"Can Democrats Hold the House By Winning on the Margins?"

[Clio the Leo]

And anyone who's read David Plouffe's book, or followed closely the strategy behind the President's 2008 primary campaign will recognize this ...

Can Democrats Hold the House By Winning on the Margins?
October 06, 2010 7:31 AM

ABC News' Amy Walter reports:

At a meeting with reporters yesterday afternoon a senior Democrat walked through the “untold story” of the 2010 election. While conceding that Republicans will gain seats in November, this Democrat contends that there are four significant, but underreported factors that will help Democrats hold the majority.

1) No Shut-Out: Democrats have 23 seats where they are playing offense. Of that list, they expect to win at least five seats. That would mean that Republicans would need to win at least 44 seats, not the 39 that currently separates Republicans from the majority.

2) Tea Party Problems: Democrats also point to a number of places where the Tea Party candidate upset the more electable GOP contender. While not as high-profile as their Senate counterparts (and none, as far as we know, has talked about witches or masturbation), these candidates, says this Democrat, are out of the mainstream.

3) Field Of Dreams: Then there’s the field game. For weeks now, Democrats have argued that despite being vastly outspent by outside groups on the airwaves, the GOP has not invested in the ground game like Democrats have. For example, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters yesterday that organized labor is making its presence known on the ground and tailored specifically to their members.

4) Split The Difference: Finally, there’s the 3rd party factor. There will be “lots of incumbents who’ll be re-elected with less than 50 percent,” said this Democrat who pointed to nine races where a third party candidate could siphon off enough votes to help a vulnerable Democrat squeak to victory.

So, will this work? In recent days both Democrats and Republicans have sought to tamp down talk that the GOP has “locked down” enough seats to gain control of the House. The most recent ABC/Washington Post poll showed a tightening in the generic ballot question – though Republicans still hold a significant 6 point lead. And, in 2006, the last time party control switched in the House, we saw plenty of races that were won/lost on the margins like this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/can-democrats-hold-the-house-by-winning-on-the-margins.html

[Tippy]

1. K&R

[Stuart G]

2. Look at number 1 and 2..very very true..

[FBaggins]

4. #2 almost certainly is... but #1 doesn't make sense to me.

See my post below. I can't think of anywhere near that many races where we're "on offense" (or even should be).

[FBaggins]

3. Yes, they can. It's not the most likely outcome, but there's a real chance.

But it involves energizing the base and getting people to show up (#3 on this list) more than anything else.

#1) - I'd love to see that list of 23 seats where we're "on offense".

DE is obviously on there... as are the 1st in HI, the LA 2nd, and the IL 10th. There's an open seat in FL that's in play. That makes five.

Dan Lungren's seat in CA has been mentioned once or twice. The only poll I've seen was a PPP poll showing him up by eight (though under 50%).

I'm not sure what they mean by "playing offense", but I can't think of 17 other races where we should be spending any money.