Get Used to the GOP Majority

JK recently lamented (in the comments) the likelihood of a Democrat takeover of the US House or Senate. I asked for evidence to support his pessimism, which he kindly offered (also in the comments above) including the weighty opinion of Michael Barone. But all of his arguments are general, not specific.

In rebuttal, I offer the specifics of this essay by Jay Cost that appeared on today's WSJ Ed page.

For the Democrats to take the Senate, they would have to defeat incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Missouri and Rhode Island; win the open seat in Tennessee; and hold seats against strong challengers in Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington. This amounts to a sweep of all 10 of National Journal's 10 most vulnerable races. Most would thus admit that the Senate is not on the table; those who make no such admission usually grow silent when asked to explain why they refuse.

(...)

However, pundits know less of the specifics of House contests; thus, the House seems more promising. They cannot name the seats the GOP would have to lose to lose the House. If they could, they would find themselves naming many members most think are secure. A switch of the House still seems plausible, in other words, only because details are lacking.

I strongly suggest reading the entire essay. It is fascinating and informative on the subject of Constitutional history of democracy and the representative republic. (The founders apparently never intended the president or senators to be popularly elected!)

Politics Posted by JohnGalt at April 26, 2006 12:29 PM