(Crumpet from : Hot Air)
“If the election were held today, we’d lose the House,” says Democratic campaign consultant Tom King, a view shared, off the record, by a number of his colleagues…
The burden for a Democratic incumbent is to “make it a ‘choice’ not a ‘retention’ election. The voters need to be thinking a whole lot about the other guy, not about you,” this consultant says. Party operatives agree that an election conducted on disputes over the deficit, health care legislation, the stimulus, the bank bailout, and/or climate change will work to the disadvantage of Democrats…
One key Democratic strategist playing a central role in the preparations for 2010 — who asked to remain anonymous — makes the case that that the political environment has deteriorated with such extraordinary rapidity over the past eight to nine months that it is impossible to predict with any certainty what will happen in November. Last May, this strategist says, he and others thought Democrats could actually pick up as many as two seats in the Senate and keep House losses to the low teens. Now, he notes, Democrats appear almost certain to lose three or four Senate seats, with the possibility of losing as many as six. In his view, if House losses are kept to 20 or so seats, that would be a major victory…
Allahpundit highlighted the first part of the quote.. but to me the more interesting part is the second batch, not just because this is a drastic number, but that it's a drastic number from a _Democratic_ strategist... going from +2 to -6 (a change of 8 seats) and the argument when you "Only" lose 20 seats, you've won the political battle.
These are numbers that are just about unheard of.. yet it's a "victory"? (and I"m of the opinion it could be much worse, IF the tea party activists and the Sarah Palin supporters keep up the pressure... cause they're still going to try to push through shamnesty this year before the elections (and you don't think Cap-n-Trade is still off their radar, do you?)
No comments:
Post a Comment