The number of house GOP seats that are considered "competitive" has increased from 24 to 36.

It is questionable, especially from a give up perspective, whether or not a Democratic takeover of the house would be productive in the long term, as the NYT discussed in the last weekend edition. Would it really be beneficial for Democrats to take over one wing of the the legislative branch giving us symbolic, but no real power? Wouldn't that just mean that Democrats will become a scapegoat, blamed for all the Republicans' problems without actually being able to affect any real change?

I'm beginning to feel that unless the Democrats can take both the Senate and the House it will lead only to more trouble for the party. While we'll all privately celebrate Conyers' investigation of the White House's misbehavior, the oversight finally being brought to bear will just be seen as an attack on the president, and by proxy, the soldiers (you know that's what they'll say, whether anyone believes that shit or not anymore). Republican failures can then be blamed on obstructionist Democrats, and the dirt they dig up will just be called partisan slander. I almost feel as though this train wreck of an administration needs to complete its damage before it's ok for us to take over. Anything else will just allow Democrats to be soiled with the failures of these do-nothing incompetents.

Then again, I am a proponent of giving up. It's a real toss-up. If you hate America, I still think voting Republican is the way to go, but if you hate the Democrats, a house takeover might be a blessing in disguise.