Latest Generic Polls: Ras +12%R; WSJ 6%R; Gallup 15%R; CNN 10R; Fox13R; Bloom 3R

[Mr.Phips]

Thanks Obama, you jackass.  Im sure you will love having Republicans strap strings onto and move you around like a mariannette after this election.  Democrats should have tanked Obama when they had a chance in 2008. 

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

A FEW SEATS?  A FEW SEATS?  We are in path to lose 70 seats in the House and probably control of that chamber for the rest of our lives.  Had we waited until 2012, we could have had 300 House seats and 67 Senators and the White House and Obama could have been another FDR. 

Now, at best it will be another 1953-1959 period, 1969-1977 period, or 1995-2001 period, where one party held the White House, but the other party basically ran the whole agenda.

Democrats f**ked up big time in 2008.  We should have thrown the election to McCain and waited our turn. 

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

A FEW SEATS?  A FEW SEATS?  We are in path to lose 70 seats in the House and probably control of that chamber for the rest of our lives.  Had we waited until 2012, we could have had 300 House seats and 67 Senators and the White House and Obama could have been another FDR.  

Now, at best it will be another 1953-1959 period, 1969-1977 period, or 1995-2001 period, where one party held the White House, but the other party basically ran the whole agenda.

Democrats f**ked up big time in 2008.  We should have thrown the election to McCain and waited our turn.  

2008 was our turn. We didn't  up at all, we won. Also, we're not going to lose 70 seats and we never would have gotten to 300 and 67 even with McCain as president. Dem gains were nearly maxed out after 2008,

I guarantee you that we don't lose 70 seats in the House. If we do I'll give you $1,000 in real life.

Under this President we've accomplished a great deal and I wouldn't go crazy over one election. Just as I said this word is coming out that he is going to go against the extension of the bush tax cuts. What do you think McCain would do about that? Even with a Dem congress?

Over 50 is still a major disaster.  A few seats is 10-15, not 40-50. 

[Mr.Phips]

Folks, there is a time when you trust generic polls somewhat.  It's known as the week before the election.

Nevertheless, what I'm seeing right now suggests a 40-50 seat gain for the GOP right now, and the possible floor of 35-40 that Cook is talking about and 45 that Vorlon said earlier.  Need to adjust.

40-50 is your number if the election were held tomorrow?  I'm at 65 myself.

Yes, I suspect that the odds are that it will regress some. The Dems will not just sit around and die, and folks may decide that too much of a "good thing" is a bad thing.

If Democrats lose more than 50, Pelosi and Democrats will be at war with him for the rest of his Presidency.  They wont support any new stimulus measures in the lame duck session and will try to tank his Presidency.  They did all this hard work in 2006 to get the majority back and now Obama comes in and destroys it.

I wouldnt be surprised after 1994 and 2010 that Democrats in Congress deliberately try to sink the chances of Democratic canidates for President every four years.   

In short, Obama better watch his back, since Democrats in Congress right now want to put led boots on him and dump him into Lake Michigan.

[Mr.Phips]

1.  Mr. Phipps, et al., for God's sake control yourselves.   Everybody sane expected a bad year, but the Democratic double decimation talk is a bit much, at least for now.  Okay, you can panic, but get in off the ledge.  Obama could survive in two years; it is still too early to tell.

I'll concede that the House is probably going Republican, but maybe not by much.  

2.  The 'bots have it it back up to twelve, but it is still early.

Obama surviving would be horrible for Democrats.  The party would not survive another four years of Obama. 

It is like what would have happpened to Republicans had Gerald Ford been reelected in 1976.

[Mr.Phips]

Its really amazing that Republicans have gotten such a generic ballot lead.  I remember 1978, where even in the midst of rampant inflation and Carter being more unpopular than Obama, Democrats still held a 15%+ generic ballot lead and most people blamed the inflation on businesses rather than Democrats.

Remember the days when Democrats could actually create a message and make it stick?

[Mr.Phips]

Its really amazing that Republicans have gotten such a generic ballot lead.  I remember 1978, where even in the midst of rampant inflation and Carter being more unpopular than Obama, Democrats still held a 15%+ generic ballot lead and most people blamed the inflation on businesses rather than Democrats.

Remember the days when Democrats could actually create a message and make it stick?

Inflation only matters if you have substabtial wealth. Unemployment is a much more severe problem for most people. Comparable elections with high unemployment would be 1974 and 1982.

Unemployment in 1974 was actually lower than in 1978.  The big jump in unemployment in 1974 didnt come until November, after the elections already had been held. 

[Mr.Phips]

As I said, 105 is a really "extreme" scenario - maximum GOP turnout, very depressed Dem turnout, a "big" event worth a couple extra points, so "shock and awe" event.

In terms of counting 35 or so...

these I am pretty sure of, and then there are another 40 or so that are very much in play... in a wave year the wave party will get most of the marginals...

I am sure there are a bunch in the mid-west nobody is watching that will go GOP as well.

Agree with last sentence (well, I'm watching them and DCCC is advertising, but that's not "watching") - unsure of other sentence.

As to your list...

1 - TN6 Yes.
2 - LA3 Yes, though Louisiana is strange.
3 - AR2 Yes.
4 - NY29 Yes.
5 - MD1 Not 100%, but in seats that are Republican (as opposed to voting Republican), the undecideds tend to move to the Republican side during good years at the end.
6 - OH15 Yes.  Dems haven't even tried to advertise here.
7 - NM2 Not 100%, and less so than MD1.  This area is strange.
8 - OH1 Close to Yes.  Black turnout is what did Chabot in anyway - and Ohio looks bad to me for Dems.
9 - KS3 Dems have thrown money here, but I think it's a waste of time.  So yes.
10 - IN8 Probably - given what else we've seen in the Midwest.
11 - CO4 Yes.
12 - NH1 Shea-Porter is stronger than we give her credit for and Guinta is weak.  Definitely can't agree here.
13 - NH2 I think so.  Not 100%, but close.
14 - ND99 You mean ND-AL.  Probably, but less so than NH-2.
15 - TN8 Yes because Fincher is the correct candidate for the CD. Watch.
16 - FL24 Yes.
17 - MS1 Not 100%, but close.  Childers will have to run strongly with McCain-voting rural whites in MS - possible, but not likely.
18 - NV3 I don't think this one's over at all.
19 - VA5 Yes.
20 - VA2
21 - FL8 I personally think Grayson's killing himself, but I've been wrong before.  So probably yes.
22 - MI1 Yes - even though there's the weird third-party guy and Dems are throwing some money here.  MI7 is where Dems think they have the better shot.
23 - NY24 No - not dead at all.
24 - PA11 Yes.
25 - WV1 I don't know - West Virginia is weird.  This is a CD I have trouble with.
26 - MI7 I'd put this seat in the same league as MD1 actually.
27 - WA3 Yes.
28 - PA7 Yes.
29 - IL14 I think IL11 is gone.  This one isn't.
30 - TX17 Yes.
31 - AR1 No, though Dems are not favored - not gone.
32 - AL2 Demographics say yes here, but who knows.  Much like Childers, he has to get great numbers from McCain-voting whites in black areas, but his opponent is much weaker.  So not gone.
33 - IN9 Haven't gotten anything from here for a while.  In theory, it should be gone though.
34 - ID1 Dems are favored here unless we get the not unlikely late collapse.  Get the memo.
35 - SC5 Probably yes.
36 - PA3 I had a feeling English was dead here in 2008 and I have the same sense about dahlkemper now.

So what does that come to?

Almost precisely my list of losses.  The only change is that I have AL-02, NM-02, ID-01, IN-09, WV-01, NY-24, and NV-03 as holds and added NY-19, AZ-01, FL-02, IL-11, OH-16, WI-07, WI-08, and GA-08 as additional losses.  

[Mr.Phips]

The ones on your list I disagree are dead:

5 - MD1
7 - NM2
12 - NH1
14 - ND-AL
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
23 - NY24
25 - WV1
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1

Thoe only one of these that I agree is "gone" is TX-17.   The only consolation is that Edwards would almost certainly be eliminated in redistricting in 2012. 

[Mr.Phips]

The ones on your list I disagree are dead:

5 - MD1
7 - NM2
12 - NH1
14 - ND-AL
17 - MS1
18 - NV3
23 - NY24
25 - WV1
29 - IL14
30 - TX17
31 - AR1
32 - AL2
33 - IN9
34 - ID1

Thoe only one of these that I agree is "gone" is TX-17.   The only consolation is that Edwards would almost certainly be eliminated in redistricting in 2012. 

When your opponent releases an internal saying you're down 19, and your best comment is, our polls say otherwise, you're down double digits, at least...

I dont see how Edwards was going survive long term in a district that Republican anyway.  Had Republicans put up a half decent candidate in 2008, he probably would have lost then.