Dick Morris sees Democrats losing 100 House seats in 2010

[Mr.Phips]

There are millions of unemployed qualified people, and Dick Morris still has a job?

Fox has a lot of time to fill bj-ing the GOP & shi$ing on Obama.

And as for the other wild claims of 40+ seat Republican pick-ups, I revert to my standard wild-speculation stopper:

What odds would you require before betting $100 on it?

I gotta set up an Intrade account this year. Lotta gullible birthers and deathers out there who's money I'd love to take.

The real money isn't made from partisans, it's from people who can't think beyond "red state, blue state, never the two shall mix."  Which is a lot of people on this forum, I'm sad to say.

Also people who stupidly thought that Romney would be VP.  That was a freakin' goldmine.

Can I include people who think Romney will ever be President (much less nominee)?

Btw, as silly as this scenario is, it's looking more realistic every day (but still obviously not very - to put it mildly - let's not get silly)

100 seats is even "a little" realistic?  For Republicans to pick up 100 seats, they would have to pick off every possible marginal Democrat and then pick off at least a few inner city districts. 

[Dan the Roman]

There are millions of unemployed qualified people, and Dick Morris still has a job?

Fox has a lot of time to fill bj-ing the GOP & shi$ing on Obama.

And as for the other wild claims of 40+ seat Republican pick-ups, I revert to my standard wild-speculation stopper:

What odds would you require before betting $100 on it?

I gotta set up an Intrade account this year. Lotta gullible birthers and deathers out there who's money I'd love to take.

The real money isn't made from partisans, it's from people who can't think beyond "red state, blue state, never the two shall mix."  Which is a lot of people on this forum, I'm sad to say.

Also people who stupidly thought that Romney would be VP.  That was a freakin' goldmine.

Can I include people who think Romney will ever be President (much less nominee)?

Btw, as silly as this scenario is, it's looking more realistic every day (but still obviously not very - to put it mildly - let's not get silly)

100 seats is even "a little" realistic?  For Republicans to pick up 100 seats, they would have to pick off every possible marginal Democrat and then pick off at least a few inner city districts. 

Not quite that bad. But almost. Hypothetically, a sign of a 100 seat landslide would be if Tierney is elected Senator in MA and the GOP picks up his House seat. MA-6 is exactly the type of district the GOP would have to win in order to pick up a 100 seats.

This is far from impossible. The GOP held basically the same district from 1993-1997, and McCain got 40%, but I doubt anyone would have it on a list of seats likely to flip. Actually, with two pseudo-serious Republicans like Mihos and Brown in the race the MA Senate race should be a decent barometer, especially if the nominee is a generic liberal like Tierney, Markey or Capuano, rather than Coakley.

[Sam Spade]

There are millions of unemployed qualified people, and Dick Morris still has a job?

Fox has a lot of time to fill bj-ing the GOP & shi$ing on Obama.

And as for the other wild claims of 40+ seat Republican pick-ups, I revert to my standard wild-speculation stopper:

What odds would you require before betting $100 on it?

I gotta set up an Intrade account this year. Lotta gullible birthers and deathers out there who's money I'd love to take.

The real money isn't made from partisans, it's from people who can't think beyond "red state, blue state, never the two shall mix."  Which is a lot of people on this forum, I'm sad to say.

Also people who stupidly thought that Romney would be VP.  That was a freakin' goldmine.

Can I include people who think Romney will ever be President (much less nominee)?

Btw, as silly as this scenario is, it's looking more realistic every day (but still obviously not very - to put it mildly - let's not get silly)

100 seats is even "a little" realistic?  For Republicans to pick up 100 seats, they would have to pick off every possible marginal Democrat and then pick off at least a few inner city districts. 

"looking more realistic" does not equal "a little realistic".  It is still easily below 1% in possible scenarios.  

However, I'm pretty sure I could make a map where you pick off 80% of marginals (I'll say marginals at R+5, D+5 or less) and get to 278, but I'd need to look at the exact maps.  It might need to be more than that, and I consider anything above D+5 to not be marginal in my book.

[Sam Spade]

There are millions of unemployed qualified people, and Dick Morris still has a job?

Fox has a lot of time to fill bj-ing the GOP & shi$ing on Obama.

And as for the other wild claims of 40+ seat Republican pick-ups, I revert to my standard wild-speculation stopper:

What odds would you require before betting $100 on it?

I gotta set up an Intrade account this year. Lotta gullible birthers and deathers out there who's money I'd love to take.

The real money isn't made from partisans, it's from people who can't think beyond "red state, blue state, never the two shall mix."  Which is a lot of people on this forum, I'm sad to say.

Also people who stupidly thought that Romney would be VP.  That was a freakin' goldmine.

Can I include people who think Romney will ever be President (much less nominee)?

Btw, as silly as this scenario is, it's looking more realistic every day (but still obviously not very - to put it mildly - let's not get silly)

100 seats is even "a little" realistic?  For Republicans to pick up 100 seats, they would have to pick off every possible marginal Democrat and then pick off at least a few inner city districts. 

"looking more realistic" does not equal "a little realistic".  It is still easily below 1% in possible scenarios.  

However, I'm pretty sure I could make a map where you pick off 80% of marginals (I'll say marginals at R+5, D+5 or less) and get to 278, but I'd need to look at the exact maps.  It might need to be more than that, and I consider anything above D+5 to not be marginal in my book.

I was doing some math in my head based on what I remember, and it would probably need to be more, because doing the 80% of the marginals at D+5 probably only gets you to 250-260.

[nkpatel1279]

In 1994- Republicans won safe Democratic Districts such as
CA-1,CA-15,CA-49/53,IL-1,ME-1,NV-1,NH-2,NJ-8,NY-1,NC-4,OR-5,PA-13,VA-11,WA-1,WA-2,WA-3,and WA-9 and swing Districts now held by Democrats.
AZ-5/6, GA-8, ID-1,IL-11,IN-8,MN-1,MS-1,NC-2,OH-1,OH-6,OH-18,OK-2,and UT-2.

[Free Palestine]

Congressional Districts are too gerrymandered for the Democrats to lose that many seats.

[Badger]

Congressional Districts are too gerrymandered for the Democrats to lose that many seats.

Look at Ohio's map, among many other states, and reassess your claim.

[Deldem]

Why did this man ever get to be an advisor? This scenario is pretty much only possible if a large number of Democratic officeholders turn out to be pedophiles.

[nkpatel1279]

Congressional Districts are too gerrymandered for the Democrats to lose that many seats.
[/quote]

Look at Ohio's map, among many other states, and reassess your claim.
[/quote]-

Better yet- we should look at Congressional Districts in States Democrats picked up in the 2006 and 2008 Democratic Wave.
In the New England Region- Democrats picked up 2 US House Seats in NH(Shea Porter,Hodes),and 2 US House Seats in CT(Courtney,Murphy) in 2006 and 1 US House Seat in CT(Himes). All five of those freshman Democratic US House Members unseated Republican incumbents.  The CT US Democratic Reps (Courtney,Himes,and Murphy) are safe. The NH US House Seats will be competitive.

[nkpatel1279]

In the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Democrats picked up 3 Upstate New York US House Seats in 2006 (Hall,Gillibrand,and Arcuri). and 4 US House Seats in Pennsylvania including 2 in the Philadelphia Area (Sestak and Murphy)-one in Pittsburgh Area (Altmire) one in Scranton(Carney). In 2008- Democrats picked up 3 US House Seats in New York- 1 in NYC (McMahon), and 2 in Upstate (Maffei and Massa). 1 US House Seat in PA (Dahlkemper) 1 US House Seat in MD (Kravotil). 1 US House Seat in NJ(Adler).
Hall(NY-19) is trending Democratic- he is safe. Democrats won NY-20(Gillibrand's old US House Seat in a special election). That race along with NY-24(Arcuri) and NY-23(McHugh's old Seat) will be highly competitive in 2010.  NY-25(Maffei) is safe.  NY-13(McMahon) is safe. NY-29(Massa) is vulnerable due to the fact he is in a Republican leaning district.  The Pennsylvania US House Seats in the Phildelphia Area - PA-7 (Sestak) and PA-8 (Murphy) will remain in the Democratic collumn in 2010.  PA-3,PA-4,and PA-10 lean Republican but the Democratic incumbents are popular in those Districts. Democrats have a potential of picking up PA-6.
Kravotil(MD-1) represents a Safe republican District.- he is vulnerable if republicans nominate a moderate republican from Eastern shore.  Adler(NJ-3) is fairly safe.

[nkpatel1279]

In the midwest region. In 2006- we picked up 1 seat in Ohio- OH-18(Ney Seat). 3 US House Seats in IN (Donnelly,Ellsworth,and Hill). 1 seat in MN(Walz),2 seats in IA (Braley,and Loesback). In 2008- we picked up 3 seats in Ohio (Dreihaus,Kilroy,and Boccieri). 2 seats in Michigan (Schauer,Peters). 2 seats in Illinios (Halverson,Foster). -we picked up a Republican leaning district in IL in 2004(Bean).
In Ohio- Space(OH-18) and Boccieri(OH-16) represent Republican leaning Districts but they are popular- Safe Democratic. Dreihaus(OH-1) is facing a rematch against former US Rep Steve Chabot- tossup. Kilroy(OH-15) narrowly won in 2008 due to the Obama wave in a swing district. The Indiana US House Democrats (Donnelly,Ellsworth,and Hill) are safe. Walz(MN-1) is safe. MI Democratic US House Freshmans (Schauer,and Peters) are favored to win re-election. as well as the Democratic US House members in IL who are in competitive Districts (Bean,Halverson,and Foster). we are also going to pick up IL-10(Kirk seat). The IA seats(Braley,and Loesback) are safe.

[nkpatel1279]

In the South we picked up 1 seat in FL(Klein) in 2006 and 1 seat in TX(Rodriguez). 1 seat in AL(Bright) in 2008. 2 seats in FL(Grayson,Kosmas) in 2008.  The Florida US House Seats (Grayson,Klien,and Kozmas) are competitive in 2010 but Klien(FL-22) will remain Democratic. Grayson(FL-8) and Kosmas(FL-24) are vulnerable.  Rodriguez(TX-23) is favored to win re-election. Bright(AL-2) represents a ruby red district but he is popular- as is Griffith(AL-5). In Louisiana- we pick up LA-2(Bill jefferson's old seat) and lose open seat in LA-3(Melancon's seat). Democrats will hold onto MS-1 (Childers)-

[nkpatel1279]

In the Southwest we picked up 2 seats in Arizona in 2006 (Mitchell,Giffords), 1 seat in California(McNerney). 1 seat in Colorado(Perlmutter), in 2008 we picked up 1 seat in AZ(Kirkpatrick). 1 seat in CO(Markey), 1 seat in NV(Titus), 2 seats in NM (Heinrich,Teague).
The Arizona seats are competitive but Democratic incumbent favored (Kirkpatrick,Mitchell,and Giffords). McNerney(CA-11) is favored to win re-election due to his district trending Democratic. Regarding Colorado- Perlmutter(CO-7) is safe. Markey(CO-4) is vulnerable due to the fact she is in a Republican leaning District and her gop opponent in 2010 will not be a nutjob like Musgrave. NV (Titus) is safe. as is NM-1(Heinrich). Teague(NM-2) is vulnerable because he is in a Republican leaning CD and has a top tier challenger. ID(Minnick) is from a ruby red congressional district.