Indeed, some Democrats worry that the worst-case scenario may be winning control of Congress by a slim margin, giving them responsibility without real authority. They might serve as a foil to Republicans and President Bush, who would be looking for someone to share the blame. Democrats need a net gain of 6 seats in the Senate, and 15 seats in the House. "The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House and 3 or 4 seats in the Senate but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government," said Tony Coelho, a former House Democratic whip. "We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut. This way, they get blamed for everything."
Mr. Coelho quickly added, "Obviously, from a party point of view we want to get in and do things, but I'm talking about the ideal political thing."
Of course, no Democrat is going so far as to say that he or she hopes the party fails, and party leaders are doing everything they can to avoid this outcome.
No Democrat hopes the party fails, but "some Democrats" - unnamed- "worry that the worst-case scenario may be winning control of Congress?"
Nonsense, and it's telling that Nagourney quotes the usual Beltway suspects here, without actually making his case.
Look, suppose the Dems take the House and not the Senate: it gives them the ability to demand a platform of equal height to the Repubs everywhere, since Mr. About-30% is a lame duck who will himself be under "increasing scrutiny."
What a waste of virtual newsprint.