If I may wear my political analyst hat for just a minute...

There’s been quite a bit of hand wringing among Democrats and liberals when it comes to this November’s midterm elections. So many people seem convinced that Democrats are poised to take over the house, and possibly even the senate, simply because Republicans have had so many bungles and missteps lately.

Many have been comparing the political climate to 1994, when Republicans took back the House for the first time in four decades.

While I do believe that Republicans will lose seats in the House this year (and in many cases deserve to) I simply do not believe that the Democrats will be able to wrest away control of the House from the Republicans.

First of all, the current division of the House of Representatives is 232-203, in favor of the Republicans. Thus, the Democrats would need to have a net gain (or the Republicans a net loss) of 15 seats for there to be a change of control. As it stands now, this is simply not going to happen.

People often make the mistake of assuming that simply because Republicans have been getting a lot of bad press lately that it’ll turn into votes for the Democrats. But that’s not how it works.

Not to state the obvious, but representatives are not elected nationally — they’re elected locally. Meaning, the feeling towards Republicans in New York is wholly irrelevant to congressional candidates in Texas. Moreover, the feeling towards any party or candidate in congress is wholly irrelevant everywhere other than his or her district. Party affiliation really doesn’t mean a whole lot in House elections. It’s mostly name recognition and approval of the incumbent.

This actually bodes well for Republicans because the incumbent election rate is approaching 100 percent and 95 percent of incumbents are running for reelection.

Also, the Democrats lack a leadership figure that the Republicans had in New+ Gingrich. Nancy Pe|osi is no New+ Gingrich. Also, the idea of “Speaker Nancy Pe|osi” should keep the Democrat higher-ups awake at night.

With the most visible Democrat Senator being a liberal woman from New York and the Democrat Party chairman being an angry liberal from Vermont (with a tendency to put his foot in his mouth), the addition of a San Francisco liberal to the majority leadership post in the House would complete what I’ll call a “Trifecta of Doom” for the Democrats. More on that later.

Of course, a lot can happen between now and November, but Democrats don’t need to be buying Champagne for election night just yet. Provided the economy doesn’t crash and President Bush doesn’t do something like…I dunno…invade Great Britain, I’d venture a guess that things will stay roughly the way they are now.

I won’t bore you with many details, but suffice it to say Democrats are going to be disappointed on election night — again. In my semi-professional opinion, I can see the Republicans losing up to ten seats, but still maintaining control of the House. I’d actually be willing to bet on it. I also reserve to right to tweak my predictions as we approach November.

Side note: The real fun is going to begin in 2010 (no poetry intended) when House seats are taken from New York and Pennsylvania and given to Texas and Utah. Yee haw.