Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The most important number in politics today

18

That's the number of Democratic House members who hold seats won by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008 and voted in favor of their party's health care proposal over the weekend.

National Republicans moved quickly in the wake of that vote to make poster boys (and girls) of these Members, insisting that this one vote could be their undoing at the ballot box next fall -- ala then Pennsylvania Rep. Marjorie Margolies- Mezvinsky and her vote for the Clinton budget in 1993.

Yes and no.

For maybe a half dozen of the "yes" votes, there is clearly serious electoral peril associated with their decision over the weekend. These members are either new to Congress or haven't had a serious race in quite a while AND have drawn quality Republican opponents. Among this group are Reps. Tom Perriello (Va.), Vic Snyder (Ark.), and Zack Space (Ohio).

The majority of the 18 fall into a less defined category -- they likely have an opponent of uncertain quality (or Republicans continue to aggressively recruit an opponent) and have a political skill set of their own that may insulate them from the fallout over this vote. Among that group are members like Harry Mitchell (Ariz.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.) and John Spratt (S.C.).

The final group within the G18 (not bad, right?) are those Democratic members who despite their vote face next to no political peril. That includes people like Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Charlie Wilson (Ohio), John Murtha (Pa.) and Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.).

Context is critically important when analyzing elections. For all the talk that Democrats in McCain districts who voted for the health care bill effectively lost their re-election race on Saturday night, there is a relative pittance of that group that are truly vulnerable at the moment.

In other words, those who felt they could vote yes politically did so with relatively few exceptions (Washington Rep. Brian Baird we are looking at you.)

There are far more targets for Republicans -- still -- among the 31 Democrats who represent districts carried by McCain and voted against the bill.

For a full list of Democratic-held districts carried by McCain, click here.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 9, 2009; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FL-Sen.: Club for Rubio, trouble for Crist
Next: CO-Gov: Penry to exit race

Comments

Where's the article on Republicans facing elections in districts won by Obama?

Posted by: nodebris | November 9, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

It seems one tentative conclusion to be drawn here is that the individual Congressman's perceived vulnerability contributed to the voting decision. So those Democratic Representatives whose districts were carried by McCain most likely weighed the extent to which they consider themselves electorally vulnerable in deciding how to cast their votes. Those who regard themselves as vulnerable on the issue likely voted NO while those like Rahall and Murtha who do not consider themselves vulnerable probably never gave any real thought to voting NO so for them this was not at all a tough vote.

The Members of Congress displaying real courage in voting YES are those like Perriello who are in swing districts and are clearly being targeted. I have listened to Perriello in some appearances on various networks in recent months and I would suggest he may not be so easy a mark as Republicans may hope or suggest regardless of the makeup of his district. He appears to be a thoughtful and earnest young Congressman who is knowledgeable on policy issues, capable of articulating a comprehensive political vision and how his issue positions fit together, and concerned about doing what is best for his district as he sees it. In fact, if he is reelected, Perriello appears to be a future star, a potential candidate for leadership or higher office. The guy is impressive.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | November 9, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Loud and Dumb, no longer satisfied with those two distinct features, is now repetative as well.

Is that stammering or stuttering Ace?

Most likely just stupidity. this Ace has that in spades.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

In my neck of the woods, incumbent Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS), who voted yes on the health care reform legislation, will be facing newspaper owner, Steve Rose (R-KS). Moore and Rose are both moderates and I think thoroughly decent men, so the race could be tight, especially if people get anti-incumbent fever.

On the other hand, it could also be a great big yawn because Moore has done a fine job, is an experienced politician, and is not easy to attack with impunity.

Posted by: Kelly14 | November 9, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Is it possible that Cao is a Republican partly because there is no way he was going to win the D primary? Plenty of anti-abortion Ds out there -- one of my Senators, in fact (Bob Casey, Jr.).

Posted by: mnteng | November 9, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"Only rarely do those who believe in active government take the argument head-on and insist that many of the things government does are necessary and, yes, good. The media almost never discuss what the sweeping dismantling of public services inherent in the rhetoric of the anti-government movement would mean in practice. It's far easier to replay footage from a few tea-party rallies over and over, and discuss some vague "mood" in the electorate."

Et tu, brutus!

Posted by: drindl | November 9, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Here's another important number. The higher it goes, the lower go Republican spirits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | November 9, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Here's another important number. The more higher it goes, the lower go Republican spirits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | November 9, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Too many of us demand instant gratification & something for nothing, expecting an election to solve every problem we face, without any hard work or sacrifice.

.

Posted by: bsimon1


without which there would be no liberals.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"So blade, can you provide a single instance of objective proof that this messiah actually walks on water. Or even is intelligent? a paper, a grade, anything that was ever verifiably his that shows his work? funny how not one thing ever turned up."


hilarious new conspiracy theory! obama does not actually exist!

Posted by: drindl | November 9, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Cao will be the next ttarget, and next time he will run as a Dem and be re-elected.

Posted by: drindl "

I think Cao has the impression that being a Democrat mandates supporting abortion. In any other issue, he sounds like a Democrat. He also talks a lot about small businesses, but most New Orleans politicians talk a lot about the need to support small businesses. Both Dems and Repubs. He's probably more independent than anything with his primary focus being the needs of LA-2. He voted against the stimulus because LA-2 would receive the least amount of funding out of all the districts. He is also against cap and trade since it will hurt the oil industry here.

I think the main reason he's Republican is because of abortion.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 9, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Excellent point, bsimon.

Obviously, 43's admonition to "go shopping" isn't going to work, and it would just end up creating another bubble.

Posted by: mikenmidland | November 9, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone talks sustainability, but there is so much silence coming from Obama's Goldman clique on just exactly how the economy is supposed to grow in a sustainable way."

The President has suggested that investments in alt energy will help build a new economy built on good jobs & innovation. Such businesses & industries won't pop into existence overnight, but it is happening. Too many of us demand instant gratification & something for nothing, expecting an election to solve every problem we face, without any hard work or sacrifice.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 9, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

So blade, can you provide a single instance of objective proof that this messiah actually walks on water. Or even is intelligent? a paper, a grade, anything that was ever verifiably his that shows his work? funny how not one thing ever turned up.

I still remember how Gore and Kerry were also declared to be so smart, until it tunred out they pretty much flunked out of school.

and I revel in the notion that jimmy carter was supposed to be so smart while Reagan was an amiable dunce.

Explain?

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

With regards to reading books, I can't resist one of my favorite movie exchanges (from A Fish Called Wanda)

Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it! Let me correct you on a few things; Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!" And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes. I looked them up.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"Ds could take the initiative there, but they probably will not, thanks to organized labor. Ds best shot: push small banks to lend AND make certain this UHC bill does not strangle small biz, all by itself."

Obviously I agree. Everyone talks sustainability, but there is so much silence coming from Obama's Goldman clique on just exactly how the economy is supposed to grow in a sustainable way.

Trickle down from the Wall Street system will not work. And that little uptick in the gdp last quarter was all borrowed money.

All we ever hear about is "lagging indicator" as if a prosperity driver were inherent in the measures already taken. I am saying there is no driver for a sustained recovery, which means we can not borrow our way to sustainability. Consumers will not spend like they used to and they should not, no matter whether they think their house has stopped losing value.

There is no more low hanging fruit around, like the productivity gains (including, sadly, imported workers) that sustained the growth of the Clinton years. We don't want anymore bubbles either. Which brings us back to sustainability.

Sustainable economic conditions will require a balanced budget and therefore austerity measures, but the measures better not involve tax hikes. Most important is the creation and sustained (that word again)support of highly productive, innovative small businesses. And a boom in this sector will require a lot more effort than low interest loans.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 9, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

the voice of utter ignorance chimes in. what is the weather report today NAMBLA? Or is it movie reviews and gym membership coupons today?

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I bet Cao's email inbox is scorching with racist swill from Republican voters.

Gotta hand it to that guy.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | November 9, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm also personally aware that the administration has been very actively reaching out to small business groups.

Posted by: nodebris | November 9, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Cao “chuckled” in response to Steele’s comments, pointing out that his vision would essentially lead the party toward a path of political suicide. “He has the right to come after those members who do not conform to party lines,” said Cao, “but I would hope that he would work with us in order to adjust to the needs of the district and to hold a seat that the Republican party would need.”

These far right statements represent a dramatic shift from where the GOP said it was heading just a year ago. After Cao won in his majority-Democratic district, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent out a memo reading “The Future is Cao“:

As House Republicans look ahead to the next two years, the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative, and work aggressively to earn the trust of the American people.

The GOP seems to no longer be interested in presenting “positive” alternatives or thinking “big.” Its alternative health care legislation didn’t even bar insurers from denying people based upon pre-existing conditions — a top priority of the American public. Additionally, instead of candidates like Cao, far-right candidates who are the darlings of the Tea Party movement (e.g. Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 special election) are winning out over moderates."

Posted by: drindl | November 9, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Here's who's actually in trouble, CC - why are you ignoring this?
Inconvenient truth?

"Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) was solely responsible for dashing the Republican leadership’s hopes of having all 177 of its members vote against historic health care legislation on Saturday. Cao broke with his party and voted with Democrats. In a statement, Cao explained that the needs of his constituents trumped partisan politicking:

I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding — if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children. [...]

I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.

The reaction to Cao from the right wing has been swift and fierce, with some comparing the only non-Hispanic minority in the GOP caucus to Mao Tse Tung and calling him racial epithets. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) — who has defended Cao’s vote — had to stand beside him during Saturday’s roll call, “fending off his GOP colleagues who might have twisted Cao’s arms.” Last week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made clear that moderates who don’t walk the Party line have no place in the GOP:

So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you.'

Cao will be the next ttarget, and next time he will run as a Dem and be re-elected.

Posted by: drindl | November 9, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The 17.5% actual unemployment numbers released by the US Buerau of Labor Statistics
>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm confused. I thought the recent poll indicated that 20% of the population was Democratic. Are you telling me that 2.5% of liberals actually still have jobs?

Next you'll tell me they pay taxes too.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

A couple of weeks ago, BHO did try to get small banks to make loans to small businesses by using some of the TARP money for low-interest loans (3%?). There was a bunch of ARRA money going to the SBA as well, which was somewhat helpful. We'll see how long it takes Congress to increase the limits on SBA loans, as BHO has asked.

Posted by: mnteng | November 9, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Oop's messed up. The 17.5% actual unemployment numbers released by the US Buerau of Labor Statistics came out Friday and not yesterday.

Posted by: armpeg | November 9, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

MIA, remember that the Stimulus was heavily back-loaded. As of 10/30, only $158b of $787b (20%) has yet been spent. About another 55% will hit the economy during the next 12 months.

Posted by: nodebris | November 9, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

17.5%
The most important number in politics today and one that will be important in the midterms of 2010.
17.5% is the number released yesterday by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, that is the actual unemployment number of the USA. It includes not only the 10.2% of unemployed Americans getting Unemployment checks--the statistic figures for last month--but includes Americans who've given up looking for work and have used up all of their comp time. This US Labor Dept. Statistic can only get worse once the Christmas season is over with, and Comrade Obama's Communist policies get even more of a foothold.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that by the 2010's midterms, it'll be much, much worse, so all of Chris Cillizza's pro--Obama and pro--Democrap Socialist Party--spin control he's been putting out there to prop up their 2010 election hopes is more like whistling past the graveyard.

Posted by: armpeg | November 9, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Mark,
I do think that the economy and unemployment will be the driving factor for '10 which is why I don't think this vote matters all that much. Also don't be suprised if Reid pushes the 50 vote option he has in his pocket. The Democrats in the Senate are tired of dealing with this and they want it gone (as do the American People BTW). Plus most of the financial changes won't take effect for a few years, so I don't see it having a direct effect on small buisnesses immediatly, or at all if you listen to some experts.

I heard a pundit on NPR who said that the 10.2% unemployment may be a good sign for the emplyment market since it shows more people are 'looking' for work, while at the same time newly laid off people has been slowing systematically for the past three to four months. With the holiday season approaching temporary work should increase while at the same time more of the stimulus bill spending being dolled out.

This is all on top of a steady housing market that seems to have turned the corner at least. Additionaly, alot of people have been holding off on big expenditures to pay off some of their debts, increase savings, etc due to the risk of losing their jobs. But eventually they will want/need to replace that lawnmower that is on its last legs, or get that new suit, or get that new washer and dryer, but that mini-van now that the kids are older, etc. It is very possible that these type of things are what people spend their holiday money on this year. If so then employment will go up as companines need to replinish invetory (which is extremely low right now, BTW).

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 9, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits. Bush's deficit in 2008 was the largest in history. In fact, President Obama said,
It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt ... What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place.
Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other's: Bush's in 2008 or Obama's in 2009?


5. While Obama criticized Bush for "a doubling of the national debt," the federal debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP in 2000 to 40.8% of GDP in 2008 -- an increase of 16% as of fraction of GDP. What is it expected to be in 2016 under Obama's budget plan?


4. Obama's 2009 deficit, the largest in U.S. history. It was more than three times that of Bush's record 2008 deficit. Per the Congressional Budget Office, the 2008 deficit was $455 B, and the 2009 deficit was $1,417 B. As a fraction of GDP, it was the largest deficit since 1945.


5. The CBO expects the debt held by the public to be 77.1% of GDP in 2016 under Obama's plan, or an increase of 89% as a fraction of GDP, and the highest level since 1950.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

1. President Bush was famous for lacking "intellectual curiosity," while President Obama has been called "the smartest guy ever to become President." Who reads more books: Bush or Obama?

1. Bush. Obama started reading a book in April and had not finished it by June, putting him on a pace of no more than ten books per year. Bush read forty to ninety-five books a year while President, not counting a new and complete reading of the Bible every year. Bush scored 1206 on his SAT, putting his IQ in the 125-130 range, smarter than 95% of the population and in the company of Lincoln, Rousseau, and Thackeray. He graduated from Yale and earned an MBA from Harvard. Obama earned a law degree from Harvard, but has not released any of his academic records. Despite what you might have heard, we know nothing of his IQ, test scores, or grades from any of the schools he attended.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Andy, I do not believe their will be a UHC bill on the Prez's desk this year.

You have always said that unemployment will determine the '10 elections. If no attention is given to small banks lending to small business, unemployment will not abate.

This, btw, would be a place Rs could show leadership. I do not think they will and I do not think Ds will, either.

Shrink has mentioned that the long term health of the Rs is in their now mislaid identity as friend of small business and of Main Street. Ds could take the initiative there, but they probably will not, thanks to organized labor. Ds best shot: push small banks to lend AND make certain this UHC bill does not strangle small biz, all by itself.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 9, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

JAKE D'S LAME PSY OP MAKES SCRIVENER'S POINT ABOUT OBAMA PRIORITIES

JakeD said:

>> ("44")

TO: "JakeD" at 12:44 p.m.

I know you are being facetious, but it's true:

In an America where the rule of law has broken down at the hands of a federal-local Gestapo that has deployed a nationwide microwave/laser/satellite network to physically degrade the health and functioning of "targeted" American citizens, health care reform is quite beside the point.

The health care delivery system has been thoroughly infiltrated by this multi-agency coordinated action "program" -- and the health care of "targets" is compromised -- to put it mildly.

The first priority of the Obama administration should have been the restoration of civil and human rights in America. And I am concerned that the President himself, along with the Vice President, may be a victim of this silent, invisible, classified, hi-tech torture matrix. Evil in America is being enabled by the naivete and hubris of our political leadership in the administration and -- and among my malleable media colleagues.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR (if link is corrupted): http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 9, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters say it is at least somewhat likely the next president of the United States will be a Republican, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. The number has been trending in this direction since Democrat Barack Obama took office in January and is up 14 points since then.

all it takes is to reveal their actual intentions. the truth is not a liberals friend.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I am on the edge of my seat waiting for that new thai recipe and the considered opinion about the new cleaning products. NAMBLA, where are you? Are the red semicolons troubling you dear?

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

A balanced analysis as usual. The problem is that if a week is a lifetime in politics, a year is a century--or more!

It's true that the House healthcare vote was the biggest one in years, historically speaking, but how many recall who voted which way on the first Patriot Act vote? The Iraq War vote--without looking it up, of course?

Let's revisit this closer to 2010/2012!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | November 9, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"By next June healthcare reform will rank as #5 or lower on the list of issues that people care about."

The GOP is going to be busy whipping the base on Climate Change, then the new AfPak policy, then Education, then the withdrawal from Iraq, and so on, as Obama implements the policies he ran on and the GOP chases one step behind, yapping at his heels.

Posted by: nodebris | November 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

KingofSC writes
"John Barrow of Georgia is easily the most spineless Democrat who voted against the House bill. His District 12 is 50% minority. The per capita income is around $15,00/yr. Approximately 95,000 people in District 12 are uninsured. Barrow easily won a third term with 66% of the vote. President Obama captured 55%."


When I see stats like that, I wonder how the makeup of the district compares to the makeup of voters in the district. If you look at exit polls from last year, with Obama on the ballot, what was the makeup of the electorate compared to the last midterm election in 2006? I'm guessing that the poor minority voters voted in higher numbers last year than they normally do, which could explain Barrow's vote.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that year from now this won't make a bit of difference. When the senate passes a similar bill with a trigger for the public option and Obama signs this on Dec 10th there will be about one week of talk then Xmas will come around and everyone will promptly forget it.

By next June healthcare reform will rank as #5 or lower on the list of issues that people care about.

Posted by: AndyR3 | November 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

John Barrow of Georgia is easily the most spineless Democrat who voted against the House bill. His District 12 is 50% minority. The per capita income is around $15,00/yr. Approximately 95,000 people in District 12 are uninsured. Barrow easily won a third term with 66% of the vote. President Obama captured 55%.

Congressman Barrow is clearly in the healthcare lobby's pocket. The DCCC needs to find a real Democrat to run against Barrow. If not, I suspect the Green Party will.

Posted by: KingofSC | November 9, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

As a consitituent of Congressman Brian Baird (WA-3)and an observor of the August heat he was under you couldn't be more wrong that he had the backing to vote Yes.

The Republicans have two viable candidates challenging him already in the primary. This is the Congressman who called his own constituents "Nazi's & brownshirts" and initially refused to have a town hall meeting on healthcare.

In addition to this he took 3 controversial junkets to Antartica, the Galapagos islands and Hawaii to "research" the effects of "global warming" costing the taxpayers over $300k.

He will have a very tough time keeping his job this fall!

Posted by: King2641 | November 9, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

14.9

A different, but very interesting number popped up this morning when listening to C-SPAN. Federal government revenues fell below 15% of GDP for the first time since 1950.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/federal-revenues-at-lowest-share-of-gdp-since-1950/

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 9, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I still think that most politicians would be better off if they stood up for and voted with their convictions. Sure, occasionally somebody would get booted out, but at least they would keep their integrity. And yes, I know we're talking about politicians.

The big questions is, what are the RepublicaNOs going to do about Kucinich? A progressive that votes no.

Posted by: blondino | November 9, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

A House Democratic leader said Monday she's “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from going to subsidize abortions

so it turns out that indeed, Comrade Obama does Lie!

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Pfft... Sure the GOP will try to use the vote to win seats. So will the Dems. Its all irrelevant until the final bill is passed & the electorate has a few months to mull over whether they like the result, or not.

Mark this one as filler material. Its tough to come up with a most important number of the day every day.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | November 9, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"There are far more targets for Republicans -- still -- among the 31 Democrats who represent districts carried by McCain and voted against the bill."

Yeah, really. If voters in those districts want an irrational conservative knee-jerk vote, why would they settle for a Democrat? I don't see how a Dem can compete against the GOP brand in that case.

Posted by: nodebris | November 9, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Only 20 seats away from ditching Pelooni.

Posted by: snowbama | November 9, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse


Chris,

Last I knew, you did not believe that the GOP could get control of the House in 2010. That maybe 20 or 30 seats might switch hands.

If you have changed your mind about that, please let us know. Otherwise, how is this number "18" important?

Posted by: mikenmidland | November 9, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company