Are you kidding me???

Look at the numbers. Look at the potential upticket numbers (even with unelectable Hillary upticket).

we'll EASILY win 15 seats. Even with Hillary upticket.

Do some math. Take a poli-sci class...

Anything is possible this far out.  But look at the facts.  We have 1 competitive open seat, they have at least 10.  That's a huge built-in advantage.  Even if we lose some freshman in tough districts, we'll probably make that up in the open seats.

Plus, I take issue some on that list.  Tim Walz, Melissa Bean, Paul Kanjorski, Ciro Rodriguez, John Yarmuth and Giffords will more than likely get reelected. McNerney, Tim Mahoney, Jim Marshall and a few others could be very tough but there are plenty of Republican incumbents we can beat.  Not to mention the DCCC has a cash advantage and 2008 will be a Democratic year.  I bet we gain 7-15 seats.

I give Baron Hill a 55% chance of winning his race.  His opponent (again) is Mike Sodrel, who held the seat for a term in 2004-2006.  He annoyed a lot of people for pretty much closing up his offices after the election he lost and not representing the district.

The more interesting one will be IN-07, which will be having a special election on March 11th to fill the seat of Julia Carson, who passed away.  Her grandson was slated for the Dems, and the Republican's have a really young go-getter running.    Andre Carson will probably win the special, but the General Election is going to be interesting.  Heck the primary is going to be interesting.

Interesting and Hoosier politics....this never happens! :)

On the races as a whole, the Republican's have so many incumbent retiring, that they are going to have enough trouble retaining the those seats, not to mention working competitive races.  They're having major trouble raising money, too, and there is rumblings of a scandal brewing with the money they have raised.

The bottom line is if this was not a presidential year, the Democrats would probably be facing the possibility of losing seats.  The fact is they have not accomplished all that much after being handed a pretty sizable mandate in 2006.  Bush, a president with approval ratings in the 30s the last two years, has still managed to accomplish most of what he wanted to get done.  Nancy Pelosi is damn lucky the presidential race is eating up a lot of the media attention...

Uh, no.  Gallup's polling released yesterday, which I think pushes leaners, had the generic Congressional ballot at 55% Democratic, 41% Republican.  

I'm more interested in the remaining 4% than the fact that the center 10% will, given the choice this far out, always claim to be neutral to pollsters.  Everyone wants to know how they lean, not what they are doing: we all know they are nice people who will make their definite decisions very late when they "have all the information" or whatever it is they claim they need.

I don't trust their polls in general. I wouldn't read too much into it.

It's true that any time you have a lot of freshmen, you're going to have vulnerabilities. But the Republicans have what is it--29 retiring members, many in competitive districts? We'll be fine.

More the reason why you vote Obama upticket ...

If Jim Marshall can't even stand with us on SCHIP, then I really question the point of holding that seat (provided he's the nominee in '08).

I tend to agree with the bulk of the posts here, that the danger to the Democratic majority in the House is not in great jeopardy.  We should continue playing offense.

NEVER EVER THINK THAT YOU HAVE IT IN THE BAG!!! Hubris will be our downfall.

This is just crazy talk...barring an improbable GOP Presidential landslide with long and well-tailored coattails, there is no chance of the Democrats losing the required number of seats.  Republican incumbents are retiring in their droves; they see the writing on the wall.  Looks like the first Pres-House-Senate trifecta for the Democrats since 1993-95.