Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Connecticut May Be a Barometer on Election Night

For the last year strategists in both parties have debated which of the three House races in Connecticut represents Democrats' best chance of a takeover on Nov. 7.

By the numbers, it's the eastern Connecticut 2nd District which Rep. Rob Simmons (R) has held since 2000, despite the fact that it was carried by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) with 54 percent in 2004. By the level of attention from national Democrats its the 4th District where Rep. Chris Shays (R) is trying to fend off 2004 nominee Dianne Farrell (D).

But, by the polling (and the motto of The Fix could well be "In polling we trust"), it is Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) in the northwestern Connecticut 5th District who appears to be in the most dire of straits.

A new poll commissioned by the Hartford Courant and released today shows state Sen. Chris Murphy (D) ahead of Johnson 46 percent to 42 percent. (Recent surveys conducted for the Courant showed Simmons leading 2002 nominee Joe Courtney 46 percent to 44 percent and Shays and Farrrell tied at 43 percent.)

Johnson's long tenure in Congress -- she has served in Washington since 1982 -- appears to be working against her in the eyes of voters. Forty-six percent of those tested agreed with the idea that "electing challengers is a good idea because they offer change," while just 30 percent thought "electing incumbents is a good idea because they offer experience." Twenty-two percent were undecided on that question.

The incumbent is also struggling to shed the baggage of President George W. Bush's dismal approval numbers in the state. Thirty-five percent of 5th District voters approved of Bush's job performance, while 61 percent disapproved. As we've seen time and again in national and district-level surveys, just 19 percent "approved" of the job Bush was doing while 49 percent "strongly disapproved" -- suggesting an imbalance in energy between the two party bases. Johnson's approve/disapprove is healthier (45 approve/42 disapprove), but 77 percent of those tested said she "follows the Republican party line set by President Bush" either "very closely" (34 percent) or "somewhat closely" (47 percent).

All of those internal measures spell trouble for Johnson. And remember that the Courant poll comes after Johnson has already spent more than $4 million on her re-election campaign, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission earlier this month. At that time, Murphy had spent roughly half of Johnson's total.

If the political environment is as bad in Connecticut as it appears nationally for Republicans, it may not matter how much Johnson spends. What once looked like Johnson's trump card -- her long experience in Congress and the campaign cash that it can produce -- now is working against her. And Murphy's biggest weakness -- he is 32 and looks 22 -- may actually be accruing to his benefit.

Republican strategists privately acknowledge that Johnson is in a dog fight and are clearly worried about her chances. If you're looking for a way to grade how large (or small) Democratic gains will be on election day, Connecticut is a very good place to look. Win zero or one seat and Democrats may come up short of the 15 seats they need nationally to take control. Win two and the majority looks likely. Win all three and a gain of 25 seats or more is possible.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 30, 2006; 1:06 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Congressional Countdown: Beyond the Top 35 House Races
Next: Duncan Hunter for President?


All the shows are talking about the 'November Surprise' - will we hear from Osama before the elections - and if so - how will it affect the results? In the last two elections, it has been bad news for the Dems when Osama shows up just before an election - and while I think it would be the same this time around, I don't think the effect would be as great - maybe this is just wishful thinking. I know the Republicans are 'hoping' for a BIG thing before next Tues - what utter chaos that would be!

Posted by: star11 | October 31, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with PG on endorsements. Al Wynn use to be able to deliver votes in droves, yet his slate did not win the primary. Jack Johnson's slate did not win either. Rushern Bakers backers did not win.

Developers moneies have bought this county council. Look at their finance reports.

The main point I would make is there is not one faction or person who can deliver votes in PG.

On the other hand, the power brokers to be are all in the house and senate delegation that is primarily Democratic. It is this delegation that will deliver votes for Cardin not the county council members. I think you really misjudge where the power resides in PG COunty.

Steele is seen as a puppet of the GOP. No substance and no actual following.

On the otherhand, Ike Leggett is well respected in Montgomery Co. As far as bad ideas, the council will keep him in check. The man is honest, has integrity, and has served Montgomery Co. very well.. that's why he won the primary because Mont. Co residents know this.

Odd, I don't see anything on this site that seems to make their endorsements newsworthy.

Posted by: Stick A Fork In It | October 31, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

re: Carl Spitz, October 30, 2006 09:48 PM

You're misreading the Connecticut Senatorial race....

1) The race is between Lieberman (I) and Lamont (D). Alan Schlesinger is absolutely no factor, with poll numbers that are within the margin of error of zero (really -- he's in single digits). The Republicans are backing Lieberman.
2) Lieberman is (relatively) safely ahead.

The real "problem" with Lieberman is that, while he insists he'll caucus with the Democrats, he has huge political debts to pay to the Republicans and he's so self-interested he'll sell to the highest bidder. I really wouldn't be surprised if he pulled a Jeffords (as an independant, at least Lieberman wouldn't have to leave the Democratic party -- just break his campaign promises) and jumped to the Republican caucus if the Democrats ended up with 51 seats in the Senate.

Posted by: Mike Rose | October 31, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Stick a fork in it,

I too have to dispute your assesment of the PG county council knowing something about the subject since I have had business before the council. There are some very strong minded individuals on that council that are beholden to no-one. They also have a pretty loyal following. Nice spin but I think this is a significant endorsement for the reasons the above poster stated.

Posted by: TG | October 31, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Stick a Fork In It:

I live in PG County now - this council is not beholden developers - believe me. My husband and I ahve been fighting to build a house in the rural tier for about 1 1/2 yrs - the Coucil has made it all but impossible to do so - and are putting more legislation in place to 'keep the rural tier pristine' - I think you are wrong about the African-American population in this county. There are too many who are angry that Mfume didn't win the primary. The same this is going on in Montgomery County - Ike Leggett will be elected County Executive simply because he is African-American - he has got some really bad ideas but he will win. Please do not misunderstand me - I am not rascist but to elect someone based on the color of his skin is a huge problem and the most short-sighted strategy that I ever heard. How ironic - the exact opposite of what will happen in TN - I guess that is what will make it interesting for Obama's decision (although at least he is in their best interest for President).

Posted by: star11 | October 31, 2006 7:11 AM | Report abuse

PG County Council members have absolutely no sway on voting. These are a bunch of puppet heads bought and paid for by developers in PG County. I know, I lived there.

As far a polls, I am looking at three trends. One such trend I see staying is the sheer number of Governors races that are turning DEM as well as blowouts in other states with DEM Governors. I also see the same where GOP have Governors in power. Bottom line, with few exceptions, GOP is in trouble almost everywhere. Here is what I am basing my estimates on:

States where DEM's will likely take over governorship. New York, Massachussetts, Ohio, Arkansas, Maryland, and Colorado. Folks this is not insignificant and gets overlooked in a lot of discussion. Governors through control of the purse strings can affect the outome in close races (Bush 2000, Blackwell Ohio 2004). However, my larger point is I think these races are the real barometer on predicting the Nov. 7 outcome. Look at these state/house relationships.

NEW YORK: Spitzer and HRC replacing GOP Pataki. Where is the GOP in NY. Its not happening here. Reynolds, Sweeney, Kelly, and even King is running close. Acuri is leading in the open GOP seat. Min. house change 3, most 5 if a tidal wave hits.

PENNYSLVANIA: Rendell is crushing Lynn Swann. Sherwood, Kelly, Hart, Weldon, McSweeney, are all in trouble. Min. House 3 shift, tidal wave 5.

OHIO: GOP is done here, stick a fork in it. All that is left is to determine how thorough the house cleaning is going to be. Schmidt, Chabot, Ney's seat, Pryce, Tiberi are all in trouble. Min. 3 seats switch, tidal wave 5.

Ohio, PA, and NY alone can win house for DEMS,

The second trend is the moderate GOP candidates are in real trouble in Northeast and Midwest. There are few if any moderate GOP candidates in the South and interior west. Look at CT and IN for proof, 3 candidates in each state.

The last trend is really not a trend rather the obvious pickups due to screw ups. Foley, Delay, Cunningham, and Ney are four.

It is this prevalent information that has been consistent for many weeks in polls that I sincerely believe the House is GOP.

On the Senate, new polls suggest that maybe Allen is NOT pulling away from Webb after all. Missouri is tied. With all the mudslinging and outrageous amounts of dollars spent by the GOP, this is not a positive sign in these two states. I am curious about Ford in TN to see if there has been.

What is starting to emerge for me is there is not much in the way of positve, independently confirmed, GOP news one week before the election. Only Bush, Rove, and Fox News are pumping the victory wagon.

Am I missing something here, but should there not be some proof in their claims of 'staying the course by now'? or are they still in a "state of denial"?

Posted by: Stick A Fork In It | October 30, 2006 11:38 PM | Report abuse

The Black Democrats of MD, as well as all the African-American members of the PG County council, have just endorsed Steele for the open Senate seat - can I just ask - What the h*** are they thinking? Are they so blinded by the color of his skin to think that he will represent their issues in the Senate? What a huge mistake this is for all groups involved. This could be huge - two weeks ago I started to feel that Steele would take this race while no one was looking. . .today I felt pretty good when the Rasmussen poll came out - but now - I am about to write it off.
Obama is in PG County Fri to campaign for
Cardin . . .

Posted by: star11 | October 30, 2006 10:17 PM | Report abuse

democrats have little leadership
but are you really going to trust cheney-rove
after the last 6 years?

Posted by: a new reader | October 30, 2006 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Dear GOP faithful:

Sucks to be you.

Repeat after me. . . "Speaker Pelosi."

Makes the vomit rise in the back of your throat, doesn't it? Well, good.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | October 30, 2006 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Let's not overlook Joe Lieberman's re-election bid for the Senate as an Independent. He might just make it and become a pivotal figure in the Senate should it become more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. But even if he loses, he is still likely to draw votes away from the new Democratic candidate for Senate. Coincidentally, his namesake Avigdor Lieberman was today approved as Deputy Prime Minister of Israel by the Knesset. However, this Lieberman stands so far to the right of Joe, he makes Joe look like a left-wing liberal. Avigdor Lieberman aims to redraw Israels's map so as to exclude areas inhabited by Israeli Arabs while incorporating Jewish settlements currently outside Israel's borders. But getting back to Joe Lieberman and Connecticut politics - I wouldn't count him out just yet!

Posted by: Carl Spitz | October 30, 2006 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I agree, CT will be interesting to watch.

As a former Ohioan, my eyes will be on Ohio. Will the republicans steal the vote again in that state? Is Ken Blackwell still in charge of the election, even after all the bs last time?

I read an article recently about an elderly black man who stood in the rain for four hours waiting to vote in 2004, and finally he had to give up. He felt bad because he's never missed an election-- so he filed absentee this year, just to make sure his vote is counted. Now this year they are having trouble with their absentee voter system.

What about other states with similar problems? I do not doubt the polls, I doubt our electoral system.

Posted by: emma | October 30, 2006 9:11 PM | Report abuse

BT is right; we also had 3 presidents in 1841.

Canadians are quite happy with wealth redistribution; moreover, it's illegal for non-US citizens to donate to US political campaigns or committees. They can only look south of the border and shake their heads at what the dumb buffoons running the country do.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 9:11 PM | Report abuse


Yes, you are correct about everything. The GOP has surely trimmed federal spending and would never stand for a large federal govt. like those evil Dems. Non-defense discretionary spending has grown faster in the 2000s than in the 1990s, I believe faster than any time since the Johnson admin. If Democrats are tax-and-spenders, the Republicans have become tax-cut-and-spenders, which I think is worse - but very politically popular (give people tax breaks and pork at the same time - guns, butter, and CASH). Get your own fiscal house in order - you've had 12 years in Congress and six in the White House, before bashing Democrats for inflating federal spending, which they haven't had control of for more than a decade. Oh wait, now I remember, this same thing happened during the last two Republican administrations. Perhaps, if you thought a little longer before hitting the "submit" button, you could improve your spelling as well as your arguments.

Stop believing Sean Hannity is "fair and balanced."

Posted by: The Goose | October 30, 2006 8:55 PM | Report abuse

GOP machines now vote flipping in early voting: vote flipping in Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arkansas. So Rove tells us the GOP GOTV is worth 7-8% and most every sane person knows it = maybe 1-2%. Gee, I guess Rove needs to get the naive kids in the NeoCon press thinking up some new bs line to tell us immediately after the election how it is possible that even though the GOP was in trouble in right-wing Idaho, Wyoming and Montana they somehow "won".

Posted by: Crack Corn | October 30, 2006 8:35 PM | Report abuse

GOP machines now vote flipping in early voting: vote flipping in Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arkansas. So Rove tells us the GOP GOTV is worth 7-8% and must every sane person knows it = maybe 1-2%. Gee, I guess Rove needs to get the naive kids in the NeoCon press thinking up some new bs line to tell us immediately after the election how it is possible that even though the GOP was in trouble in right-wing Idaho, Wyoming and Montana they somehow "won".

Posted by: Crack Corn | October 30, 2006 8:35 PM | Report abuse

watch the PA 8th CD
if Pat Murphy wins it could be part of a sweep of the Philly suburbs by the Democrats. Murphy is the weakest Democratic link in the chain and the rising tide will even lift this boat
Jason Altimire in the Pittsburgh area is giving his best shot to Melissa Hart. Could be lights outs out for the GOP on both ends of the state

Posted by: larry otter | October 30, 2006 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Political Junkie, I concede that Real Clear Politics has a helpful compilation of recent polls. (Of course, so does )

But anyone who falls for RCP's race rankings might as well be divining the future with animal entrails. Case in point: in OH-18, the polls over the past month consistently show Space (D) up 7-9 points over Padgett, yet RCP can't bring itself to concede this is a Likely Dem seat. No, it's Lean Dem.

Same story for NM-1: polls for the past month consistently show Madrid (D) up 3-10 points, but is it even Lean Dem? Nope, it's Toss-Up, of course.

This isn't Real Clear -- more like the product of a little too much everclear.

Posted by: mark | October 30, 2006 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow, this is amazing I have been reading a lot of Blogs lately and I haven't seen so many people ready to start a fight in all my life and I have been around for quite a while. This is the most polarized I have seen this country in all my life. I went to the Washington Times and the Blogs are dead compared to here. I mean so you of crying is so pathetic that it makes me sick. If you can't just speak about things and you have to cry, scream and holler it kind of makes me wonder. The squeaky wheel at first gets the oil after a while you just replace the whole car. It looks like replacement is going to take place this year. I live in Florida and I used to live in Stuart I never voted for Mark Foley because I had the sad misfortune of meeting him. He had something wrong with him from the start and I would tell my friends this but they said it was just me. I am now very glad that I didn't vote for him and now I am glad that there is a change in this country.

Posted by: Sam | October 30, 2006 8:10 PM | Report abuse

yah, really karen, are you zouk?

R's lose on the 7th but find a way to sue themselves into power...just like 2004.

Posted by: drndl | October 30, 2006 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with a number of the other posters. I think the beltway has seriously underestimated how poisoned the well is, how deep the mistrust is, and how angry people are.

I think if there's only 25 House and 6 Senate seats shift that it's remarkable - I'm thinking it's more like 50 House and 8 Senate.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | October 30, 2006 7:33 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: Have you heard of the word deficit? It is apparent by your comments that you do not agree with the Dem's platform. Well you have that right to think that! Take a look at this objectively, if you can, you were talking about some 7 percent and 1.5 percent tax and so on. My amigo, this iraq thing has costed us 400B so far, and we are not close to any end in spending there. Then like you balance your check book at home, someone has to do that in the federal you have any suggestions as to fund all the projects, like Iraq, Katrina, and what ever else which might occur? You probably eill laugh, but you know Clinton did leave office with a surplus and he started with a deficit!! Let us talks facts!! Also the minimum wage that a few unfortunate Americans are on, the Rep's culd not increase it and made it part of Estate tax abolition. What does estate tax and minimum wage have in common? You know if the Rep's do loose on Nov 7th, which I hope, it is because we are dealing with an incomptetant executive branch and legislative branch!!! You SEE

Posted by: You SEE | October 30, 2006 7:30 PM | Report abuse


I live in Cheshire, and I can tell you it is split right down the middle, 50/50, just as it was in the last election (Bush won it by 300 votes). Considering it's one of the wealthiest towns in the district, this shows how much trouble Republicans have overall in the state. Yard signs are about 50/50, and this is probably the least Democratic part of Murphy's state Senate district.

I didn't think Johnson would have much trouble this year, but Murphy is very likeable, and Johnson's negative ads are starting to hurt her "grandma" image (especially those damning security ones, the one that looked and sounded like a video game, and the new one that actually features an actor portraying Murphy). Many people think she has been in Congress too long, and since she has only represented half of the district since 2002, she hasn't really developed any love from many residents. The fact that Chris Shays seems to always be on tv while Johnson has no national prominence after 24 years is also hurting her credibility with voters.

I agree with you on Shays, and how he is one of the most respected politicians in the state, but this year he seems to have lost it, especially with his Iraq flipping and his recent strange comments about Chappaquidick and Abu Ghirab. I say he loses.

Simmons will win, mostly because he has the sub base working in his favor. Actually it's amazing how every politician in CT saved that thing (except Johnson, she missed the meeting...), but Simmons will carry some goodwill off of that. (As an aside, he promised the base would NOT be on the list if reelected in 2004, yet for some reason Courtney hasn't mentioned this, and hasn't also mentioned the fact that Simmons crows about saving jobs, while staying mum about the lack of creation of new ones.

Dems pick up 2 of 3, CT-04 because of national environment, CT-05 because of discontent with Johnson, and CT-02 because Simmons has his stuff together.

Posted by: Dan | October 30, 2006 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter,

So true, all of that blue is just plain beautiful!!

Posted by: Political Junkie3 | October 30, 2006 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Political Junkie: So much BLUE in those results. Very interesting stuff.

Examples: Klein up 6 on incumbent Shaw in FL 22; Shuler up 9 on incumbent Taylor in NC 11;
Gillibrand up 11 on incumbent Sweeney in NY 20; Yarmuth up 6 on incumbent Northrup in KY 3 (another poll has the exact opposite, Northrup up 6); and best of all, Strickland up 22 in OHIO Gov race.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 7:17 PM | Report abuse

response to (Zathras | October 30, 2006 01:18 PM)

True, but I don't trust a Republican party with Karl Rove. And polls are polls. Factoring in the margin of error, there's still time to overcome a 5 point deficit. The bottom line is that Dems have to keep on keepin' on, and expect the worst of the worst from Repubs. Due to the failings of their radical rightwing agenda, they're desperate. Expect desperate measures from Repubs, during the next week.

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | October 30, 2006 7:17 PM | Report abuse


Last week the GOP threw everything at the DEMS. Polls are not moving significantly in the GOP direction regardless of how much money is being spent. In fact, they seem to be falling back to early Oct. numbers that factored in the Foley. Dems may not have the lead in money, but they are fending off this onslaught of distortion. What I think has happened is the GOP went over the top on negativity. All the news shows focused on the Ford Ad, the XXX ad, Michael J. Fox-Limbaugh. From the appearance of things, the GOP's message that DEMS would raise taxes has been muted. Nothing is sticking. The reign of the neocons is coming to a close. Stick a fork in it.

Posted by: Stick a fork In it | October 30, 2006 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 7:08 PM | Report abuse

If you love getting your daily fix of polls and can't wait for RMill to provide us a dose, check out the following website. Its a well-respected site by both sides of the aisle. It has the latest Rasmussen polls, which includes the Allen/Webb race. Weeee!

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 30, 2006 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Karen, you silly twit. You miss the point completely.

This "blue blue" state has three incumbent GOP representatives, all of whom are in very close races. The Dems need only 15 pickups to take the House. You do the math -- if your peabrain is up to the task.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 7:00 PM | Report abuse

While I agree that polls are polls, I can't help it. I love 'em. Anyway, the latest Rasmussen poll, released today, has Webb up by 5 points. Weeeeee! Go Webb!

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 30, 2006 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"sue themselves into power"

count on them trying this again.

It was Bush VS. Gore, not Gore VS. Bush.

Posted by: The Smart Nutmegger | October 30, 2006 6:57 PM | Report abuse

yah, really karen, are you zouk?

R's lose on the 7th but find a way to sue themselves into power...just like 2004.

Posted by: drndl | October 30, 2006 6:56 PM | Report abuse

In Virginia's U.S. Senate race, Raising Kaine reports on an as-yet-unreleased Rasmussen Reports poll that shows Jim Webb (D) leading Sen. George Allen (R-VA), 51% to 46%.

These results are similar to a new DSCC poll done by Garin Hart Yang (D) that shows Webb leading Allen by five points, 43% to 38%.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 30, 2006 6:52 PM | Report abuse

TG: Nice try at covering, but your house is made of glass.

It wasn't the newspapers who decided the 2000 election; it was the Supreme Court.

Next time think, before you Shoot from the Lip with those tired shibboleths.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 30, 2006 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Karen, you sound just like kingofzouk. Is it possible you both listen to the same radio shows, watch the same news channel, and live in the same backwater state?

Posted by: ErrinF | October 30, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The majority of Americans: "USA! USA!"
kingofzouk: "GOP! GOP!"

Get it yet, zouk?

Posted by: ErrinF | October 30, 2006 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Only the nutty WaPo would think Connecticut is a barometer. Do you really think a blue, blue state filled with rabid left-wingers has been an indication of the last 3 elections? Will the election of their republican governor tell Chris that the big bad republicans will help him get up and have some Starbucks on Wednesday?The WaPo is so in the bag for the dems, they forgot the news that their circulation dropped another 4% as Americans got sick of liberals telling them how they are going to vote.

Posted by: Karen | October 30, 2006 6:33 PM | Report abuse

The Debate had Chris Ford. The Fix has kingofzouk. I for one find it sad to see somebody so lacking in independent thought, somebody who has so given into the partisan dreamworld of Rush Limbaugh and FOXnews. It's sad that the GOP cultivates such partisanism among their own ranks. kingofzouk has been conditioned to be the perfect follower that will never hold his own party accountability and will always hold his political party above all else, even his own country. I just don't get people like him that are such natural born followers. What a waste of life just following some prefabricated path laid out for you.
Thing is, the Republicans don't have a monopoly on cultivating blind partisanism. The Dems are just as bad when it comes to the desire to cultivate a legion of blind partisan followers. If only partisans knew how their own party leadership views them as... stupid sheep meant to do what they're told, meant to be manipulated and used to the fullest for whatever purposes best serve the leadership. You are sadly mistaken, kingofzouk, if you think you are valued by the very party you show so much loyalty too. These are POLITICIANS after all, zouk. That's what gets me most about partisans like you... you have so much love and faith in certain politicians, and you really think they have that same love and faith in you. Not even. You are a commodity to be used to serve their purposes. That's the nature of the politician, no matter what side of the aisle they are on.
Despite all the knocks kingofzouk gets here, at least he shows up to speak his mind in a forum in which he knows he'll face dissent, unlike all those partisans that just want to stay at blogs where they will be blindly agreed with. Far from being a villain, I think zouk just needs to realize that he should be an American first and a Republican second. As it were, he puts the Republicans above the United States Of America. That's just plain wrong.

Posted by: ErrinF | October 30, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

While I hope the Dems pull off taking both chambers, I'm not convinced it will happen. There's still the chance of a Nov 1 surprise, which in my estimation will be Doc "I'll do what every Denny says" Hastings (WA-4 R), chair of the House "Ethics" committee will release his "findings" absolving all Republicans of any wrongdoing in the investigation of Rep. Mark "Horndog" Foley. I'm just cynical enough to believe that undecided Americans will buy that load of excrement.

as for attack ads, one of the joys of getting the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Network) at home on cable is no attack ads. once again!

Posted by: Chris | October 30, 2006 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Zouk Dogg:

i must say, your comments always seem to have a sneering, nyah-nyah tone, and seem to reflect your apparent conviction that you are right, and being right, do not need to justify your beliefs with facts. but you know what? In our supposed democratic system (read: 'oligarchy'), we ALL rise and fall based upon the decisions made in the voting booth. incidentally, let me say that appearances (spelling) aside, i do not think you are stupid, and so am forced to wonder at your resolute support of those who are. It's almost as if you enjoy picking fights, as opposed to the exchange of ideas, but i'm sure thati must be mistaken, right?

We may disagree, sure, but this "us and them" sh&t has got to stop. I too enjoy following the races and trying to figure out strategy, but what we will ask these folks to do following the election requires that we put some rationalthought into our choices, rather than a kind of childish "secret club" mentality. it sounds to me like you have put thought only into shouting down the opinions of others.

a point i'd like to make, although it's not exactly on what you said: much has been said about the Democrats' "lack of a cohesive message," especially when contrasted to the GOP Contract On America. but i'd rather be a member of a party where i am free to disagree with others in the party, and free not to march in lock-step with its leaders (as the donkeys are required to do). If it were possible, i would even rather abolish the parties - and their campaign war chests - altogether, and end political advertising, and restrict the campaign season to - i don't know, maybe two months? That, and banning negative ads - actually, banning ALL ads with the exception maybe of position papers and live debates - might get us to a point where we vote on the issues, and not the personality. i know, i'm crazy to hope for that, but i believe that without it, we will never really have democracy.

in the meantime, though, i think it is "inkumbynt" (hee hee) on all concerned to at least think and talk about the problems we want these people to solve. Bush, Cheney, Rove et al cannot be trusted to put the country's interests over their own.

Posted by: robespierre | October 30, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Observations from a Nutmegger:

Johnson's negative ads seem to be hurting her this time around -- the more negative the lower her poll numbers. I thouyght she was the safest and, in taday's polls from UConn and RT Strategies (-4 and -8), respectively, she's losing -- and moving in the wrong direction (first time she's been behind in any of the non-partisan polls).

As for Dems taking 2 or 3 of the Pubbie seats, once I hoped for it, then I was confident about it, now I'm back to hoping (and worrying they may take less), but I really don't see them failing to take the House -- unless Usama suddenly turns up in shackles on Nov 6. Too many very bright folks with no ax to grind are predicting the house will flip with some 10 seats to spare. More of a cliff hanger will be the Senate.

But don't worry, our resident pubbies will just change their names and be back....

Posted by: Mike Rose | October 30, 2006 6:17 PM | Report abuse

And the number 1 reason to hope the Dems take the House next Tuesday...

Seeing what KOZ, bhoomes, and the rests of the cons have to say.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that the Rs have money in the bank and Ds owe big time. this is how they operate. Dems = tax, borrow and spend. If they couldn't tax the rich Rs who would pay for all that big governement the want? Good question.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Robert, you have assembled a collection of various non-factual ideas and presented them without regard to overall veracity.

For example:
The Democratic National Committee reported raising $10,191642 and spending $13,588,392 from Oct. 1 to 18,leaving cash on hand of $4,788,221, as well as debts of $4 million resulting from a 10/18 loan from Bank of America. The committee transferred over $9 million to state party committees. The committee also spent $1 million on telemarketing services.

The RNC Raises $8.4 Million More
The Republican National Committee reported raising $8,444,609 and spending $12,945,981 from Oct. 1 to 18, leaving $21,836,509 cash on hand. The committee transferred $4,514,222 to state party committees. The committee spent $1,541,486 on mailing and $533,420 on telemarketing. The committee also spent $246,141 on legal consulting.

summary - Dems have 4M and owe 4M. Rs have 21M. Draw your own conclusions. In fact Dean has urged rich candidates to contribute to poor candidates to solve this.

I am sure you must have seen the articles written about the onslaught of the super-rich Dems like Soros et al. In fact if you go to the FEC and look at individual contributors, you will notice that Rs make their money $2000 at a time while Ds get a few very large sums from Lamont-like folks who wish to buy themselves an office.

Rs pulled out of OH because the candidate has plenty of money. I know you Dems like to still give things away to the rich but we Rs usually prefer a means test. If someone doesn't need help, we don't force it on you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I agree with CC, CT is sort of a bellweather of sorts if DEMS are going to take the House. They dont need CT, but it will tell the story about the depth and breadth of their overall wins.

At the end of the day, DEMS will take the House. Stick a fork in it.

Posted by: Stick A Fork In It | October 30, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

TG, you earnestly think a dyed-in-the-wool Dem will admit to a set of independent facts that are contrary to his delusional world-view. you must be new here.

there are many here that believe Kerry won the election of '04, despite some fairly strong evidence to the contrary. they also think there is a bias against Libs in the press. they also think government schools are just fine, that SS is a good deal, that price controls help, that taxes are good, that wars can be lost, the Reid is honest, that polls decide who wins, etc......

I am sure Noreaster is just practicing for next Wednesday. See you in court.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

There is a 'change in the wind' coming? Forget the polls? Look at the money? Democrats have raised just as much as the Reps? I have contribued a nice chuck this year to various candidates that oppose the War. And remember, Dems contributors are NOT the deep pocket, corporate, special interests, billionaires, they are middle class. Also look at some of the races, (i.e., Ohio) the republicians are pulling out and will not spend another time on their candiate there.

Posted by: Robert | October 30, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse


I am sure you realize by now that just about ever newspaper or other independent organization that examined the 2000 Florida election has concluded that Bush won the state. Do you honestly still dispute this?

Posted by: TG | October 30, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

A poll released today revealed the following gems:

"When asked which party they trust more to make the right decisions on Iraq, Newsweek's respondents chose Democrats by a 46-34 margin before Bush's press conference and Democrats, again, by a 45-33 margin afterward."

but the "incombant/incombont" (wish that stooopid phuquer zouky would make up his mind: bant; bint; bont bunt; bynt...WTF zouky, make up yer mind fer khrist sake) repubs are all going to win by a landslide, says zouky. all i kin say is see above w/regard to the always misspelled "incomb-what-the-phuque-ever"...


Posted by: queenofzouk | October 30, 2006 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"sue themselves into power"

count on them trying this again.

Since Dems are having more and more trouble actually winning an election at the polls, their strategy has been to simply subvert the will of the people and head off to court. It is not only during elections that this happens, it is also with high profile moral issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, etc.

But is is readily apparant that they will do whatever it takes to get their way. It fits nicely with the idea that normal people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and need a nanny-state to de-victimize them. Because, for example, if you are black (or not) and pay into SS up to your 64th birthday, and then happen to die, you get nothing. you are a victim of the Dem's desire to manage your savings. Even at minimum wage this amounts to almost $60,000 stolen from you by the benevolent Dem government. (not including compounding which is approx. 1%, some deal there). but that system isn't broken according to them.

consider the medicare tax the Dems want to enact once they're in power. 1.7% on you and 7% on employers. I guess there is just too much choice in this market for those totalitarians. no sense letting a succesful R&D program continue to succeed.

If these ideas sound dumb to you, you are not allowing your inner D voice to come through. you must be able to fall back on chanting, "I am a victim" and the Dems will save me from myself.

Then why did the recent CNN poll find that "the government is too big and is the root of the problem", according to a majority. you are finished. One week left until total humiliation. but I predict you still won't get it. that the economy is good. that the war must be won.

Maybe you could sue DoD. Get to work on that idea.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Bush constantly attacks the Democrats for lack of plans to resolve the Iraq issue. I want to know who is in charge of the country.Does the Democrats has all the imformation needed to make sound policies as the Republicans? If Bussh can not take the heat, why not let the Democrats win the election and give it a try?

Posted by: john Y. Cheng | October 30, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Tristan, It's the "Democratic Primary" not the "Democrat Primary". People who use that insult just look juvenile.

I live in the 2nd CD. While I do not want to admit it, I have to disagree with Tristan about Simmons being the most in trouble. For the longest time (and still in most politics within the state) the 2nd CD was solidly Democratic. Simmons upset win over Sam G. in 2000 shocked us all. However, I do not believe that the fact that it is still democratic leaning (if you look at who carried it in the last presidential) means that Simmons is unsafe. Nor do I believe that even coupling with the "anti-incumbent" sentiment will change the outcome
When the Groton Sub base was on the BRAC closure list state leaders came together to save it..
Among those were Rob Simmons. While I do not like him, nor do I like that he is my representative, the fact remains that he does deserve SOME (though not all as it was a collaborative effort) for the sub base being taken off the closure list. Part of his district includes the sub base, and also EB which stayed because the sub base stayed open.

The people of the district know what he did, and appreciate it. And he can use that in his re-election.
Like I have said, I don't like him, and I am strongly supporting Courtney, but I also have to be realistic
and as much as I hate to admit it, especially as this is my representative and not just one of the reps from my state...

I think that Simmons is the safest of the Republicans in CT running for re-election.

I am also surprised that the conventional wisdom for Murphy went from longshot to most likely to win after what seems like one poll. I know Chris Murphy, I went to High school with him and have been volunteering for his campaign for months, and think he's had a much better shot than anyone's given him credit for. Doing canvassing for him you start to realize how soft a lot of the Johnson support really is. A lot of it is just name recognition. People voted for her before and know her name and will do it again. A lot of people have Johnson lawn signs just because the local GOP has their names down and call them and stick up the signs for them. I've seen so many canvassers after a brief conversation about what her record really is switch right there.

Shays to me looks to be getting more and more vulnerable. THE last few weeks he's had a total breakdown with his nutty "sex ring" comments, and Diane Farrell came within a hairs breath of beating him last time around when things for the GOP were a lot rosier.

My prediction, Murphy and Farrel win. Simmons eeks out a victory.

Posted by: The Smart Nutmegger | October 30, 2006 5:32 PM | Report abuse

here's some good news fer the "incombants" who support the Iraq war (from

Cost of Violence in Iraq

Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq: 2,808 [DoD, 10/27/06]

Number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq: 21,266 [DoD, 10/27/06]

Number of wounded unable to return to duty: 9,600 [DoD, 10/27/06]

Number of troops killed so far this month (October): 96 - the highest since January 2005 [, 10/27/06]

Number of insurgents in Iraq in November 2003: 5,000 [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

Number of insurgents in Iraq in September 2006: 20,000+ [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

Number of civilian casualties in Iraq since U.S.-led invasion: estimates range from 39,400 - 62,000 [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

Number of multi-fatality bombings in May 2004: 9 [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

Number of multi-family bombings in September 2006: 47 [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in May 2004: 53 [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in September 2006: 105 [Brookings Institution, 10/23/06]

and some say that these folks need more time in office to ensure victory? zouky also thinks he has a brain that actually has "ideas"...bwahahahahahahahah


Posted by: queenofzouk | October 30, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"A friend on the hill made this prediction. Dems lose on the 7th but find a way to sue themselves into power."

Actually, doesn't that describe the 2000 Presidential Election?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 30, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse


A friend on the hill made this prediction. Dems lose on the 7th but find a way to sue themselves into power.

Posted by: TG | October 30, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Recall the exit polls in Ohio in 2004 that made it look like Kerry was a slam dunk. You can't get a group of more likely voters than those that actually just voted. Even those were off. I believe there is an inherent distrust of pollsters as well. I have no facts, just instincts on this one. I don't believe people are always honest about these things. We shall see 8 days from now.

Posted by: TG | October 30, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I still like the line Gingrich stated and the Dems adopted for a few weeks: "Had Enough?" I think that is a rather effective statement.

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 30, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

In addition to 1881, the US had three Presidents in 1841, also, when William Henry Harrison died one month after his inauguration.

Posted by: BT | October 30, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Kingofzouk thinks it won't be a bad day for "incumbonts."

Perhaps not, but the math-challenged KOZ obviously doesn't understand how few GOP "incumbonts" need to lose for the Dems to take the House.

Remember, KOZ, the Dems are likely to win several open seats formerly held by Republicans in which there are no "incumbonts" on the ballot.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that there will be some real surprises on Tuesday. I don't think we can predict the outcomes with any real certainty. Notice that most experts when you talk to them equivocate. They do this because they recognize that these are predictions and guesses based on the available information. They are by no means a virtual lock to occur. In the end, those that get out the vote in the close races will prevail.

Posted by: TG | October 30, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Anyone see that 1/4 page "ad" letter in USA this weekend -- in the Money Section -- it was entitled How Many More Have to Die?? If not, go to to read.

Posted by: Paulet | October 30, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

OMG! QOZ is cracking me up! I am laughing here!

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 30, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to disappoint you Tristan -- I too am from Connecticut and have been voting longer than your years I will bet -- A Texan sent me to the Republican Party many years ago; and a Texan sent me back to the Dems just two years ago --- I am glad people are joining the throng.
As far as Jodi, her seat isn't as secure as you may think. I do admire her greatly and believe she pulled us out of a bind with another corrupt Republican -- Rowland!
But I guess we will just have to see what kind of tap dancing the GOP does this week to turn more off.

Posted by: paulet | October 30, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

food er videos fer thought (if yer a repub):

...the Republican National Committee is a regular recipient of political contributions from Nicholas T. Boyias, the owner and CEO of Marina Pacific Distributors, one of the largest producers and distributors of gay porn in the United States. This recent article on Marina Pacific's new marketing campaign form XBiz, a porn industry trade sheet, notes that, in addition to producing its own material, the "company acts as a distribution house to hundreds of lines, mostly gay, 40 of which can be purchased only through MPD."

yo zouky - I just bet that you have most, if not all, of those titles in yer very own, personal, GOPer-friendly video library. prob'ly raight next to lynn cheney's "Sisters"

how's that fer politicull di(ck)scourse, pally wal?


Posted by: queenofzouk | October 30, 2006 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I am willing to use the polls with the understanding that there is an inherent bias in them. But the bias will not account for polls that show a 10% plus outcome. I would go along with that poll although not its exact spread. But it is the toss-up districts that are key to this election. In that case I would rely upon the background state of the electorate. how did it vote in the last election? If it is an R district with say 56% going for Bush, that is a tall order to overturn. you can also consider the money donated as a significant factor.
My main gripe about polls is that many on this site are eager to hand an election to someone with a 1% edge despite any background info or fundraising numbers. I also took issue with polls taken months ago and used as predictors.

There are many facts I introduced by way of Baronne's article above which also must be considered from the sampling error point of view. this is a little dry for my taste but nevertheless it exists.

My conclusion was that it will not be a bad day for incumbonts. It never is. Look at the historical re-election rates - something over 95%. and you can observe that only about 30 seats are in contention, so the 95% rate will continue.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Nancy has been the Queen of Negative ads for some time. What I cannot stand are the phone calls, at least 5 per week and one week 2 in one day --- how much did the AMA give her, or is it tax dollars for the postage and what about the environment with the triple/quad colored flyers -- not even postcard size. It is time to give Chris a chance, he does well to stand up to her rhetoric -- all her money won't help especially the disgusting negativity. After all those calls, if I had any doubt they finished it for me.
I say CT gives you at least 2 dems in the house -- Johnson and Courtney who has been endorsed by NYTimes, possibly Diane Farrell could just beat out Shays too!! -- they've been close before and is very well liked in her district.
If you don't vote for change, how can you complain when you don't get it?

Posted by: paulet | October 30, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, let's assume that you're correct, and the polls can't be trusted. What are the facts that you use instead to figure out who's going to win? After all, you said your analysis is based on facts, not opinions like everyone else's. Can you share the facts with the rest of us?

Posted by: Blarg | October 30, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Over the years Nancy Johnson has been the Queen of Negative ads and I am pretty sick of getting 5 phone messages a week -- if I ever had any doubts those phone calls put me right over to Chris -- I say give him a chance! All the Trees and tax dollars wasted on her campaign to innudate us with the colored flyers -- talk about "not saving the environment". Hopefully, Diane Farrell should take Shays and Courtney has been endorsed by the NY Times. I say the Dems pick up at least 2 -- The only way to intiate change is to vote for it those who don't cast a vote for change have no right to complain later.

Posted by: paulet | October 30, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Over the years Nancy Johnson has been the Queen of Negative ads and I am pretty sick of getting 5 phone messages a week -- if I ever had any doubts those phone calls put me right over to Chris -- I say give him a chance! All the Trees and tax dollars wasted on her campaign to innudate us with the colored flyers -- talk about "not saving the environment". Hopefully, Diane Farrell should take Shays and Courtney has been endorsed by the NY Times. I say the Dems pick up at least 2 -- The only way to intiate change is to vote for it those who don't cast a vote for change have no right to complain later.

Posted by: paulet | October 30, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"correcting a single misspelled word" - misspelled over and over and over and over and over...and over again.


Posted by: chicadenada | October 30, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Ummmm, Loudoun, If you are from Loudoun county VA, an assumption on my part, then you do not register for a particular party. you see VA does not have party affiliations as part of its voter registration process.

So, I can only conclude you fall into one of three categories:
1. you are a liar (sounds like projection on your part)
2 you are a moronic Dem who doesn't understand much and just pulls the D lever when offered
3 you are trying to be funny by stretching the truth - more evidence you are a Dem.
any way you look at it, you have no clue and despite your best efforts, you are going to get R representation in both houses. Poetic justice isn't it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

zouky - callate pendejo! callate!


Posted by: chicadenada | October 30, 2006 4:07 PM | Report abuse

QOZ - for someone who's main contribution today was correcting a single misspelled word, perhaps you should consider cleaning up your own prose. since you are clearly a total moonbat, I am opting to ignore you completely. with your clear manners, class and style, this should be nothing new to you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 4:06 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: you nailed it when you said "but then you wouldn't be a Dem" because I'm not.

I'd let you look at my voter registration but being a con you're probably a pedophile and I'd rather not risk my kids' privacy.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"poorly trained grad students who could not keep their bias from affecting the results"

sounds like journalists too. and hence my prediction.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

yo sandwich boy -
"I guess QOZ is no more interested in civil, rational discourse than KOZ."

Au contraire: I just refuse suffer dumbasses like you and zouky.

take a snide tone with me and I'll send it right back at ya - in Spades, MF!

Posted by: QOZ | October 30, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

There is a load of money in CN which I am sure the residents would prefer not to have redistributed for them.

solution - vote R!
Tristan - you can be burned for such heresy on this site. no Dem is allowed to cross the party line and admit into evidence any facts. Otherwise you are now an extemist R wingnut. welcome.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

LOL! I already like queenofzouk. I like her style.

Face it Republicans, the Democrats will take the House. I keep looking CONSERVATIVELY at the polls (those outside the margin of error) and I keep getting, at a minimum, 12 Democrat seat wins. They just need 3 more to take the majority. The Senate, however, worries me. I think we are poised to take 4 seats, but I am less optimistic about MO, TN and VA.

Also, you guys need to stop picking on Lieberman. You have to remember this is about the big picture! Don't alienate him to the point he decides to caucus with the Republicans allowing them to keep their majority. Think people!!!

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 30, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse


The 2004 exit polls were flawed and anomalistic - the consortium that conducted them evidently used poorly trained grad students who could not keep their bias from affecting the results. So, it is not accurate to use the 2004 exit polls as a reflection on all recent polling. The reason they were such a news story is that modern polls are almost always fairly accurate.

I also read Barone's article. Independent polls are generally accurate within their margin of error. However, as Barone says "The pollsters I know, both Republican and Democratic, are continually questioning their own procedures and are trying to adjust them to reflect changes in the workings of society. Polls, they all concede, are imperfect instruments, to be read with some caution." One of the main developments pollsters are trying to assess now is the impact of the increasing number of people who eschew land line phones for cell phone only service.

This continual improvement process in polling has been going on for years. Gallup conducted his first poll in 1935. In 1936 a poll conducted for a magazine predicted a landslide victory for GOP presidential candidate Alf Landon. They relied on a telephone poll - well, telephones were something of a luxury item in those days and people with telephones were overwhelmingly Republican. FDR carried 46 of the 48 states in the Union in the 1936 election. Only Maine and Vermont went for Landon. There was an old political saying "As goes Maine, so goes the nation.". FDR's campaign manager commented on the poll in the aftermath of FDR's overwhelming victory , "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont".

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 30, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I guess QOZ is no more interested in civil, rational discourse than KOZ.

Not all polls are phone-based. Zogby's online methodology isn't going to miss young people (like me) who don't have landlines.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Queen - first get a life, then get a sense of humor, then find some originality. I won't instruct you to get some intellect since that would be a bridge too far.

That joke about using my moniker or some version of it was a little funny a few weeks ago, but now it just shows how utterly devoid of content these type of posters represent. If you want to participate in the market of ideas, I suggest you hunt some down. but I am sure you amuse yourself quite a bit, as you always have.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Paulet does not have to be so angry. All I am saying is that people in CT are independent, and democrats are too optimistic about their polls. If people in CT really hate incumbent so much, how to explain that Lieberman is going back to Washington against so many nay-sayers after the democrat primary? One more thing to add, we in CT also have a very popular female republican governor Jodi Rell sailed to re-lection. That also helps a lot for the republicans. But I do admit that hope is a good thing:-)

Posted by: Tristan | October 30, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I know what "incumbent" is, dumbass!!! what I wrote is how zouky insists on spelling; as in: "incumbant"...notice the difference, Einstein??? 'bent as opposed to 'bant; get it? Pay attention for christs sake!!!

"(you could look it up)" - teach yer grandmother to suck eggs!!!


Posted by: queenofzouk | October 30, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich: I did check before I submitted my post. My information source was the Committee Work page on Hunter's website.

You will note that I did say that he was the Committee Chairman and that I phrased my comments in the form of questions, because of the possibility that there could be other committee assignments.

If his only committee assignment is the Armed Services Committee, I hardly call that slamming him.

The same with Skelton.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 30, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Koz, thanks for reminding us that all the polls & pollsters are liberal-biased. For example, we have, co-managed by Lance Tarrance, a former Director of Research for the Republican National Committee. You see the perfidious handiwork of this dyed-in-the-hemp-fabric pinko at

Posted by: mark | October 30, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

You forget that Polls also don't count cell phones which are used primarily by young affluent people (ie Democrats).

Posted by: Andy R | October 30, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what red herrings like Canadian money or food stamps have to do with confusing facts and opinions. There are lots of methodological flaws with betting on political races as predictors of what will actually happen. Their track record is not very good. Polls are better, and expert independent analysts like Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Over the years Nancy Johnson has been the Queen of Negative ads and I am pretty sick of getting 5 phone messages a week -- if I ever had any doubts those phone calls put me right over to Chris -- I say give him a chance! All the Trees and tax dollars wasted on her campaign to innudate us with the colored flyers -- talk about "not saving the environment". Hopefully, Diane Farrell should take Shays and Courtney has been endorsed by the NY Times. I say the Dems pick up at least 2 -- The only way to intiate change is to vote for it those who don't cast a vote for change have no right to complain later.

Posted by: paulet | October 30, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun - do you call everyone who disagrees wtih you a liar? even if they have the facts on their side? Even dumb old Wikipedia has this one covered:,_exit_polls

you should try not to be so reactionary, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. but then you wouldn't be a Dem would you?

Have you ever visited tradesports? they update the betting lines continuously like a market. Maybe you would like to fix prices there like Dems would do with the entire market if given the chance. clearly another Dem with no sense of reality. when the exit polls came out on election day, 2004, the line moved substantially away from Bush winning. this was the time to bet on Bush. It was when "all signs were pointed in Kerry's direction". Numbskull. think before you speak about things that are economic and beyond you.

and, let me be the first to offer congratulations on reelecting Senator Allen to another 6 years. And Frank Wolf for another 2. both Rs BTW. I guess few else in your area are as mindless as you seem to be.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Here are some interesting facts gathered by a reputable writer who knows alot more about polls than I do. Interesting that they coincide nicely with my opinions?

for example:
"Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.

Interviewers can inject bias in the results. The late Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the 2004 NEP exit poll, went back and found that the greatest difference between actual results in exit poll precincts and the reports phoned in to NEP came where the interviewers were female graduate students -- and almost all the discrepancies favored the Democrats. "

so if you are an R and a polling firm calls you, do you answer the questions or just hang up in disgust at the "slant" of the results? what does this do to the outcome of the poll. answer 5 point bias against Rs. If the toss-up districts don't go more than 4 points against the incumbant, count on the incumbant winning next week. and this will not be fraud or stealing, it will be truth, contrary to the fiction of the polls.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 3:01 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: Nothing "pointed in Kerry's direction" in 2004. The polls consistently showed Bush winning narrowly -- exactly what happened.

You're a liar.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 30, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Tradesports currently has 19.5 seats as the 50/50 bet on house seats.
but they don't take Canadian money or food stamps. another week and it will be down to 14.5 seats. Get it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you say that people on this site are operating on opinion instead of fact. But you're the one saying that the polls are biased and unreliable. If you don't consider the polls to be facts, then what are the facts?

Posted by: Blarg | October 30, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Incumbent (you could look it up...) is someone who is already in office.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He has no other committee assignments either.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

could someone please tell me wtf an "incumbant" is?

Posted by: queenofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich - head over to tradesports and wager all you got.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter, really. All you have to do is check his website, which should be and he'll say what committees he's on. Committees are ranked in different tiers; sometimes assignment to one precludes service on any others. Plus he's the chair of Armed Services. Check those facts out before you slam him for only being on 1 committee. Or, blame the rules of the House Republican Caucus.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Tristan - thank you for the local info. I always appreciate someone from the actual district offering some ground truth. Most of the "pundits" on this site operate from idealogy and not fact. I have always stated that the phenomenon you describe will be much more pervasive than is commonly thought. I predict the incumbants will have a very good evening.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

A trio of academics released a paper recently on predicting how many House seats Democrats will gain based on the generic ballot polls. Their current prediction is a 32 seat gain for the Democrats, or a House of 235 Democrats-200 Republicans.

People like bhoomes and zouk are simply ignoring reality and living in a fantasy world. Too bad they're unwilling to emulate Bill Bennett and put any money behind their rhetoric; because I could make a killing off them. Where did VivaBush go blathering about how Ken Blackwell would win in Ohio? Where are those even money bets on the Ohio Senate race? All the right-wing bellowing won't change the fact that this is a huge Democratic wave election, bigger than 1982 and more like 1974 as Stuart Rothenberg wrote. I understand optimism for your party, but what we're dealing with here is just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge or engage with reality.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

those traders are basing thier bets on the same info you are - flawed polls. I did indeed make a killing in the last election by shorting Kerry when it all pointed in his direction. I also won on OH and the FL senator. I will let you know how I do this time around. I probabaly will bet in individual races instead of the blanket choice.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I am chicagoland and I am just getting really really sick of the attack ads. I am afraid to turn on the tv. I think I might just end up voting for however has the least amount of nastiness.

I'm just sick of all of this. Have the candidates state their issues, and let me vote for the side I think respresents me.

Posted by: sand | October 30, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) just announced he's forming an exploratory committee to run for president in 2008."

As current Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, he may have a lot more time on his hands.

I was curious as to what other committees Hunter serves on (not just Armed Services sub-committees), and can't find any.

This guy has been in Congress for over 25 years and sits on just one committee? Certainly an important one for bring home the Defense pork to San Diego, but just "one" committee?

Does he really want to run for President and see all of the Defense Industry connections exposed? Some have been already as part of the Duke Cunningham mess.

Potomac Fever must be affecting this boy.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 30, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I am an "independent" from CT, and I have to say that most democrats are over optimistic about the outcome from our state. In politics, remember one thing: all politics are local. Since all three republican representatives are doing quite good jobs for local constituents, I doubt any of them would lose his or her seat at all. Among them, the safest one should be Nancy Johnson, my representative, simply because her massive spending on round and round of negative TV commercials followed by positive ones, and they work, trust me. Chris Murphy just does not have the resource to fight back. Also remember, while Kerry carried CT two years ago, Murphy's home town (Cheshire, CT) went for Bush in 2004, implicating the importance of local factors in mid-term election. The next one going back to Washington DC should be Chris Shays for two reasons: first, his campaign ads are very effective, including negative ones, and second, he is a very likable independent figure in CT (not even close to republican right). I would even predict that he win more percentage points than last cycle two years ago from the same Dianne Farrell. The only trouble I can sense is Rob Simon, but even him I can see good chance of beating his opponent because Joe Courtney does not offer fresh ideas other than accusing Simon as a Bush dog which is known even two years ago. So what? While I look forward to a Democrat majority congress, I just don't think the numbers would come from our state. Sorry.

Posted by: Tristan | October 30, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the first polls to close will be the Eastern Time Zone in Indiana and Kentucky, at 6pm EST. So the first bellwethers I'd watch for on election night are IN-2, IN-9, and KY-3. At 7pm all polls will be closed in those 2 states, and you can add IN-8, KY-2, and KY-4 to that list.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

KoZ, if you're so sure that the GOP will keep both houses, you'd best hightail it over to the Iowa Electronic Markets & start buying up RH.hold06 futures (GOP retains House control but does not increase its majority). At the current market ask of 32.5 cents (for a potential $1 payout), your prognosticating skills will make you a killing.

Mind you, that particular market item has been diving nose-first toward the canvas for the past 3-4 weeks, but that just means it's even more of a bargain, right? I mean, everyone trading in the market is a gullible idiot -- except you, of course.

Posted by: mark | October 30, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I guess you poor Dims just can't figure it out, even with all the help. Poor victims. now I understand why you need the nanny-government to watch out for you. you are incapable of caring for yourself.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

yeah king, "polling methods" would be called into question because that headline would occur only if yet ANOTHER election were stolen by the republicans.

Posted by: anti-king | October 30, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) just announced he's forming an exploratory committee to run for president in 2008. He'll definitely get my vote--I love his blueberry muffins!!

The last House member to be elected president was James Garfield (R-OH) in 1880. He was assassinated in his first year in office, making 1881 the only calendar year in our history in which we've had 3 presidents.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 30, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Nov 8th headline:
Repubs retain control. Polling methods called into question. Bias evident.

More MSM wishes dashed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 30, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I think Chris's last line -- about Connecticut making or breaking the Dems' chances at retaking a majority -- is too clever by half.

Even if Shays, Johnson, and Simmons all squeak by, you can expect the GOP trenches to be overrun in OH, NY, and PA. Toss in the expected pickups in TX, AZ, FL, IN, and NC, and this baby is all but over.

Posted by: mark | October 30, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris -

Watch out when you give polling so much credit. Something could go very wrong on election night for all we know and polling methods could be permanently doubted by all in the future.

Posted by: jojo | October 30, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The New York Post endorsed Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for re- election on Monday, saying her Republican challenger, John Spencer, "isn't a credible alternative."

"Surprised? Well, so are we -- a little," said the editorial in the Post, which has a conservative editorial page. "But, then, there really isn't much of a choice in this race."

And what about Clinton's reported White House aspirations?

"...We think she's done such a good job these last six years that she'd do well to serve six more. If not 12," said the Post. "Re-elect Hillary. In 2012."

Clinton won her Senate seat despite a concerted effort by the Post to attack her candidacy. The Post even ran a pleading headline, "Don't Run!" before Clinton joined the race.

Posted by: j | October 30, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

President Bush's popularity has not been buoyed by a series of public events in recent days, a new CNN poll has found.

Bush's approval rating still hovers in the 30s, where it has been throughout the month.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 30, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

'In rolled-up shirt sleeves, Bush fired up a basketball gym of roughly 5,000 people. He spoke in front of an enormous U.S. flag.

Protesters were steered to a "free-speech zone" elsewhere on campus.'

Isn't it funny how we used to have 'free speech' and now we have 'free speech zones' ... and how much do you want to bet those will be gone soon too?

Posted by: drindl | October 30, 2006 1:37 PM | Report abuse

You forgot Leiberman, Chris -- his biggest backers are Limbaugh, Mellon Scaife and Wiliam F. Buclkley -- biggest scumbag in CT.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 30, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for objectivity, but don't you get tired of hearing about this growing Repub rally? All of the commentary about how the Dems would have gained back the house and senate if the election had taken place last week, but its all over now? How is this supposed over inflation of Dems gains going to be thwarted? By incumbents like Nancy Johnson pulling 42% after 12 terms? Please. Its an attempt to undermine the momentum, in a most insidious Rove style way.

Posted by: Pdoggie | October 30, 2006 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for objectivity, but don't you get tired of hearing about this growing Repub rally? All of the commentary about how the Dems would have gained back the house and senate if the election had taken place last week, but its all over now? How is this supposed over infalation of Dems gains going to be thwarted? By incumbents like Nancy Johnson pulling 42% after 12 terms? Please. Its an attempt to undermine the momentum, in a most insidious Rove style way.

Posted by: Pdoggie | October 30, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If Allen has an arrest record and I was Schumer, I would be jumping up and down and screaming to get those records - short of that - I would be putting ads on letting voters know that this guy must have something REALLY big that he is hiding. . .sometimes I wonder where the Dems brains are in their ad campaigns. . .

Posted by: star11 | October 30, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris, do you have any plans to ask George Allen to unseal his divorce records and explain his arrest warrants? This seems like it could be a pretty big story, and at least as important as the content of Jim Webb's fictional novels. Chuck Schumer has also asked the VA Bar Association to release its records regarding Allen's warrants.

Posted by: Pontifex | October 30, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

All 3 of these incumbents are running 5-10 points down. With these 3, 25 seats is a pessimistic projection for the Democrats.

Posted by: Zathras | October 30, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company