Actually, I’ve given up on talking to you.

Cliff, I can see why you get annoyed with people extrapoloating, maybe incorrectly, your positions. But you come across, sometimes, as very partisan and seeing no wrong on the GOP side and no good on the Democratic side. If you just continued to engage in reasoned discussion (like your last paragraph) then you would not get as many people complaining and “picking” on you.

What is up with people on this cite making $#!t up, attributing it to me, then saying why obviously I am wrong about something that I never said?

I swear, just about every single person on this cite does this. It’s very annoying. I don’t mind defending my actual positions. I grow tired of defending positions I never took.

I never DENIED that Dems have done well in special elections in the past couple of years. That much is obvious. What I denied was that they got a clean sweep, which they didn’t. The most significant special election was in Massachusetts, and we won it. I didn’t notice Taniel’s qualifier of the DCCC.

And the idea that I have portrayed the GOP as “all conquering” is absolutely absurd to any rational reading of anything I’ve ever said around here. I’ve FREQUENTLY said I expect certain Republican candidates to lose, or that I think they will run a strong race but I recognize the odds are against them.

I have pushed back against really stupid things people have said around here, say, for example, that Dennis Moore’s retirement doesn’t really matter because the D’s are still slightly favored to hold the seat. I said that the D’s won’t likely even field a top tier challenger and won’t fund a lesser challenger. With Joe Reardon’s exit from consideration, I’ve pretty much been proven right on that seat.

The Republicans are likely to gain at least 30 seats in the house and 6-8 in the Senate. It is not out of bounds to see them retaking the House. I wouldn’t go so far as Dick Morris to say they are going to take the Senate, but it’s not really that much of a longshot then them taking the Senate in ‘80. That isn’t to say they will retake either house, just that it’s possible, very possible in the case of the house, although the odds are probably slightly less then 50/50 for the house and about 10/90 in the Senate.

With NY-20, the Republican candidate imploded. NY-23 was eerily similar, with a Conservative able to make the Republican candidate withdraw. Dede ended up endorsing Owens, so that probably put him over the top.

PA-12 has a strong Democratic bench. While the McCain won this district, albeit barely, Gore and Kerry won this district (as it is drawn now) in 2000 and 2004. However, the Republicans have the momentum on the national front. This will be a close race, and it really depends on who the candidates are. If the Democrats pick a strong candidate, it will be the Democrats race to lose. Just like it was for Coakley.

I try to remember to think about redistricting, but on this one thank you for reminding me as I completely forgot. Pennsylvania is slated to lose a congressional seat next year. While I doubt we will be able to point to one specific seat as having been eliminated (the way LA-03 is expected to be drawn out of existence in Louisiana), I imagine Western Pennsylvania’s map will be especially shuffled so whoever wins the special election might have to campaign in a different district soonafter. On the other hand: I expect there to be other freshmen congressmen in Pennsylvania come January 2011, not to mention that the potential retirements of congressmen like Kanjorski could help the legislature create more havoc in Northeastern Pennsylvania than in the Western part.

In any case, a lot will depend on who controls the legislating process. Democrats are now underdogs in the Governor’s race, which makes it critically important that they defend their tenuous House majority.