Healthcare reform was a major issue in the elction campaign and the overall direction was clear to people. Most reputable polling companies show the public option to have over 50% support. Reducing the troop presence in Iraq is also popular - if people are tired of Afghanistan then they sure as hell are tired of Iraq. Personally I think we should send more troops into Afghanistan but that isn`t the issue.

The Democrats will retain the Senate with a healthy majority. In the house they will lose seats but it will not be 1994. Obama has not made the mis-steps that Clinton id d(gays in the military, Hillary secretly drawing up healthcare reform etc). So I don`t see a “big” backlash as you call it. Maybe your definition of big is bigger than mine. The average loss is around 20 seats, I don`t expect a greater than average loss - do you?
Remember the GOP is still rushing rightwards and people identifying as Republicans has not increased and stays below 30%.

I agree Gitmo may not be closed. Having to deal with all the open legal questions left by the Bush administration takes time. Even the Supremem court (with a Conservative majority) asked for changes, not once but three times. There I was thinking the GOP was the party of law and order - then comply with the Supreme Court rulings!

Anyway by your reason Obama can do what he likes because he has a solid majority. Bush pushed through stuff with only 51 senators and narrow 2000 and 2004 elections.

I favored GWB’s Social Security reforms, but I never kidded myself into thinking they were popular or that he had a mandate to do it.

Anyhow, keep telling yourself that. None of the things you mentioned polls above 50% with any degree of consistency. And there isn’t a single seasoned political observer that is even remotely objective that isn’t saying ‘10 is going to be a bad year for D’s.

If you actually think you are going to win running on the stimulus, the public option and Iraq, I pray to God that every Democrat in America takes your advise. Retaking the House will be a cakewalk.

And Obama won for two reasons: 1. He’s not George Bush, 2. He was likable and sold a vague, vapid message of “change”. I doubt even half the people who voted for him could explain with any degree of accuracy what any of his policy proposals are.

Oh, and he won’t have closed Gitmo by ‘10 either.

In terms of Grayson, that district has a Cook PVI of R+2: Bush won that district 55-44 in 2004, while Obama won it by 52-47, so Bush actually won and outperformed Obama, while in Defazio’s district OR-04 Kerry at least won that district narrowly, showing a consistent Democratic lean. So conventional wisdom should be that Grayson should be very vulernable despite Obama’s 08 victory, which makes the GOP’s recruiment troubles in that district all the more harrowing. I strong recruit against Grayson would be worth 4 of the recruitments that Republicans have been getting against very strong incumbents as Grayson would actually be in trouble if only he gets a strong opponnet.

I’m just hoping ‘10 is a big enough backlash to carry him over the finish line. If current trends keep up and Norton/McInnis are victorious, it’ll help him. But that’s obviously a huge “if”.

We go back to the issue of whether the 04 or the 08 results should be trusted when discussing a district’s partisan leanings - Co-07 voted for Obama by 19%, but it was also tighter in 2004 than PA-07 was. Also, I would not agree with your statement that the district was created for him: He was expected to run in 2002, yes, but because he was considered the Democrats’ strongest candidate not because the point of CO-07’s creation was that he get a House seat.