So we need 15 seats in the House, 6 in the Senate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Did I get that right?

Now- if we gain 14 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate, is the MSM going to make it look like we lost this election?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. "14 seats in the House " would be fucking pathetic

eom

[John Gauger]

2. Don't worry about the House.

I have the House by 20 seats by the most conservative estimates. Some are saying we are up by 45 seats. Don't worry about that. We need to be worried about the Senate.

[BattyDem]

3. Personally, I think we need 7 in the Senate.

I don't trust Joementum. :-(

[racaulk]

4. Sure they will

Anything less than victory will be described in the corporate media as another "crushing" defeat, another "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" moment. The right has reduced our electoral process to nothing more than a sporting event where you root for your "team" to win. It's pathetic.

I think the Senate will be a squeaker, but the House is ours. I can feel it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. They Can Spin All They Want...

The House is huge...

We can block every piece of Bu$h legislation out of there since for a bill to become law the House and Senate must agree on the exact language...

[Jawja]

9. AND

launch investigations.

[KansDem]

11. !...

DU thread from yesterday

[unpossibles]

7. exactly

even if we win some races that were previously considered "safe" it will be spun as a mandate against the left. I actually had someone say that the reason Dean's scream went over so poorly was not because of media oversaturation and it being taken out of context, but because "his gaffe made people re-examine the crazy positions and comments along with his spectacularly leftist positioning while courting young and blissfully uninformed voters. THe fell for the "belonging to a movement" manipulation constructed by the bloggists and Soros."

I don't think my eyes can roll enough.

[fishwax]

6. I would think of it as a big loss if we only got 14 house seats

If we get five seats in the senate I'll be happy, but if we don't take the house it's a huge failure, imo.

[NewJeffCT]

8. If we pick up less than 100 in the House & 12 in the Senate

The Republics & the media will spin it as a victory for Bush and a disappointing loss for the Dems.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I'd consider that a loss too.

There's no way we couldn't consider it a loss if we didn't regain control of either the House or Senate.

[Big Sky Boy]

12. Actually we need eight seats in the Senate

For a "real" majority.

The six seat number they keep tossing around ensures that Republicans don't have a clear majority, but assumes that the two independents (which includes Liarman) will consistently vote with the Democratic Caucus.

Sorry folks if I don't believe him -- It's just that he really hasn't been very good about keeping promises.

Anyone remember "I'll always be a Democrat?"

[Orangepeel]

13. true, but they don't need to *consistently* vote with Democrats

they just have to caucus with the Democrats and vote for a Democratic majority leader. That would put the Democrats in control of committees and the agenda.

Even if we gain *10* seats, several of our people will vote with republicans on a number of issues (different people on different issues). It's a big tent (cliche alert) and they won't all agree.

[Big Sky Boy]

14. Point taken

But it would make me feel better if they were "real" Democrats who would not swap allegiance for a better deal.

Not like Joe has ever *consistently* voted with the party. I still don't trust him.