The holidays will help the next. Jobs will come by next summer if the current trends continue. But a big part of it will be optics - Dems need to look like they understand and are trying to do something about it. Bush 41 is a good example because he looked out of touch. At the moment people see the president and congress preoccupied with health care and since the majority are happy with their coverage they see a disconnect when they are worried about their jobs and the general economy. This is the primary reason for poor numbers for Democrats since July.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:04:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

now might be a good time

to just pass whatever healthcare bill you can and then move toward jobs, refocus on healthcare in the next Congress.

Gallup has a poll out today that says this;

More Americans now believe it is not the government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than think it is (47%). This marks the first time this decade when a plurality has not favored the "government responsibility" viewpoint.

Maybe the trolls are right and it's time to dump healthcare.

---

by: DTOzone @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:10:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is that the same poll

That had Republicans up in the generic Congressional ballot? It was a sharp enough jump (like a seven-point month-to-month swing) that I kind of assumed there were some problems with the internals.

---

by: boojumsnark @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:03:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, it's a seperate poll released today

and, if true, really does change the viewpoint on everything. In 2007, the numbers were 69%-28% with the majority saying it's the government's responsbility, now it's 50%-47% against.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:17:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No they aren't

Making sure all Americans have healthcare coverage isn't the only point of the legislation being considered. A big part of it is providing more security for people who DO have coverage today but aren't guaranteed to (a) keep their policies or (b) actually get covered when they really need expensive, life-saving treatments. If these things actually are guaranteed by the bill that eventually passes, it will be very popular.

---

by: Pan @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:53:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's the easy part of the bill

everyone pretty much agrees on that, it's the expanding coverage/public option that's the problem.

Maybe we need to do everything we can to get this passed now, including biting the bullet and dumping the public option if need be.

I wonder if polls like this keep coming out, will Congress eventually give in and pass whatever they can get passed.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:31:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gone too far to back off now

Plenty time to pass a bill then move on to jobs and the deficit.

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:10:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NY districts

It seems to me that the Ds now control ny 1, 13, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 29. all Swing districts, or lean. Is it possible that they will be able to hold all of them?  Wont the Rs take at least 2 or 3 of these in a presidential off year election?

Of course, if they do, it will make the 2012 redistricting choices easier for the Ds.

Joe Cooper

---

by: Joe Cooper @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 13:28:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]