Is that a good thing or a bad thing? 
(Sorry, just never seen that phrase in that context before.)
He is starting to talk boldly and throw red meat to the public. He’s trying to create enthusiasm among the base.
Heck, I’ll take it anyway.
After what Bush did?
I think we need to avoid making Bush’s execrable performance some sort of gold standard which, so long as the Dems exceed it they are congratulated. You can do meaningfully better and still be running the country into terrible trouble.
I think he may mean that, if Republicans are reelected such that they take control of the government again, there’s no reason to think they won’t reestablish most/all of Bush’s policies and practices all over again. Thus the question becomes, do you really want that? Who really wants that?
I’m not as convinced as he is that such would be the case, but it’s a reasonable avenue of debate.
Could be. We have to seriously wonder why the Dems have been behaving in such a way as to make that seem possible.
That number has been thrown about for months now, but there are still 8 states and three territories that haven’t had primaries yet (Captain Amazing listed them here) so it’s not an entirely meaningful statistic. Yet.
And if the incumbents lose in each and every race in all eight of those states, it’d still be an overwhelming majority who win nationwide.
Rove knows that many people vote not for the one they WANT to win but for the one they THINK will win. If the Republicans put it out that the Dems will definitely lose, people will vote for Republicans so they don’t “waste” their vote.
Also, it’s easy in this “instant” society to convince people that Obama is a failure because he hasn’t solved all the world’s problems overnight, as if that were even possible.
What gets me is that all the blue dogs and placeholders in Republican districts have been deathly afraid of voting for anything the mainstream Dems want to push through, and they’re going to lose anyway. That’s a fine epitaph for a political career: “I spent two years in the House of Representatives, and can proudly say that I was a spineless coward for every minute of it!”
The main reason the Democrats will lose a LOT of seats this election is that in 2008, there was a record number of young voters that registered and voted. The majority of those voted Democrat. Those same voters are not expected to show up at the polls in 2010, primarily due to voter apathy. You add this phenomena to the growing discontent by moderate voters that voted Democrat in 2008, and there will be a huge swing in seats back to the Republicans.
Besides we tend to have better policies that get put in place, IMHO, when the executive branch and the legislative branches are not controlled by the same party.
Horsehockey. In this political environment it would lead to lead to total gridlock.
Not really. Historically when we have had divided legislative and executive branches, more moderate legislation gets passed, as opposed to extreme legislation from either party. The production of the legislative bodies has not decreased during those times…so gridlock does not occur…more compromise.
If goverment were smaller, that wouldn’t be that big of a deal. 
I still would rather see separate powers than have one single party control both branches of government.
So, how would a Republican-controlled congress pass any laws at all (much less good ones), when right now, we can’t even get them to vote on any laws at all?
Go study how legislation gets passed into law and you’ll figure it out.
Actually, this brings up an interesting point: I’ve read many who say that if the Republicans try to shut down the government again, it’ll be a repeat of '95. But had Newt not said what he did, could they have successfully blamed Clinton for it?
Well that’s one hypothesis. But during most midterms, the party holding the Presidency loses seats: the phrase is “Midterm losses”. That occurs whether or not record numbers of young voters register and vote.
The other factor is the economy: George Bush delivered us the worst recession since WWII and recovery in the job market isn’t really underway. So I’d expect a trouncing in November. If the Democrats manage to hold either the House or Senate it will only be because the Tea Partiers have managed to nominate a motley collection of loons.
Routine midterm losses, the economy and incumbency during Presidential years are the main determinants of elections. Cite. All else is empty chatter.