To repeat:
If similar dynamics are in play for the 2008 elections – record low approval ratings for Bush, and a strong connection between Bush and the Republican party, we would expect to keep all the seats currently held by Democrats in the House, except in unusual circumstances.
Also, we would expect every Republican seat to be potentially competitive, depending on recruitment and funding on the Democratic side (and of course other factors, such as popularity of the incumbent, although that can be changed by Democratic campaigning). But there are no districts that are inherently too Republican or too conservative.
Democrats have little control over Bush’s popularity; some control over the link of Brand Republican to Bush.
But we do have control over candidate recruitment and funding.
It’s early in the cycle. Last time we said we should run a candidate in every district. Detractors said it was a waste, that most districts would never elect a Democrat. The 2006 elections showed this was not true, and these graphs show why. How about a new goal? Run a serious, funded candidate in every district, because it is possible for a Democrat to win in every district. There are no more safe Republican districts.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
