There are millions of unemployed qualified people, and Dick Morris still has a job?
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.
Not quite that bad. But almost. Hypothetically, a sign of a 100 seat landslide would be if Tierney is elected Senator in MA and the GOP picks up his House seat. MA-6 is exactly the type of district the GOP would have to win in order to pick up a 100 seats.
This is far from impossible. The GOP held basically the same district from 1993-1997, and McCain got 40%, but I doubt anyone would have it on a list of seats likely to flip. Actually, with two pseudo-serious Republicans like Mihos and Brown in the race the MA Senate race should be a decent barometer, especially if the nominee is a generic liberal like Tierney, Markey or Capuano, rather than Coakley.
