Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House

As Democrats brace for a November wave that threatens their control of the House, party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.

[color=#FF0033]Youth in Asia?[/color] LOL. Sounds like the dems are going to euthanize their old pols.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&hp

What's new here?
Political parties always allocate their resorces to winnable elections and seldom to races they are secure in or can not win.

I dunno Phil, it seemed like a big to the NYT, they put it on the front page.

The responding strategy will be a simple reporting of the voting record of the Democrat. The only winning strategy for a Democrat in a mixed district will be to run against Obama and Pelosi. It will show they followed the direction of the Democrat leadership on every core issue. The ones most at risk are those who ran in the districts around the major cities who were Republican districts and then switched to Democrat in 2006. They had promised to be independent and "blue dogs". Then they just followed the leaders. They are in trouble and it will be an easy TV ad.

Its really bad Dick, when the democrats mouthpiece admits defeat too.:)-D

Phil, did the Republicans run away from Bush in 2002, 2004 and when he was a lame duck in 2006 they ran away and about Iraq. Al Gore could not even mention Clintons name in 2000. How does that compare to what is happening with Obama in 18 months. I don't think you are thinking it through. It did not happen to Ronald Reagan either. It did happen to Clinton he was just like Obama because of his extreme policies in his first two years. But he changed after the Republicans embarrassed him in 1994 and they were back in 1996.

Losing seats in an off year is not the same as the candidates running away from the Party.

And we are talking about those in swing seats and the Blue Dogs.

If we look at the recent history of 1st term midterm elections we can see that all have resulted in big losses and low approval rates for the Pres.
Truman -55
Ike -18
Nixon -12
Regan -26
Clinton -52
Only GW +8 and FDR 1934 +9 have gained seats

Truman had only 27%, Regan had 42% approval rating and Clinton had 48% Only Bush had a positive (+67)rating going into his 1st midterm, of course we know he set a record low (+37) going into his 2nd.
All won reelection 2 years later

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php

Bottom line is how many will the Dems lose. Thats all that counts. Then the question is will Obama work with the Congress, one thing for sure, he wont be able to push his socialism gambit even if the conservatives fail to gain a majority.

Phil, good numbers and it appears that Obama will be about the same as Clinton and for the same reason. They both made the same mistake.

I'll lay odds the # falls somewhere between Clintons slide and Regans. I'll also wager that like both of them the tide will change and he'll get another 4 years.
Not living near Vegas, we'll have to bet at an Indian casino, I hear the Ft. Lauderdale Hard Rock is Floridas best.

ahhh forget the indians, we have a casino right down the road.

Come on boys... pony up a number! Let's see who calls the change in seats!

I'm saying the Republicans won't pick up more than 50 and 5.