I’m going write that down and keep it close in the event I ever need to cheer myself up over the next few months.

And there will be no wave this year. The wave was 2006, when people were voting D to send a message to Bush. No more Bush, no more wave.

The Governor thing is a much bigger problem than any national wave. Especially the idea of the loser of the D primary running around and campaigning for down-ballot candidates for two months.

That said, the historical evidence shows it’s awful tough to unseat a legislative incumbent in a Presidential year.

Valihura sometimes can’t resist proving that he’s the smartest person in the room, and sometimes it’s to his detriment. For example, I think he was right on the group home issue, but you don’t have to say it in a way that insults his Dartmouth Woods constituents ( swing-Republican ED, BTW) without suffering a political price. He is more of a negotiator/middle ground-type than Lavelle in Dover, but he comes across as full of himself in the District. If Democratic voters in the Naamans Road/Claymont ED’s come out in proportionate numbers, he could well lose.

Lavelle could as well, but for a little different reason. In a district trending more Democratic, Lavelle’s positions are often more partisan than the District. Someone who can wrap the current negatives of the Republican brand around him can win. It’s less likely, but, having been through two wave elections, I can tell you that the traditional benchmarks don’t apply.

An awful lot of mediocre Democratic candidates got elected post-Watergate. With an imploding economy already adding to a disastrous Presidency, and with no credible candidate for Governor, this could be the year of the perfect storm even for some accomplished and quality Republican incumbents.

In any case, neither has been enough of a polarizing force to outweigh the benefits of incumbency, IMHO. Unless, as you note, a D wave of scouring proportions roars through.

R’s could well find themselves in jeopardy in the 10th and 11th RDs as well. The shift in voter registration is pretty stark. The 10th (Valihura) flipped from an R to D registration edge right around the 2006 election, and there is now a 600 D registration edge in the District.

The 11th (Lavelle) has dropped to an R edge of around 75. It is likely that it will flip in the next 2 or 3 months.

If D’s are able to find credible candidates in those districts, Valihura and Lavelle could well be in trouble, especially if it turns out to be a wave election.

The people I’m talking about are the demagogues who cry about single mothers and fixed-income retirees being trampled on by greedy robber-baron park owners. The people who throw that out don’t care about Krugman’s legitimate argument.

I concede that this is a legitimate argument.

In this state at this time, I don’t think people care that it’s terrible economics. Not when the demagogues are having such an easy time of it.

Have you ever noticed that you and I are the only people who ever concede a point?

Just an observation.

On the other hand, they recognized the Biden name but not Wharton, so that’s a point for your contention. But I’ll stick with my prediction that in a Short-Bowers race, where most voters will recognize neither name, the D will win simply because of the big letter next to his name. With nobody running for governor, this is shaping up as a dreadful year for down-ballot Republicans.

On the other hand, that’s not what the Delaware bill did — or, rather, that’s not all it did. It also allowed increases based on improvements to the premises. If there are any “rent control” systems around the country that allow this, I’m unaware of them. Indeed, that’s one of the many problems with rent-controlled apartments — there’s no incentive other than the bare minimum of the building code to encourage landlords to improve their property.

You should at least acknowledge that this was an attempt by the tenants to handle the myriad problems with government inserting itself into the real estate market.

You also might better use your effort on rent control by forgetting about the language used and highlighting the widespread agreement among economists over what a terrible idea it is.