Dirty Harry is toast

Originally posted by sh76
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/13/nv-sen-poll-reids-numbers-tank/

I know. I know.

It's early, right?

Thank having been said...


Dirty Harry is toast


Toast, I tell ya, Toast.


If the Dems are smart, they'll convince him to resign (or retire; maybe he can want to spend more time with his family or something) or primary him. or the second time in 6 years.

What a darn tootin' shame!

Whodey and I will miss him.

With all due respect, I already called his demise. In addition, I called Dodd's demise and was proved spot on. I demand compensation!! 😠

As far as Dirty Harry goes, however, not even he can feel lucky at this point. :'(

In the immortal words of the real Dirty Harry, "Now I can't remember of there were 5 Congressional seats at stake or only 4, in fact, in all the confusion of Congressional attention being payed to highly unpopular peices of legislation, I kinda lost count. So you have to ask yourself, do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!! 😠

Originally posted by no1marauder
Breaking even when you have a 55-45 majority is a good result.

In 1998, the Dems had 18 seats to defend and the Republicans 16. It was the 6th year of a Presidency, in which his party almost always loses seats.

For the Republicans to break even (i.e., win 16 and lose 18) is a bad result.

Originally posted by sh76
In 1998, the Dems had 18 seats to defend and the Republicans 16. It was the 6th year of a Presidency, in which his party almost always loses seats.

For the Republicans to break even (i.e., win 16 and lose 18) is a bad result.

They maintained a 10 seat edge. Yup, terrible. 🙄

Originally posted by no1marauder
They maintained a 10 seat edge. Yup, terrible. 🙄

Not all 100 seats were up for grabs. 34 were. Of those 34, 18 were won by Dems. The 1998 midterm elections were considered across the board to be a stinging rebuke of the GOP for impeaching Clinton and a startling victory for Clinton and the Democrats. Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 Republican gains, resigned in disgrace following the 1998 mid-terms.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657990

"[t]his outcome, too, was read as a defeat of the Republican Party. With Democracts defending the most vulnerable seats, Republicans had entertained dreams of winning a filibuster-proof sixty seat majority.

How you could call it a "good Republican year" is beyond me.

Originally posted by sh76
Not all 100 seats were up for grabs. 34 were. Of those 34, 18 were won by Dems. The 1998 midterm elections were considered across the board to be a stinging rebuke of the GOP for impeaching Clinton and a startling victory for Clinton and the Democrats. Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 Republican gains, resigned in disgrace following the 1998 mid-terms. ...[text shortened]... oof sixty seat majority. [/i]

How you could call it a "good Republican year" is beyond me.

Up 10 to begin with; up 10 at the end.

If it's really "beyond you" you've been hanging out with whodey too much.

Originally posted by sh76
In 1998, the Dems had 18 seats to defend and the Republicans 16. It was the 6th year of a Presidency, in which his party almost always loses seats.

For the Republicans to break even (i.e., win 16 and lose 18) is a bad result.

Usually the president's party loses seats in the off-election because the president's coat-tails gain a lot of seats when he's elected. In 1996, Clinton evidently forgot to wear his coat on election day

In 1996, the Dems actually LOST two seats in the Senate (and gained only 8 seats in the House). Since the general "rule" failed to apply in the 1996 general election, it's no surprise that the "rule" also failed in 1998.