Dick Morris sees Democrats losing 100 House seats in 2010

[Mr.Phips]

http://www.breitbart.tv/dick-morris-democrats-could-lose-100-seats-in-2010/

On Hannity's show a few nights back, political pundit Dick Morris predicts that Democrats could lose 100 House seats in 2010 because of "the massive debt that Obama is creating". 

I really just have to laugh at this.  If Republicans are going to pick up anywhere near 100 seats, they are going to have to pick up seats like CA-10 in the special election on Tuesday and will also have to get many blacks in black majority districts to switch to their side and vote Republican.  A 100 seat loss would put Democrats at just 157 House seats and 278 for Republicans.  Simply not possible. 

[Mr.Phips]

Why does anyone pay the slightest amount of attention to Dick Morris?

And the fact that Bill Clinton even let this guy anywhere near the White House baffles me further.

[Mr.Phips]

Why does anyone pay the slightest amount of attention to Dick Morris?

And the fact that Bill Clinton even let this guy anywhere near the White House baffles me further.

Philanderers of a feather flock together.  Dick Morris got caught cheating on his wife with another woman.  Apparently he liked having the woman suck on his toes or something - seriously.  I will say this about Morris, he did help Clinton win re-election by helping him move to the center and virtually created the process of "triangulation".  His analysis isn't all bad, but it's always (well in my case best case scenario) worst case scenario for whomever its about.  I say hes at least off about 40 - 50 seats though.  What does it take, 40 seats for republicans to pick up the house?  Thats doable.

What 40 seats are they going to take?  Even in 2006, Democrats only took 30. 

[Mr.Phips]

Dick Morris has the most volatile predictions I have ever experienced. First he predicts Obama will carry Louisiana, Arkansas, WV, and now he's predicting the GOP will gain 100 seats in 2010? Has that ever been done before? Perhaps if Obama's approval ratings are at 15%, but even at that level, I couldn't see them gaining more than 40.

Ha!! I remember that map.  It had me laughing all day. 

[Mr.Phips]

AZ-1 Ann Kirkpatrick
AZ-5 Harry Mitchell
AZ-8 Gabrielle Giffords
AL-2 Bobby Bright 
ID-1 Walter Minnick
MD-1 Frank Kratovil
NM-2 Harry Teague
OH-15 Mary Jo Kilroy
PA-7 OPEN (Sestak)
AL-5 Parker Griffith
CO-4 Betsy Markey
FL-8 Alan Grayson
MI-7 Mark Schauer
NV-3 Dina Titus
NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter
NH-2 OPEN (Hodes)
NY-29 Eric Massa
NC-8 Larry Kissell
OH-16 John Boccieri
OH-18 Zack Space 
VA-2 Glenn Nye
VA-5 Tom Perriello
AR-1 Marion Berry
CA-11 Jerry McNerney
CO-3 John Salazar
FL-24 Suzanne Kosmas
GA-8 Jim Marshall
NJ-3 John Adler
NY-1 Tim Bishop
NY-20 Scott Murphy
PA-4 Jason Altmire
PA-10 Chris Carney
PA-12 John Murtha 
TX-23 Ciro Rodriguez
LA-3 OPEN (Melancon) R+12

and a couple of other dem ones too...

Democrats are not going to lose TX-23, NY-01, CO-03, CA-11, AZ-01, or AZ-08.

[Mr.Phips]

AZ-1 Ann Kirkpatrick
AZ-5 Harry Mitchell
AZ-8 Gabrielle Giffords
AL-2 Bobby Bright 
ID-1 Walter Minnick
MD-1 Frank Kratovil
NM-2 Harry Teague
OH-15 Mary Jo Kilroy
PA-7 OPEN (Sestak)
AL-5 Parker Griffith
CO-4 Betsy Markey
FL-8 Alan Grayson
MI-7 Mark Schauer
NV-3 Dina Titus
NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter
NH-2 OPEN (Hodes)
NY-29 Eric Massa
NC-8 Larry Kissell
OH-16 John Boccieri
OH-18 Zack Space 
VA-2 Glenn Nye
VA-5 Tom Perriello
AR-1 Marion Berry
CA-11 Jerry McNerney
CO-3 John Salazar
FL-24 Suzanne Kosmas
GA-8 Jim Marshall
NJ-3 John Adler
NY-1 Tim Bishop
NY-20 Scott Murphy
PA-4 Jason Altmire
PA-10 Chris Carney
PA-12 John Murtha 
TX-23 Ciro Rodriguez
LA-3 OPEN (Melancon) R+12

and a couple of other dem ones too...

Democrats are not going to lose TX-23, NY-01, CO-03, CA-11, AZ-01, or AZ-08.

Ciro just got elected in 2008 - he's a first term dem in incredibly unfriendly territory
Ny-01: you may be right (is that the long island district though?)
CO-03: another first term dem (i think) in unfriendly territory
CA-11: McNerney is a joke, he was elected in 2006 and 08 because of waves, we will win this back as long as we have a good candidate
AZ-01 & AZ-08: way too liberal for our districts, Giffords is making enemies left and right, her constituents dislike her. Both districts have like a 6pt republican advantage in them as well.

Ciro got elected in 2006 after the district was redrawn to be heavily Hispanic. 

CO-03 is a seat that Dems picked up in 2004(not a good year for Democrats)

And Giffords and Kirkpatrick are NOT too liberal for their districts.  They will both likely vote against healthcare and Kirkpatrick even voted against cap and trade.  AZ-01 has a large Democratic registration advantage. 

In CA-11, McNerney won by 10 points in 2008 in a seat wher Republicans have almost no bench anymore.  Not to mention Obama also carried the district handily. 

[Mr.Phips]

AZ-1 Ann Kirkpatrick
AZ-5 Harry Mitchell
AZ-8 Gabrielle Giffords
AL-2 Bobby Bright 
ID-1 Walter Minnick
MD-1 Frank Kratovil
NM-2 Harry Teague
OH-15 Mary Jo Kilroy
PA-7 OPEN (Sestak)
AL-5 Parker Griffith
CO-4 Betsy Markey
FL-8 Alan Grayson
MI-7 Mark Schauer
NV-3 Dina Titus
NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter
NH-2 OPEN (Hodes)
NY-29 Eric Massa
NC-8 Larry Kissell
OH-16 John Boccieri
OH-18 Zack Space 
VA-2 Glenn Nye
VA-5 Tom Perriello
AR-1 Marion Berry
CA-11 Jerry McNerney
CO-3 John Salazar
FL-24 Suzanne Kosmas
GA-8 Jim Marshall
NJ-3 John Adler
NY-1 Tim Bishop
NY-20 Scott Murphy
PA-4 Jason Altmire
PA-10 Chris Carney
PA-12 John Murtha 
TX-23 Ciro Rodriguez
LA-3 OPEN (Melancon) R+12

and a couple of other dem ones too...

Democrats are not going to lose TX-23, NY-01, CO-03, CA-11, AZ-01, or AZ-08.

Ciro just got elected in 2008 - he's a first term dem in incredibly unfriendly territory
Ny-01: you may be right (is that the long island district though?)
CO-03: another first term dem (i think) in unfriendly territory
CA-11: McNerney is a joke, he was elected in 2006 and 08 because of waves, we will win this back as long as we have a good candidate
AZ-01 & AZ-08: way too liberal for our districts, Giffords is making enemies left and right, her constituents dislike her. Both districts have like a 6pt republican advantage in them as well.

Ciro got elected in 2006 after the district was redrawn to be heavily Hispanic. 

CO-03 is a seat that Dems picked up in 2004(not a good year for Democrats)

And Giffords and Kirkpatrick are NOT too liberal for their districts.  They will both likely vote against healthcare and Kirkpatrick even voted against cap and trade.  AZ-01 has a large Democratic registration advantage. 

In CA-11, McNerney won by 10 points in 2008 in a seat wher Republicans have almost no bench anymore.  Not to mention Obama also carried the district handily. 

You're from Massachusetts right...Giffords has already said that she will vote for a healthcare bill with a public option.  She voted for Cap and Trade.  She does not listen to her constituents, she hides from them and does not hold open town halls.  She is always seen following Pelosi around and the district is R+4.  Stimulus, omnibus, cap and trade and healthcare are all too liberal for that district.  There are protesters in the streets in her district - she has three military guys gunning for her job.  She is going to go down in 2010.

Spare me.  Those Republicans running against her are raising almost no money. 

[Mr.Phips]

There are millions of unemployed qualified people, and Dick Morris still has a job?

Fox has a lot of time to fill bj-ing the GOP & shi$ing on Obama.

And as for the other wild claims of 40+ seat Republican pick-ups, I revert to my standard wild-speculation stopper:

What odds would you require before betting $100 on it?

I gotta set up an Intrade account this year. Lotta gullible birthers and deathers out there who's money I'd love to take.

The real money isn't made from partisans, it's from people who can't think beyond "red state, blue state, never the two shall mix."  Which is a lot of people on this forum, I'm sad to say.

Also people who stupidly thought that Romney would be VP.  That was a freakin' goldmine.

Can I include people who think Romney will ever be President (much less nominee)?

Btw, as silly as this scenario is, it's looking more realistic every day (but still obviously not very - to put it mildly - let's not get silly)

100 seats is even "a little" realistic?  For Republicans to pick up 100 seats, they would have to pick off every possible marginal Democrat and then pick off at least a few inner city districts.