Don't say it won't come again soon.  One thing that a solid House majority can do is give us a platform for setting out an agenda that can help turn still more seats.  (As I never tire of saying, this is just what happens when a true presidential realigning election occurs.)

Yes, I know there's been a lot of gerrymandering that will make this more difficult than it was in the past.  But, OTOH, the GOP's "majority" is the most artificial and contradiction-riddled of any we've ever seen.  A standard 30% seat shift in two elections--the hallmark of past Presidential realignments--may be beyond reach, but it shouldn't be needed, either, since we start from much closer to parity.

So one good reason to push hard in the last few days is not just to take advantage of this rare opportunity, but to help increase the odds for next time as well.  The CW about how all those seats will be difficult to defend is just as questionable as the CW on everything else.

So...you're saying we might win?

If the events happen as your stats suggested, then this will go a long way to addressing my chief concern, which has not been whether the Democrats would win on Tues, but whether we would achieve a governing majority. It's one thing to have a slim lead that leads to stagnation, and it's another to win by such overwhelming numbers that you can govern. My friend who works on the Hill made that comment to me a few months ago, and it stuck with me. He said ecking out a win would be better than nothing, but obtaining a governing majority is idle because you have to assume that on each vote you will have defectors etc, and to really have a cushion you need a higher number than bare majority. This is really good to hear, and it willl make my phonebanking tommorrow (at least personally although not in what I say) more enjoyable.

Looks like Tim Murphy, R-I, in the 18th is self-destructing. First he's caught on camera snatching away evidence from a KDKA reporter, now he's fired the staffer who went on record saying how Murphy broke the law by having his congressional staffers work on his reelection campaign on the taxpayers dime.

This election is not 2004, 2002, or even 1994.  The dynamics this election cycle are dramatically different than previous ones.  Using the predictive value of opinion polls from previous elections to predict this election cannot be correct, especially the 2004 election.

The big issue polls and all the national indicators, including the huge number of Republican-held races in play are what is important this year.  They point to only one result for Tuesday, a Democratic Party takeover of both the House and the Senate.

The Dems are going to take the bulk of the independents and undecideds this election.  This is going to turn the election hugely to the Dems.  There are going to be many surprises, and many embarrassed prognosticators on Wed morning, especially those who were saying that this election is in anyway close.

Dems take 7-8 Senate seats.
Dems take a very large number of House seats.  People calling for 40, or even 50 may be correct.  Or, it may even be more.
Dems will lose zero seats in either House.

Nothing is going Republican's way.

This prediction matches the Newsweek poll that just came out today. Generic poll of 53-32 overall and 54-38 by district (which seems more predictive). There's good reason to hope, folks.

I know it doesn't usually work that way, but it will this year. Don't forget TN and AZ will be fairly close, probably within 5, so they can be counted as our close ones on the losing end.

can you explain your result on 14 of 54 coin flips? it doens't look right to me.

Why do you have us behind in NY-26? Is it because of that Survey USA poll?

Because the scuttlebutt around here is that Reynold's own internals show him tied and Davis' have him up by 7%.

I admit that Davis hasn't run the most exciting campaign in the world, but I seriously doubt that Reynolds is ahead by 5% (according to Survey USA).

It is possible that it was an outlier (since only 440 people were actually surveyed). Also, don't forget there were THREE different polls (including a local Buffalo News poll) that showed Davis ahead by 15% or more less than a month ago. At the same time, Survey USA had Davis up by only 7% in that same period.

Davis has also had a VERY good week with Hillary and Spitzer campaigning with him and a big televised interview (with NBC affliate) where he refuted many of the lies Reynolds is spreading. Plus, a NY Daily News story which suggested that Reynolds had lied when he underplayed his involvement in the Foley scandal. The story was picked up by local papers and media.

Other districts that might be close.  Some are my own guesses, but other districts have polls that show them close but aren't on the list.

My own guesses
1.Texas 14 (Shane Sklar vs Ron Paul)
2.Texas 23 (redistricting of Henry Bonilla)
3.West Virginia 2 (Mike Callaghan vs. Shelley Moore Capito)
4.Iowa 4 (Selden Spencer vs. Tom Latham)
5.New Jersey 5 (Paul Ahronson vs. Scott Garrett)

Districts with polls showing close races
1.Kentucky 2
2.Nebraska 1
3.Nebraska 3
4.California 19
5.Alaska-at large
6.Kansas 2

(not sure why those 6 districts weren't included)

That totals up to 71 districts.

I think Nick Lampson is poised to take TX-22 away from Sekula-Gibbs, Bell will boot Perry, and Radnofsky will put Hutchison out of commission.

I know the Republicans will do anything to hold onto that seat, as well as the state of TX.

Anyway, these predictions come on the heels of me getting a Perry mailer that says that Chris Bell's vote against Proposition 2 (banning gay marriage) is against the Mainstream. Chris Bell says he wants a New Mainstream, and that's what TX will get (and hopefully we'll take out that gay marriage ban).