Bush has never really run as a "war President."  It has been about the crisis, "terrorism", rather than about the costs moral, physical, and financial of Iraq.  Going back through the Mexican American War, every war President has lost more than 20 seats in the House following entry into a war with a low of 21 seats (Korea, 1950) and a high of 48 (Vietnam, 1966).  Even FDR lost seats following Pearl Harbor (-42, 1942).

The average loss is 34 seats.

...is the fact - well, only my impression! - that they treat every election as if it's going to be their last.

The mindset they have of needing defense in depth, structures down to precinct level, because - essentially - they have an electoral inferiority complex. (Remember, between 1928 and 1996, they never won control of both houses in consecutive elections!)

Whereas lefties paint them as all about the astroturf, their grassroots organization (again, my impression) is streets ahead of the Dems' (Dean is working hard on this, of course) - and that after decades where the boot was very much on the other foot.

It's a classic American story - types like Carnegie and Vanderbilt who remember poverty in their youth fight so much harder than those who've had it pretty good till recently.

People said Chafee was a one-off - zillions of GOP shipped into RI from all over the country. I wouldn't believe it. I think being the underdog, being the Comeback Kids (oh, the irony!), is exactly where the GOP want to be right now.

In fact, if they were ahead in the polls, then they'd be really worried!

The schema of the underdog - how many Hollywood movies of the golden age used the trope? - is great for fostering morale and fighting spirit. (Providing you win most times, of course. It's no good if you don't win!)

I don't think the Dems have ever had it. Not since the days of Bryan, perhaps (slightly before my time!) - FDR won at a canter, annihilated the old GOP, and, ever since, the Dems have thought that being in charge of the Federal government (at least, the legislative branch) was their birthright.

I think a lot of them still do. Suckers...

If the dems win generically by 7% they are going to win a lot more than 20 house seats! That's completely disproportionate to what party's win per percentage point in the margin. I know how extensively the repubs have redistricted but still, if they win by 7 points nationally, it will be a tidal wave--good for about 40 seats or so.

Do you know that the repubs only won the generic congressional vote in 94 by 4%. That amounted to a 54 seat gain. Even with gerrmandering, a win of that margin for the dems, much more realistic than the 7% you discuss, would amount to about half that many seats in a gain. With a 4 point margin we could gain as many 30, more likely 25-27.

I think that is about the gain we'll get, but even if the generic margin is only 3-4 points, it would be good enough for 20 seats at least.

on local issues available?  By that I mean city-county-state initiatives and referenda.  Seems to me the carry-over from the issues, which tend to stem from a basis of contesting values, should be a fairly good indicator of how that voter will tend or even translate in a state-wide or national election.

IF anything kills the Democratic candidates this year it will be that the party still hasn't learned that you simply don't just have to get city voters to the polls you also have to get the suburban and rural voters to the polls too. The party is starting to reach the point of deminishing returns with city turnouts, while losing whatever gains they had in the cities outside of the city, because simply a growing number of the voters that you had to get out in the cities moved out into the suburbia and there are now older suburbian and rural voters.

To a large extent, the election will be fought out among habitual voters, mostly identifiable as people who have lived at the same address for many years. Nobody's GOTV machine has much effect on them because they vote no matter what's on the ballot, just as they pay their taxes and show up for jury duty. These are not likely voters but damn near certain voters.

Unfortunately, they trend Republican, but every vote from this group is like a Treasury Bill. There are independents in this groups and flaky (i.e. persuadable) members of both parties.

"Firing up the base" can offend these voters, which is why the GOP is very circumspect about visibly turning out its gun nuts and religiously insane supporters--that's what microtargeting is all about.

As conservative as these habitual voters often are, they nevertheless have no desire to see crosses burning on their well-kept lawns.

While it is an article of faith on this and other related web sites that we should not appeal to the middle, it is an insult to common sense to imagine that we can win support of voters who are themselves in the middle without appealing to them.

Bearing in mind that these voters are certain to vote, that each one of their votes is worth about 2.5 of any others, and that none of us wishes to suffer another teeth-gnashing loss, may I offer the following consideration:

If we win among habitual voters, we win. GOTV is the creme brule.

Voter turnout.

In NY-19 John Hall won overwhelmingly with 50% of the vote.

But the most important fact is that this district increased its voter turnout from 9,000 to 20,000+

There has been a slow steady move toward the GOP retaining House control on Tradesports. It was 45% several weeks ago, now up to 58%. Simply a FWIW.

I'm hoping for a 4% edge in the two-party congressional vote and I continue to believe anything beyond that is unrealistic.