Polls Show Democratic Gain in House

[Mr.Phips]

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 

[Mr.Phips]

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 

Only maybe Nick Lampson?

And Chris Carney.  Everybody else is in swing districts that they should be able to hold absent a huge swing against the Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 

Only maybe Nick Lampson?

And Chris Carney.  Everybody else is in swing or Dem leaning districts that they should be able to hold absent a huge swing against the Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

What about Tim Mahoney in FL-16?

Mahoney is definately vulnerable, but that district is not the "heavily Republican" district that everyone says it is.  Bush only got 53% there in 2004 and only 50% in 2004.  It is pretty much a swing district and would have probably been very close even if there was no Foley scandal.

[Mr.Phips]

We're in April 2007, the election is in November 2008... Things change.

Very true.

I don't blame the Dems for being optimistic, though. But generally, big swings like we had in 2006 cool off somewhat in the next cycle. Of course, the Democrats actually added one seat in 1976 on top of their monstrous gains in 1974, so who knows.

31 seats was really not that big of a swing.  The big swings happened in 1994(54 seats), 1974(47 seats), 1966(47 seats), 1958(49 seats).  However, we rarely see swings any higher than 10 seats these days due to incumbency advantages.