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

Parsing the Polls: Is a Democratic Wave Building?

In a March Parsing the Polls we looked at the edge Democrats held over Republicans on a generic ballot question, which, in essence, asks: "If the congressional election were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate?"

At the time, we decided that although Democrats' advantage signaled considerable unrest in the country toward the majority party in Washington, it was too early in the cycle to draw any broad conclusions about what the generic ballot numbers meant for the fall.

At the time, the average of the last five national polls testing the generic ballot showed Democrats with a 13.4 percent margin. Fast forward six months and that margin has actually increased. Take a look:

Organization Survey Dates GOP Dem Difference
Newsweek 8/10-11 39% 51% 12%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics 8/8-9 30 % 48 % 18%
AP-Ipsos 8/7-9 37% 55% 18%
Post/ABC 8/3-6 39% 52% 13%
CNN 8/2-3 40% 53% 13%

Add those numbers up and the average Democratic generic edge has grown to 14.8 percent -- with 84 days left before the election.

So is now the time to conclude that a Democratic wave is building that will sweep Republicans out of a House majority in November?

The answer, according to Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, is a guarded yes.

"If you take an average of the last three or four polls, because any one can be an outlier in either direction, you can determine which way the wind is blowing, and whether the wind speed is small, medium, large or extra-large," said Cook. "The last three generics that I have seen have been in the 18 or 19 point range, which is on the high side of extra large. That suggests the probability of large Democratic gains."

"The generic surely reflects voters dissatisfaction with the President and his party and their inclination to support Democrats in the fall," agreed Rothenberg. "The size of the Democrats' generic advantage also can't be ignored. It too suggests the likelihood of a partisan wave, even though it does not guarantee the fate of any individual Republican incumbent."

Both men are quick to add that their conclusions are not drawn solely from the generic ballot numbers but rather the result of a number of survey questions that all point to major Republican losses.

Rothenberg said that the most important point of analysis when it comes to the generic ballot is that it has shown a considerable Democratic advantage for more than a year and jibes with other mood of the electorate questions like presidential and congressional job approval ratings and right direction/wrong track numbers.

What do those numbers look like? Here's a quick survey of recent data on those questions:

Presidential Job Approval
Organization Survey Dates Approve Disapprove Difference
CBS 8/11-13 36% 57% -21%
Newsweek 8/10-11 38% 55% -17%
Gallup 8/7-10 37% 59% -22%
Fox/Opinion Dynamics 8/8-9 36% 56% -20%
AP-Ipsos 8/7-9 33% 64% -31%

Congressional Job Approval
Organization Survey Dates Approve Disapprove Difference
Fox/Opinion Dynamics 8/8-9 24% 58% -34%
AP-Ipsos 8/7-9 29% 69% -40%
ABC/Post 8/3-6 36% 60% -24%

Right Track/Wrong Track ("Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?")
Organization Survey Dates Satisfied Dissatisfied Difference
Newsweek 8/10-11 26% 67% -41%
Gallup 8/7-10 28% 69% -41%
AP-Ipsos 8/7-9 26% 71% -45%


Crunching the numbers, President Bush's average job approval number in the polls cited above is 36 percent while his average disapproval is 58 percent. The average approval rating for Congress is even more dismal -- 29.6 percent and its disapproval is 62.3 percent. Approximately 26 percent of those tested in the survey above are satisfied with the direction of the country while a whopping 69 percent are dissatisfied. (Take the congressional job approval and right direction/wrong track numbers with a grain of salt as they are based on only three national surveys.)

While these numbers seem to spell doom for the GOP, it's important to remember -- and both Cook and Rothenberg pointed this out -- that the generic ballot has its problems. The main quibble with the question is that while it may accurately measure the national mood of the country, it does little to provide insight into the 50 or so congressional races that are truly competitive this cycle.

But, as Cook notes, even at the micro-level there are signs of major problems for Congressional Republicans this fall.

As evidence, he cites a poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic firm, for National Public Radio. Rather than use a nationwide sample, the survey tested 1,000 people in the 50 most competitive districts nationwide in hopes of seeing whether their viewpoints matched those held in national surveys.

By and large, the numbers tracked with the other national polls -- although on presidential approval and the generic ballot voters in swing districts were more pro-Bush/pro-Republican than in recent national surveys.

Thirty-one percent of the sample said the country was headed in the right direction while 61 percent said it was off on the wrong track. Forty-one percent approved of the job Bush was doing while 55 percent did not. (Interestingly, 24 percent strongly approved compared to 45 percent who strongly disapproved, a difference that suggests major energy gap between the two party bases.) Forty-eight percent said they would vote for a generic Democratic candidate while 41 percent said they would support a generic Republican.

What does this bevy of numbers mean for the fall? It means that the national environment is clearly slanted in Democrats' favor at the moment and barring some sort of major national event will stay that way all the way through November. A slanted playing field has the capacity to bring normally non-competitive Republican-held seats into play -- widening Democrats' margin for error if they hope to take back the House.

For those looking for signs that we may be in for a cataclysmic election, watch developments in districts like Connecticut's 5th, Indiana's 2nd, Ohio's 1st, Pennsylvania's 8th, and even Illinois' 10th. If those races start to narrow considerably or the Republican incumbents looks to be scrambling, get out your foul weather gear -- a wave is coming.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 16, 2006; 11:59 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Nevada Primary Scorecard
Next: Mitt the Money Man

Comments

this guy guiliani is a shake down artist.

Posted by: lou durante | August 24, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

this guy guiliani is a shake down artist.

Posted by: lou durante | August 24, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, when I accused Bush and Rove of being the real terrorists, "Ace" took me to task for comparing them to Bin Laudin. Well, both use the threat of terrorism to control people and both are as phony as a three dollar bill. TODAY (!!!) the Port of Seattle was evacuated by Homeland Security. It seems our domestic terrorists are spreading the fear around wherever there is a tight race. I defy you to differentiate between the Bush Whitehouse and Bin Laudin or any other terrorist group. Everyo one of them, Bush, Rove, Cheney, and everyone else connected with this Whitehouse, should all be imprisoned for terrorism.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

You Dems have worked yourselves into a positively loopy froth.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 17, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

oh, I should point out "fixing" the electronic machines won't work in this election. Most states, especially in the West, have switched over to mail-in paper ballots, because they've gone to a vast majority of permanent absentee voters or have only mail-in ballot elections.

It's called paper - deal with it, America-hating Repubs!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Not only is a wave building, but it is a tidal wave that will sweep the corrupt Reds out of our nation's capitol, for no true American has any desire to support those Reds who hate our American values of Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life.

Bye, Bushies. Have fun meeting your lord in Hades.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 17, 2006 1:16 PM | Report abuse

One thing the Republicans have down cold is the War of Linguistics. They just reduce to most complex situation down to slogans--catchy, simplistic. "Cut and Run". NO analysis necessary. Why don't the Dems respond back with--He is a "Stay and Die" Republican?

Posted by: Merry | August 17, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Folks, it's too late. Read American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. The combination of petroleum addiction (it's running out), end-of-days religious fanaticism (who cares about running out of oil and colossal debt when the Chosen are about to be raptured) and the billions in consumer and government debt, current account deficits, trade deficits etc. will cause the U.S. to crash and burn as did the Roman, Spanish, Dutch and British empires previously. Only I expect this crash will be the most spectacular in history. The American people could fill the Senate and House with people equivalent to the cream of late 18th century American statesmen and it would still be too late to make a difference.

Posted by: jc | August 17, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

M. Stewart, I commend you! You remind me of what many in the republican party used to stand for before Ronald Reagan. My aunt, a republican congresswoman, was and still is, a woman I admire greatly, though I don't necessarily agree with. You actually use critical thought and come up with some very reasonable solutions instead of just repeating Fox News, Bill O'Reily and their ilk parrot talk. Very refreshing! I trust you will vote reasonably no matter who you vote for.

Posted by: Joan | August 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Report abuse

There is another TV show I find to be very accurate. Lou Dobbs.

Posted by: lylepink | August 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The link I posted at 9:24. Sorry, those thingys are supposed to be arrows pointing up :)

>>>he's just sooo good at annoying the old fart, what's his name, with the loofah

You mean Falafel Bill? aka Papa Bear (Colbert) hehe.

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Umm, have I see whaaa yet? I like Olberman a lot. He's got cojones.... not afraid to take 'em on. Also, he's just sooo good at annoying the old fart, what's his name, with the loofah?

Posted by: Drindl | August 17, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, have you seen ^^^^^^^ yet? Olberman is awesome. Must watch. ;)

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Hey 'More phony terrorism' did ya see this?

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Terror-Nexus-8-14-06.wmv

Olberman breaks down 10 terror alerts since 2002, their dubious origins and their political ramifications. A must watch for all critically-thinking Americans.

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

'Other than cowtowing to unions (especially teachers unions) and far-left environmental groups, I just don't see what it is the Dems stand for'

It's amazing to me the boogiemen that the Right [or the Reich] has been able to create. What is this guy afraid of, that his kid might learn something, or have clean water to drink?

I mean, it's easy to see why the so-called 'conservatives' in power hate these things -- they want to continue to rake in the contributions of the polluting industries and the private religious schools, and of course, uneducated people are much easier to manipulate.

But it's really sad to see how many Americans fall for this low IQ propaganda. But --that's what Fox News is there for -- to teach how you to vote against your own self-interest.

Posted by: Drindl | August 17, 2006 9:18 AM | Report abuse

'Three Palestinian-American men who were found with nearly 1,000 cell phones were charged Wednesday with federal fraud conspiracy and money laundering after a county prosecutor backed off from terrorism charges filed earlier.

Maruan Muhareb, 18; Adham Othman, 21; and Louai Othman, 23, all of the Dallas area, were charged in Bay City with conspiracy to defraud consumers and telephone providers by trafficking in counterfeit goods. They also were charged with money laundering on suspicion that they used proceeds from the counterfeit cell phone transactions to buy more phones.

Magistrate Judge Charles Binder ordered the men held at least until a detention hearing Friday. They were arrested last Friday after buying dozens of cell phones at a Wal-Mart store in nearby Tuscola County.

The three in Michigan had been charged there with collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target for terrorist purposes.

Prosecutor Mark E. Reene asked a judge Wednesday to dismiss those charges.

Nabih Ayad, an attorney for the three men, called the charges "outrageous" and accused state and federal officials of "scratching each other's backs" by shifting jurisdictions.

"This is a clear indication of racial profiling: Picking someone up and holding them for days and trying to find something to charge them with. It's supposed to be the other way around," he said.

The federal complaint contains no mention of terrorism. It alleges that the three men defrauded consumers, TracFone Wireless Inc. and Nokia Corp.'

Posted by: More 'Phony' Terrorism | August 17, 2006 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com


Former British Ambassador Says Terror Alert Is "Propaganda"
Indians says group linked to liquid bombers controlled by Pakistan's ISI

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 16 2006

Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray says the alleged transatlantic liquid bomb plot is staged-managed propaganda on behalf of Bush and Blair - who yearn for a "new 9/11" to absolve them of domestic political trouble.

Murray previously blew the whistle on how the British government was using evidence obtained from torture in Uzbekistan - inflicted on its population US-funded regime of Islam Karimov - the dictator who likes to boil people alive.

Murray questions the intent and capability of the alleged terrorists to carry out the attack and offers the likelihood that evidence of the plot was obtained through torture in Pakistan.

"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time," says Murray (pictured).

"In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms."

"Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth."

Murray describes the alert as "more propaganda than plot," and points out that of all the Muslim terror suspects who have been charged, 80% have been acquitted and only 2% have ever been convicted on offenses related to terrorism.

Meanwhile, Delhi police in India claim they have concrete evidence that proves collusion between Pakistani intelligence service ISI and the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in carrying out militant attacks in India.

One of the alleged mastermind's of the liquid bomb plot, Rashid Rauf, is a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba. The ISI is a CIA front and the CIA have privately ignored their control of terror groups while publicly lauding Pakistan's status as an ally in the war on terror.

On Monday night it emerged that elements of MI5 wanted the liquid bomb plot to proceed and make the arrests only after the attack had taken place - sacrificing an estimated 3,000 lives and ensuring Britain experienced its own 9/11.

Posted by: che | August 17, 2006 5:29 AM | Report abuse

Regarding US Senate

CT Right now everyone thinks that it is safe. During the course of the election ,we will see. GOP has already made major overtures to Lieberman. Depending on how the DNC, DSCC treats him in trying to elect Lamont will ultimately determine where Joe ends up caucusing.

PA is slipping. Santorum has knocked it down to single digits in several polls.

OH is looking good

RI, MT and MO are dead heats.

We need to hold MN, NJ and WA

NV looks like it could move to competitive but too early to tell.
VA, TN and AZ are long shots

I see two for sure OH & PA plus 1 of the next 3 at a minimum. If the wave hits, maybe all 3. That is a max of 5 seats and throw in the Lieberman factor, we still need to pull off one major upset and not lose any Dem seats to take control.

I don't mind optimism I just don't count on it getting me anywhere.

Posted by: RMill | August 16, 2006 10:09 PM | Report abuse

For: My New Democratic Friends...Something to Chew on as a Possible Response to your Republican Friends

With the Middle East on the brink of a melt-down, the time has come for real political solutions. Rather than blaming various Islamic Nations and the Muslim World, the United States and Western Leaders should be pushing for them to become part of the solution. The United States' "War on Terrorism", however well intentioned, is a bloody mess, an utter failure, and placing the world on the brink of WWIII. We are generating more hatred and terrorism around the world than Osama Bin Laden could ever have hoped for.

During the first Gulf War, the United States enjoyed a large coalition of Allies, which included several Middle-Eastern/Muslim Countries. The absence of any Middle-Eastern/Muslim Countries willing to join the current coalition should have served as an ominous signal to the United States Government. Rational thinking and diplomacy was blindsided by 911. In our rush for revenge, we have become the problem....not the solution!

Having stated the above, the time has come to bring the Muslim World into the problem solving equation. Thinking outside the box, one possible solution could be the creation of a Pan-Arab Peace Corps. A Pan-Arab Peace Corps, comprised of moderate Muslim Countries, such as Egypt, Jordan, and other willing countries could be deployed to Iraq to replace the current U.S. Coalition.

COMPOSITION/ORGANIZATION? Each participating country would be expected to provide a contingent of military, law enforcement, civil engineers, medical, diplomatic personnel, and Muslim Clerics. Deployed Muslim Clerics could be an excellent bridge to their Iraqi counterparts, with the sole responsibility of lessening the Sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. Impossible, you say?...all the fighting factions sure united against the Israelis recently!

MISSION? Provide the new Iraqi Government the expertise and training assistance needed to rebuild Iraq's military and civilian infrastructure, without the contentious presence of U.S. and British Forces. Since all the participating countries are fellow Muslims...cultural, religious, and language barriers should cease to be a critical issue.

DISPOSITION? If a participating country is predominately Sunni Muslim, locate deployed forces in predominately Sunni Localities, etc, etc...

FUNDING? The U.S. should fund the majority of the deployment and rebuilding costs. We are responsible for breaking the Bank!...Now we need to fix it. Considering the current cost of funding U.S. Forces in Iraq and our projected long term presence, the money is already being budgeted and obligated. Time to switch it to another account! Modification of the old Marshall Plan would probably be a good starting point.

CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION? To kick-off such an effort, perhaps General John Abizaid would be a good initial choice. He is an Arabic speaker, sensitive to the culture of the area, and most importantly, already intimately familiar with most of the Muslim leaders in the entire Region. Ideally, he should retire from the Military and join the current U.S. Embassy Team in Iraq as a Co-Ambassador. If Muslim sensitivity to General Abazaid is too high, due to his present position, perhaps Indiana Senator Richard Lugar would be an excellent alternative. Each participating country would provide a Senior Leader to interface with their Iraqi Counterpart and the American Administrator.


What is the benefit to a participating Middle-East/Muslim Government? President Mubarek of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, for example, are currently sitting on a Powder Keg of growing Radical Islamic unrest in their respective countries. As the Iraq War drags on and the violence between Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran continues to escalate, their respective political problems will grow larger as well. Several immediate positive benefits would accrue to the entire region, as follows: 1) Participants would be empowered with the fact that they are participating in the resolution of the problem. 2) U.S. and British Forces would be withdrawn from a growing Civil War that threatens to destabilize further and spill over into adjacent countries and regions. 3) Muslim participation in the solution, should take some of the Wind Out of the Jihadist's Sails and ease the tension in the entire region. 4) Allows for U.S. Forces to be withdrawn from the region without the lasting stigma of another Vietnam. 5) Would provide the Iraqi government a viable option to solve security, stabilization, and rebuilding problems, without dependence on U.S. and British Military Forces...a Force that most Iraqis want out of their lives and country!

Unless the Western World and especially the United States is ready for Armageddon, staying the present course in Iraq is not a viable option. Mesopotamia, the ancient Birthplace of Civilization, could well be the present day catalyst for the End of Civilization! What an ironic end?

stewamart@aol.com

Posted by: M.Stewart | August 16, 2006 9:25 PM | Report abuse

For: My Democratic Friends

The Republicans insist you have no solutions to Iraq...How about considering the following:

With the Middle East on the brink of a melt-down, the time has come for real political solutions. Rather than blaming various Islamic Nations and the Muslim World, the United States and Western Leaders should be pushing for them to become part of the solution. The United States' "War on Terrorism", however well intentioned, is a bloody mess, an utter failure, and placing the world on the brink of WWIII. We are generating more hatred and terrorism around the world than Osama Bin Laden could ever have hoped for.

During the first Gulf War, the United States enjoyed a large coalition of Allies, which included several Middle-Eastern/Muslim Countries. The absence of any Middle-Eastern/Muslim Countries willing to join the current coalition should have served as an ominous signal to the United States Government. Rational thinking and diplomacy was blindsided by 911. In our rush for revenge, we have become the problem....not the solution!

Having stated the above, the time has come to bring the Muslim World into the problem solving equation. Thinking outside the box, one possible solution could be the creation of a Pan-Arab Peace Corps. A Pan-Arab Peace Corps, comprised of moderate Muslim Countries, such as Egypt, Jordan, and other willing countries could be deployed to Iraq to replace the current U.S. Coalition.

COMPOSITION/ORGANIZATION? Each participating country would be expected to provide a contingent of military, law enforcement, civil engineers, medical, diplomatic personnel, and Muslim Clerics. Deployed Muslim Clerics could be an excellent bridge to their Iraqi counterparts, with the sole responsibility of lessening the Sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. Impossible, you say?...all the fighting factions sure united against the Israelis recently!

MISSION? Provide the new Iraqi Government the expertise and training assistance needed to rebuild Iraq's military and civilian infrastructure, without the contentious presence of U.S. and British Forces. Since all the participating countries are fellow Muslims...cultural, religious, and language barriers should cease to be a critical issue.

DISPOSITION? If a participating country is predominately Sunni Muslim, locate deployed forces in predominately Sunni Localities, etc, etc...

FUNDING? The U.S. should fund the majority of the deployment and rebuilding costs. We are responsible for breaking the Bank!...Now we need to fix it. Considering the current cost of funding U.S. Forces in Iraq and our projected long term presence, the money is already being budgeted and obligated. Time to switch it to another account! Modification of the old Marshall Plan would probably be a good starting point.

CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION? To kick-off such an effort, perhaps General John Abizaid would be a good initial choice. He is an Arabic speaker, sensitive to the culture of the area, and most importantly, already intimately familiar with most of the Muslim leaders in the entire Region. Ideally, he should retire from the Military and join the current U.S. Embassy Team in Iraq as a Co-Ambassador. If Muslim sensitivity to General Abazaid is too high, due to his present position, perhaps Indiana Senator Richard Lugar would be an excellent alternative. Each participating country would provide a Senior Leader to interface with their Iraqi Counterpart and the American Administrator.


What is the benefit to a participating Middle-East/Muslim Government? President Mubarek of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, for example, are currently sitting on a Powder Keg of growing Radical Islamic unrest in their respective countries. As the Iraq War drags on and the violence between Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran continues to escalate, their respective political problems will grow larger as well. Several immediate positive benefits would accrue to the entire region, as follows: 1) Participants would be empowered with the fact that they are participating in the resolution of the problem. 2) U.S. and British Forces would be withdrawn from a growing Civil War that threatens to destabilize further and spill over into adjacent countries and regions. 3) Muslim participation in the solution, should take some of the Wind Out of the Jihadist's Sails and ease the tension in the entire region. 4) Allows for U.S. Forces to be withdrawn from the region without the lasting stigma of another Vietnam. 5) Would provide the Iraqi government a viable option to solve security, stabilization, and rebuilding problems, without dependence on U.S. and British Military Forces...a Force that most Iraqis want out of their lives and country!

Unless the Western World and especially the United States is ready for Armageddon, staying the present course in Iraq is not a viable option. Mesopotamia, the ancient Birthplace of Civilization, could well be the present day catalyst for the End of Civilization! What an ironic end?

Although I am currently a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life...Change is Good!!! Let's Take Back Our Government....Mr. Webb it's time to send the Senator Macaca Cowboy Boots back to Hollywood!!! You Now Have My Vote!!!!!


Posted by: M.Stewart | August 16, 2006 9:07 PM | Report abuse

"The polls again. we shall see in november now won't we?" - Zouk

Do us all a favor and do as you promised before - Don't come back until after the November election.

If the Republicans are still in charge of both branches of Congress, you can crow.

If not, you eat crow!

No rationalizing; you either win or you lose, RNC butt boy.

Posted by: Duh! | August 16, 2006 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Kerry had lost his Ohio lead by the time the GOP convention opened in August.

Posted by: Jack | August 16, 2006 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Mike - by anyone's standards, comparing Bush and Cheney to bin Laden is a tad over the top. You have to take a couple jounalism classes and develop the gift of subtlety. Otherwise, you'll spend the rest of your life as another lost lunatic mulling over conspiracy theories. Take your medication.

Posted by: Ace | August 16, 2006 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I can't beliuve it! Bush and that t2wit Rove are actually trying their scare tactics again! This time we have various police units raiding ports, looking for bombs, a flurry of airline flight diversions, buildings and bridges being guarded. Look for the red0yellow-orange idiot lights to go off on another tear next. What swine. What god awful, despicable swine, using terrorism to frighten people (all right dimwits, but those dimwits vote!) into voting for them. I think Bush and Rove and Cheney are no better than Osama Bin Laudin and the Hizbulla thugs. They use the *exact* same tactics and are just as disruptive and a danger to the United States.

Posted by: MikeB | August 16, 2006 7:48 PM | Report abuse

>>> Cynthia McKinney just lost by double digits

To a Democrat. It was a primary. Get real bill, you havent got a clue.

Posted by: F&B | August 16, 2006 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Drindle - PLEASE don't start waxing nostalgic for Clinton - every time THAT guy gave a speech I had to take a shower.
He was slime and earned his nickname Slick-Willie.

Posted by: bill | August 16, 2006 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Drindle - Eventually a party has to be FOR something. Other than cowtowing to unions (especially teachers unions) and far-left environmental groups, I just don't see what it is the Dems stand for - other than a gratuitous, rabid hatred of Bush. That alone won't cut it.

Posted by: Bill | August 16, 2006 7:11 PM | Report abuse

bill, I think the 'hate Clinton' platform worked pretty well for the republicans, don't you?

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 7:08 PM | Report abuse

'As long as you are the party of big government (and spending) and can't stand up for America, you will continue to lose on election day'

I guess you haven't heaard the news. The bush administration has increased the actual size of government mmore than any previous administration. And the spending? What planet do you live on, anyway?

'but by all means carry the battle to the enemies homeland. the results over there have been promising so far.'

Forget even the delusion of the last part. Which enemies [sic] homeland? Britain?

Oh, btw, are you in the military? If not, why not?

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I guess its nice for the Dems to proclaim a "hate-Bush" platform. Beyond that, anyone have a clue as to what they stand for? I keep hearing about this "big plan" they have to tell us, but haven't seen a thing. I get the feeling that if they let the country know just how far left they are, no one in their right mind will vote for them. Keep in mind that Cynthia McKinney just lost by double digits, meaning that the country isn't in a mood for radical kooks.

Posted by: bill | August 16, 2006 6:34 PM | Report abuse

'kooks like George Soros' -- yeah, kooks like Holocaust survivors and entrepreners who make like a zillion dollars. You people are truly sick, not to mention really, really brainwashed. Hear that on Fox News? But I guess that's your only source of information.

Posted by: Drndl | August 16, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

B Simon--Let's look at the math.
It takes 67 Senators to remove a President.
I don't think anyone posting here believes the Democrats will pick up more than 8 seats, which leaves the Democrats, best case with 53.
That means that 14 Republican Senators would have to be willing to remove a Republican President and Vice President from office.
If the high crimes and misdemeanors were heinous enough, Senators Snowe, Collins, Gregg, Spector, Lugar, and Warner might vote to remove a Republican officeholder from office.
Please tell me which other 7 Republican Senators you think might remove a Republican President or Vice President under any circumstances.

Posted by: Mouse | August 16, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

'And even if it did, do you want President Cheyney with the power to select a Vice President (Rice?) who would become the odds on favorite to be the Republican nominee in 2008?'

Are you joking? Cheney HATES Rice. Trying to get rid of her, in fact. She's only there because bushy boy likes her so very very much.

'Sue, we actually have an all-volunteer military which is the envy of the world'

Biggest laugh of the day so far. God, is this guy divorced from reality. Try to read a little, zouk. I know it's hard for you. But most of our generals are saying our army is 'broken'. Stretched beyond the breaking point. But what do you care ablout our troops or our ability to defend ourselves? You live in HappyHappy LaLa Land, where no one can ever be wrong.

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Nice attempt at sounding like a swing voter, bill. But... SURVEY SAYS?! XXX! You lose. And you will lose in November too.

Posted by: F&B | August 16, 2006 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Polls are fun, if not very accurate (see also: early exit polls a few years ago). But one caveat: I'm the average, burger flippin' suburban Joe who generally speaking sways elections either way, and here's my take in a nutshell. Certainly I'm no shill for Bush - he spends at a rate that would turn Hubert Humphrey and Gray Davis purple and he's a wimp on illegal immigration. BUT here's the caveat: the Democratic Party has looked like picnic day on Haight Ashbury for 30 years - and with kooks like George Soros, Reverand Al, Dean & company at the helm, its only worse. You expect me to vote for any of THESE Democratic clowns? Forget it.
And there goes your polls - right down the tubes. In short, the Dems are worse -and certainly nuttier- than the Republicans.

Posted by: bill | August 16, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, I'm crushed, you didn't like it, and as far as being stuck in Vietnam, No, just one of those that LEARNS FROM PAST MISTAKES, unlike the Repubs. I will however, take your retort as a compliment coming from a Repub and a party who have given us the remarkable, George BUSH I mean he is such a sterling example of a SMART and ARTICULATE Republican who carries his bible wherever he goes,then there is Cheney with his snarl and gun who comes out from his cave once in awhile to repeat to America how Bin Laden and Iraq were working together, and Rove and his maniacal and plotting methods for attempting to make these two guys look "bright and enlightened" lest we not forget Tom Delay and Cunningham, Abranoff, Bob Ney, Santorum, oh and the best yet, your prince of the bible belt RALPH REED. THESE are your sterling examples of Republicans that are oh so much smarter, and better people then Democrats? Maybe if Bush read something more then "my pet goat" and Cheney more then the latest stock report from EXXON,they could figure out what the hell is going on in the country and the world. Because I can assure you the rest of your party doesn't have a clue! You all follow the same old tired lines and spew out the same old hate lines, I'm right and your wrong crap that the country is getting fed up. You and Ann COULTERGIEST should get a room. From the looks of it she needs someone to slap around, you just might fit the bill! Bye now. Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 16, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, I think that the center and right of the party started drifting away from the Democrats at around the same time that Reagan started purging the Republican party of the center and the left.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 16, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

The polls again. we shall see in november now won't we?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"Incidentally, as to when Democrats (which I assume is another word for your long winded turn of phrase above JT) controlled the country..."

No, not ALL Democrats, only the special (short bus variety) represented on this board. I wasnt't aware that this particular strain had ever ran the country (so how exactly can could they take back what they've never had?)

Anyway, BTW, I am a registered Dem here in Chicago. As such, I belong more to the old school variety. I must say that, unfortunately, the Dean wing has tended to alienate many of the older rank and file here and I've seen some of those drift to the other party. What you have left are a hodge-podge of assorted activist causes and NOT a cohesive party, which makes it sort of difficult to effectively run any branch of government.

In short, what happen to the center and right of the party?

Posted by: JT | August 16, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Indeed we shall koz. Indeed we shall. At which point, one of us will eat substantial crow.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 16, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.theinternationalforecaster.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, is under investigation in London by the UK's Serious Fraud Office over their part in an alleged plot to pay more than $170 million of bribes to win billions of dollars of work at a giant Nigerian gas plant. At the time of the alleged bribes, VP Richard Cheney was CEO of Halliburton.

Posted by: che | August 16, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm a "stark-raving mad socialistss, appeaser of Islamic radicalism and assorted conspiracy theorist wacko"?

Astonishing. And yet, apparently, I'm a part of the majority in this country according to polls.

Incidentally, as to when Democrats (which I assume is another word for your long winded turn of phrase above JT) controlled the country...well...actually...for pretty much most of the 20th century up until the end. Amazingly enough, it was a pretty good century for the US too.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 16, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

'To hell with naivete and its most endearing progeny: the liberal fool.'

Oh please. Could thee be any bigger fool than your president? Get real.

'Drindl, get a life my friend.'

Mike, grow a brain, my friend. Then learn to punctuate a sentence.

Posted by: Driindl | August 16, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Sue, we actually have an all-volunteer military which is the envy of the world. The draft was from the Vietnam era in which you seem to be frozen. It's not that I don't like polls, I think they are amusing. But I don't use them in a predictive way to enhance my dreams. the rest of your screed is pretty foolish and not original or creative. It is just more evidence of why Dems are not taken seriously in national debates. But if you must ....Rock On!

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Mouse-
You got it wrong. Remove Cheney first, then Bush. Finding 2/3 wouldn't be hard after investigations publicize what these guys have been doing behind the scenes; after all, at some point the Rs in the senate will be after saving their own skins (i.e. jobs); they're already distancing from Bush, it might not take some much of a nudge to get 'em to offer up a sacrifice to the 08 race.

Posted by: bsimon | August 16, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Hi leftists! Say, we keep hearing you say that it's time to "take back our country" (The Kerry campaign used that line as well). This begs the question...When exactly did stark-raving mad socialists, appeasers of Islamic radicalism and assorted conspiracy theorist whackos ever really have control of the U.S. to begin with? (Are you maybe referring to the Carter years?)

Posted by: JT | August 16, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey Zouk, don't like the polls, that's too bad, I'm sure it must be some left wing conspiracy, I mean you know how many lefty's work over at FOX!.
Here's a thought, any member of the Dems or Repubs who do not win their re-election or election bid must immediately be drafted and sent to IRAQ. If they didn't vote for the war they are exempt the others must serve two years in central Baghdad. They will be given the SAME equipment the grunts get, then when they come back they can tell us all how that "DEMOCRACY THING" is working out over there. It would be nice if we could send Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Rummy et al, but they would be too busy booking flights out of the U.S. to some unknown land were they couldn't be found, I'm sure of course their profits from HALLIBURTON and the BIG OIL companies will be going with them. I wrote a little jingle for Carl R to share with his good buddies down at the Repubs or us center.
There once was a Pres. named Bush who had a Vice P. named DICK, they were both liars and crooks you could tell even by their looks. They started a WAR and invaded a land to gain their oil wealth with their hot little hands. But alas it went wrong and the people did balk, now what will they do to stay over there, I know, they said, we will have an alert, we will tell them their doomed and cannot be saved, unless we two and our friends are retained!
But Karl said we must shout to them all, we are moral and righteous, and we can save you guys, if you vote for the Dems you will meet your demise! Good said Bush, but I am confused, how will we win and keep all our money if the people reject us and tell us to leave the country? Oh fear not said Dick with a smile, we have three months and will throw them a bone, will tell them an amendment is written to stamp out the gays, the greys and the left wing, we will tell them we heard of a plot or something, then we will put out the red alert notice you see and they all know they can trust you and me! Good idea Dick, George said with a smile, I don't know what "demise" means but I'm sure your plan is worthwhile! Let's call Tony B. and tell him our plan maybe he can help and have a plot foiled in his land! It's up to the rest of America to see to it these guys are all gone! Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 16, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Rob, I can list all the money I spent last year and it would look real bad. but that fails to mention what I bought with it and the appreciation of my assetts. Look at the article I sited for encouragement and quit being such a doomsayer. How is it that Dems are overwhelmingly against freeing a country from oppresion and murder. what has happened to that once great party?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich Repairman--Wouldn't the Democrats need a net increase of 6 to control the US Senate? I can see a respectable case being made for RI, PA, OH, MO, and MT. But I don't see a realistic probability of a 6th turnover; do you?
Jackson Landers--Unless I am mistaken, it takes 2/3 of the Senate to remove a President from office. Do you honestly see that happening?
And even if it did, do you want President Cheyney with the power to select a Vice President (Rice?) who would become the odds on favorite to be the Republican nominee in 2008?
Similarly, the President retains a veto and almost certainly will have enough Republican Congressmen to sustain it on most issues.
Finally, what legislation has the current Congress passed that really upset you? As near as I can tell, they have been a "do nothing" Congress reflecting the conflicting desires of their constituents.

Posted by: Mouse | August 16, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

zouk: I think I answered your ? a couple days ago re u r post of 4:20pm. Ahy-hu, most of my predictions have been true. ie the Conn. primary.Where mt predictions came true in less than 6 hours. And I missed the final by 1%. I said 5 final was 4%. And this about 10 days before the primary.

Posted by: lylepink | August 16, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

did KOZ just say that he thinks things are going well over there??

Over 2,000 dead
over 10,000 injured
countless civilians dead
civil war
the return of the taliban
the escape of Osama
the failure to defeat Hezbollah
the anti-american rally supporting Hezbollah by thousands of Iraqis

but things are going well

I really don't want to know how things would be if KOZ thought they were going bad.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 16, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

As clearly stated by more than just me - we know how unreliable those polls can be, particularly in August. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, then good luck. you will need it. I suggest you all get a spine for foreign policy and then come back and try again. And stop spending money. the other stuff can be tolerated. As long as you are the party of big government (and spending) and can't stand up for America, you will continue to lose on election day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The one thing all polling discounts are the voting intentions of the "double digit demographic", referring, of course, to that portion of the electorate with an I.Q. under 100. Given the buy-in from the public--and, dare I say, the most widely followed MSM, ie. Fox News--the Bush Administration has had for both its domestic and foreign policy agenda these past 6 years, the Dems are Done. Perhaps they should be running ads prior to screenings of Will Farrel's Talledega Nights.

Posted by: The View From Up Here | August 16, 2006 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Yeah kingofzouk!

That damned Fox poll HAS to be biased towards Democrats.

If one, single poll was saying that the Dems were way out in front your argument that it is a Democrat leaning polling company would carry much more weight than if it was five different polls all saying the same thing and varying only by the order of magnitude that the generic Democrat is leading the generic Republican.

I think it is way to early to make predictions as to the Midterm results, but to try and claim that the polls are somehow flawed is a silly argument at this point when ALL the polls are saying the same thing.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 16, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Finally, we can get rid of the neotheocratic christo-fascists.

Posted by: TD | August 16, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Finally, we can get rid of the neotheocratic christo-fascists.

Posted by: TD | August 16, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

NW Guy: Yes, those numbers are also at their lowest since 1994.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 16, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I have a friend predicting a gain of 3420 seats. My friend is very reliable though. you all don't seem to realize how daft you sound.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Well, can you blame the national mood on anyone other than the Republicans, who have held full control of the Executive branch for six years, full control of Congress for four years and held the House for six years (losing control of the Senate briefly in 2001).

An ugly, unpopular mistake called the Iraq War, cutting funding for container searches at our Ports, attempting to cut funding for baggage screening at airports, outing of a CIA officer for political payback, and so many GOP members doing time or under indictment or soon-to-be indicted that it would make the most ardent Republican embarassed, is the reason the GOP is in trouble.

We voters may be dumb, but we're not stupid.

Posted by: RD | August 16, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised that The Fix did not include the Rasmussen polls. In the last presidential election he took top national honors for nailing the results.

Posted by: NWGuy | August 16, 2006 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Hello: this is SlantedtoDem poll company. since you are home during the work day, unemployed, don't vote and are waiting for your law suit check to arrive, let me ask you your opinion.
1. don't you agree that the way things are done in Washington sucks and they are screwing you?
2. Is your opinion of Bush bad or really bad?
3. Isn't is horrible how those monsters are sending our babies off to be murdered so thay can line thier pockets with your money?
thank you for your cooperation.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I think the Democratic Senate gain could be as high as 8 seats. Minimum of 4. I have a friend predicting a 30-45 seat gain in the House. I tend to be between that and RMill's numbers. I think 30 is possible at this point.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 16, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone considered the results of polls that ask most likely voters how they feel about their current Congressman? It is a different result.

Posted by: NWGuy | August 16, 2006 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Andrew, they aren't permitted shoelaces - it is Velcro all around.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, Wasnt it about this time in 2004 that the pundits were stating that "voters had already decided to get rid of Bush given a viable alternative that was Kerry?"

And recently didn't the latest CT democratic primary polls show Lamont 12 points ahead of Lieberman when in fact he barely eeked out a victory?

How did this "democratic wave" do in the CA-50 election?

I cant wait for November so I can laugh my ass off at the liberal media and their "expert predictions" just as I did when exit polls showed Bush down in Ohio by 14 points the afternoon of election day.

I hope the Kos Kids and the rest of the moonbat left dont hang themselves by their shoelaces when they see that America is not going to vote Jimmy Carter retreads back into office, no matter how high gas prices are.

Posted by: Andrew | August 16, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, get a life my friend.

Posted by: Mike | August 16, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Karen: you forgot to mention in your married to's, I'm sure one of your Fox favorites, Jane Skinner, didn't just happen to slip your mind or did it?

Posted by: lylepink | August 16, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

To hell with naivete and its most endearing progeny: the liberal fool.

-Author unknown

Posted by: Jim | August 16, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Mouse,

If the Democrats take control of Congress, repeated cries of 'Executive Privilege' in order to shut down investigations can easily lead to impeachment over any one of a number of alleged illegal acts. Don't think that there isn't an army of voters and Dmoncratic Congressmen who are salivating at the prospect.

Moreover, the Dems would then be in a position to repeal many of the laws passed by Republicans to expand Presidential power. They would be in a position to end American involvement in the Iraqi war through a number of means, including cutting off all funding for operations there along with a reasonable appropriation for the phased removal of forces. Let there be no mistake - with control over both the House and Senate, the Democrats can well and truly neuter George W. Bush and turn the remainder of his term into a nightmare of hearings, investigations and publicized scandal. Looking at the President's current approval ratings, it's hard to imagine that this kind of aggression would hurt them very much.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 16, 2006 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Drindl - just another reason I like you!

As for Mouse, you and other conervartives keep complaining about "gridlock". From where I stand, seeing the damage that Bush and his crazies have visited upon this country, "gridlock" looks pretty good to me. To heal our country the first thig we have to do is stop the injuries. Think of cancer or another disease (or an infestation of vermin). You have to halt the spread of the disease before you can begin the job of repairing the damage....

Posted by: MikeB | August 16, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Mouse -- we might have a chance at least, of not stumbling into WW3, for starters. We could at least block them from passing hideous legislation and spending every cent our granchildren will ever have.

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

We Democrats have a lot of hard work to do to make our sell to the American people. I am convinced that my party will take the proper steps to regain the House, possibly the Senate and Governor seats across the country. I only hope that the polls pointing to a major Democratic upset does not make people in my party think that we can slack and just ride into the election. The Republicans will throw out all dirty and cheap shots they can take. They have tons of money so we have a lot of hard work to do so to members in my party: "Let's Get Started."

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | August 16, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Pessimistic Dem - it is so nice to have the voice of reason in this blur of name calling and the typical chanting by the oblivious. for such a supposedly tolerant bunch, the rest of you seem to allow no quarter for dissension in your ranks. Yes it is true that we evil Repubs are forging a conspiracy to steal the vote from you hapless fools, which is what we always do.
When you refer to outsized fears, is this based on the rampant violations of the Patriot act which has resulted in over 6 million innocent citizens locked up in the middle of the night for snoring too loudly? Or maybe the eavesdropping on your call to the all night chat line.
MR 5th - thank you for rising above the other vitriolic blabbermouths who reside here and attempting to respond in a reasonable fashion. the rest of you are a complete waste of time. I would think that we have attempted to cut off funding and severe appropriate heads. this does not preclude us from employing other military actions as they can happen simultaneously - they do not consume the same resources. It is more difficult when the free press releases sensitive information but not impossible. I am not so worried about how you feel, moreover, how the state really is. given our predilection for amnesia in our culture, it is probably better that we feel unsafe. I think it would be very hard to measure how safe we really are - safe from what? the only thing I can think of to count reliably is the number of foiled plots and these are not all revealed. I personally would not want to depend entirely on the Federal Government for my security. the results of Katrina clearly demonstrate that government is not the proper resource for this sort of thing. I don't believe it is personalities but rather bureaucracies which are at fault.

At the bottom of my thoughts are the idea that a good offense is needed so we don't have to fortify our entire society in a defensive posture. YEs we should take reasonable precautions, but by all means carry the battle to the enemies homeland. the results over there have been promising so far.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I've been trying to tell you for 8 months that IN-2 was in play. But you missed the public polling from the South Bend Tribune that showed Donnelly ahead of Chocola.

Posted by: Midwest Demo | August 16, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

All I know is the war in Iraq was a bad idea and now it will be a while before we can get out of the mess, I suppose. We shouldn't try to impose our will or way of life on other nations just as they should not do so either. All we should have done was taken out Sadam and a long time ago without a war. It's going to be a problem for future generations both economically and geopolitically.

By the way, Chris, are you available?

Posted by: Maggie | August 16, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Sharon,

About 70% of Americans who actually turn out to the polls regularly will always vote for for their party. 35% on each side. A candidate from either party in a general election generally gets 35% automatically just for showing up. Not enough to allow the GOP to retain control in the face of a truly furious electorate.

There are no freshman Democrats in the House who are polling under a Republican oppponent right now. Wheras a great many Republicans of varying vintages are polling in serious trouble.

At the end of the day, every poll out there shows that Americans are overwhelmingly convinced that America has been taken in the wrong direction by their government. Since the Republican party has a monopoly on power in the White House, Supreme Court, House and Senate there is just nobody else but Republicans who can be blamed. Even the most absurd amount of Democratic hyperventilating over the alleged hijacking plot could not possibly overcome the fact that about 70% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going under the monopoly Republican government. Them's the breaks.

Posted by: Sharon | August 16, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Let's hypothesize that the Democrats capture one or even both houses of Congress. Practically speaking, what difference will it make?
We have had legislative deadlock for the past 2 years, and unless the Republicans can somehow increase their majorities, I don't see much besides posturing and deadlock during the next two years.
As for increased oversight of the Executive branch, I assume every Congressional investigation will be stymied by claims of "Executive Privilege".
Am I missing something?

Posted by: Mouse | August 16, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

As a blue blood as well as naturally suspicious persoanlity as it were, the numbers are very hard to digest.

NRCC says they are going to throw $40 million in slick marketing (translate attack ads) in the Midwest and Northeast, as well as $1million each on selected democratic candidates they feel vulnerable. Hey-we had Junior's better half in yesterday to raise $250,000 for the millionaire Republican runing aganist Tammy Duckworth. Laura has such a sweet, smile. My sense is she's the brains of the household.

The dems already announced $50 million.

If people think pledge week is bad on PBS statitons wait until the Repubs try to "swift boat" 200 House democrats with wall to wall attack ads on everything that can transmit TV or radio signals.

For members in what Mr. Zogby calls "the investment class", this is an opportunity to buy media stocks...and dump them after the election.

Posted by: poor richard | August 16, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Sharon my limited friend, it looks much better this way from a propaganda standpoint. They can say, oh look, the Dems have proven they don't get it' -- or whatever lame spin they put on it.

In any case, I didn't make the claim about how bush disclosed the british info early. Tom Ridge did. Is he a Democrat now?

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

There are over 20 members of Congress who are retiring in January 2007, by choice.

There are many of these seats that are in strong GOP or strong Dem districts. And the voters do vote party just as much as for the individual. The Dems need 16 more seats to take over the House, which means they must hang on to each and every seat they have right now. Some freshmen Dems in the House, like Melissa Bean, are vulnerable.

The more the Dems scream conspiracy about the British plot to blow up planes, the more crazy these people appear to the rest of us in the real world. If Bush really wanted to mess up the Democrats brains and screw up their lives, he would pushed Blair to expose the British plot on Monday in order to help Lieberman win the primary.

Posted by: Sharon | August 16, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

This is rich...

'What does Macaca really mean? Three Virginia Republicans confirmed to the Hotline that several Allen campaign aides and advisers are telling allies that the word was a made-up, off-the-cuff neologism that these aides occasionally used to refer to tracker S.R. Sidarth well before last Saturday's videotaped encounter.

According to two Republicans who heard the word used, "macaca" was a mash-up of "Mohawk," referring to Sidarth's distinctive hair, and "caca," Spanish slang for excrement, or "sh**."

Said one Republican close to the campaign: "In other words, he was a sh**head, an annoyance." Allen, according to Republicans, heard members of his traveling entourage and Virginia Republicans use the phrase and picked it up.
It was the first word that came to his mind when he spied Sidarth at the weekend's event, according to Republicans who have been briefed on Allen's version of the event.'

Oh I see. Allen only wanted to publicly humiliate a dark-skinned kid by call him a sh**head. No problem, then!

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

RMill,

What bearing would the CT Senate race have on the national Senate picture? Either potential winner will caucus with the Democrats. I don't see Lamont's race sucking any money away from other Senate races. The DNC was already spending their money on building party infrastructure rather than funding candidates and Lamont has plenty of his own money to pour in for the general election. The worst news that Leiberman's independant candidacy means for Democrats nationally is the chance of Lamont's race pulling some state money away from the 3 competetive House races in CT. A pretty small risk, that.

Who to watch in the final weeks: Hillary Clinton, who is mulling a play for leadership of the Senate in '07 with Harry Reid's blessing. She's got the biggest war chest going and can take a marginal Senate race anywhere in the country and dump tens of millions of dollars into it overnight. This would make her a few life-long friends if the effort put candidates over the top, ensuring more votes for her as majority leader.

I'd say you've got 5 likely pickups for the Democrats with a real fighting chance of getting #6 out of Tennessee. Your estimates for the House are spot-on.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 16, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will do the same thing they did in 2004 - "fix" the electronic voting machines in key districts and states.

Posted by: Pete | August 16, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Mike, I totally forgot about Burnsy. That is another Definite pick up. So that is five that I count as definites, and four leaners. Not looking good for the GOP.

Also KOZ in 2001 42,000 people died in car accidents. Are you so scared to drive your car that you walk everywhere? If so you should know that 4,200 people died walking in the US in 2003. How about protecting that part of our transportation infrastructure.
If your scared of terrorists, you are a pansy. That is what they want you to be, scared and by allowing that fear to rule you they win.

Posted by: Andy R | August 16, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Karen, member of the Angry Idiot Club. Just like zouk. If you try to speak rationally to him, he closes his eyes and stomps his little feet and beats his tiny fists on the table. Oh yeah, baby, we're gonna 'fight there over there so we don't have to fight them over here'.

Well, it seems like 'they' can still buy airline tickets, doesn't it? And 'over where' are you going [and I presume you will be going personally] to fight them? Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Jordan? Kuwait? The Emirates? Denmark? Britain? Because 'they' are coming fromm all over the world and we are creating thenm faster than we can kill them. Much faster.

It is estimated that the number of alleged terrorists/wannabes has increased by tenfold since bush has been in office--although of course our intelligence capacity has been greatly reduced so it's hard to know with any accuracy.

Didja see last night where Joe Scarborough [!] had a graphic of Bush up with the caption, 'Is he an idiot?'

Umm, 'is the emperor naked?'

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

KOZ wrote: "The usual gang of uber-liberal idiots making the same sweeping predictions I see. did you ever consider that maybe you should be scared? did you hear that some guys wanted to kill 10 airplanes full of tourists?"

My, how easily the right wingnuts wet their dresses! You "big government" wingers really need to grow a spine. I guess having a first class coward and deserter as so-called "president" has something to do with your outsized fears...

Posted by: tab khan | August 16, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

National and generic polls of this kind are not a good prediction for a variety of reasons.

First, people don't vote for Democrat or Repub in their districts, they vote for individual candidates. As the mantra goes, all politics are local, and people traditionally want to throw all the bums out of office, but send their "bum" back.

Second, because of the redistricting that has happened over the past 10+ years, incumbents are more safe than ever. So even if a challenger picks up 10% of the votes in a district due to a Democratic "wave", it won't be enough to dramatically change the make up of Congress - 95% of House races were decided by more than 10% in 2004.

Third, GOP votes are always undernormalized in these samples in national polling. Polling firms still normalize their results to a hypothetical Dem/Rep/Independent split based on party registration and other demographic factors when the reality is that the raw number of social conservative republicans has increased over the last 20 years enough to fundamentally change this split. Well over 40% of Americans see themselves as Evangelical Christian, more than 60% support teaching creationism in schools, yet polling firms still rely on a statistic that about 38% of the American population is Republican. I saw it first hand in internal and external polling in a campaign I worked on about 15 years ago - our internal polls showed us neck and neck, and we were blown out on election day because of the large turnout of Christian conservatives. The same thing happened in 2004 nationally, where everyone predicted a narrow Kerry win right up to the end of election day, and reality showed Bush winning by nearly 4%.

Fourth, the Republicans have a more devoted base that can be motivated to vote based on 2-3 social issues at the exclusion of all else (abortion, gay rights, etc.). Get strawmen on these issues on the ballots in some key states/districts, and the GOP will have a built in GOTV effort; Dem's no longer have a similar go to issue with the weakening of labor unions.

Fifth, money - while the DSCC has been outraising its competition, the national party of the GOP is trouncing the DNC in fund raising.

Sixth, the effects of 529's (which helped to make 2004 close for Kerry financially and in ad buys) has been negated, which hurts the Dems.

Finally, we Dem's have almost as many races in play in states that have shifted Republican in recent years as the GOP, but people aren't considering them competitive because of these national "Democratic wave" polls, like Iowa-3. So while we may knock off 12-15 House GOP incumbents, they'll get 3-5 from us.

My prediction? Dem's pick up 10 House seats and 3 Senate seats net.

Posted by: pessimisticdem | August 16, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Mr. 5th,
stop debating w/ the infant please. If he is not an infant, then he is blind or deaf, which maked him a happy person living in oblivion. The elections are coming soon, & come November, all the self-made crowd & the Christian right wing will have to just go back to their basement for 8 yrs. They'll blame the media & Hollywood for corrupting America & turning people away from Jesus. Their moves are predictable.

Posted by: Edwin | August 16, 2006 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I suppose, oh gorgeous liberal, that you should learn to spell wave as such, not "waive." I think you will be surprised this November, but not in a good way. These kinds of hopeful Democratic predictions have been stated every year since 2000, to little avail.

Posted by: df | August 16, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF - The multiple postings result from the server being slow. I've noticed pretty much all over the web that everything is running slow. Maybe some sort of hacker attacks? When they don't get immediate feedback, people think they have not hit the "post", "submit" or "send" button and hit it again. Not really their fault. Hence, the multiple posts.

Posted by: MikeB | August 16, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Alright KOZ,

I'll bite. Do I feel safer with the current government? No. Largely because as they have shown given the recent events in Lebanon to be actively biased in the middle east thus raising the risk of a larger number of terrorists. We were willing to sacrifice an arab democratic ally to be bombed to hell on the idea that maybe it would look good to Israel and hezbollah would be weakened. They were. So was Israel. That does not make me feel safe. As for fighting on the offensive rather than the defensive, I'd be for it if it didn't seem like we were falling for the "rope-a-dope" strategy. Do you see terrorism falling off around the world as a result of Iraq? Cause I don't.

As for domestic security, I don't think it would hurt to make sure our doors are locked and our family safe before we go out and start picking fights. The terrorist groups we arrest here we arrest in an instant rather than track and learn. Our DHS is incompetent, our intel is based off interrogation techniques that didn't work in our own revolution and won't work now.

If you want to frame the debate let's frame it. Would you like to go charging into the nearest fight available leaving your flanks vulnerable and your mind clouded or do you want to calmly and methodically take these bastards entire operation apart? If it's the latter that means cutting off their supply of troops and coopting them to American ideals, given the sellability of American ideals (see Lebanon pre-bombing, Russia, Ukraine, East Germany, etc.) I don't think that will be difficult, but we have to stop shooting them while we do it. We need to cut off their funding, and we do a decent job of this, and then we need to cut off their symbolic head. Terrorism may be a hydra but if we get bin laden or Zawahiri than we have scored a victory. Spin it how you like, Lebanon wasn't and Iraq isn't a victory.

You're move KOZ...Let's have the debate

Posted by: Mr. 5th | August 16, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The beauty of American democracy is how it re-aligns itself every election year. When the right goes too much to the right, voters swing left to get to the center, & vice-versa. You can not fool the American public for too long. But, again, the beauty is that voters themselves maintain a balance of our system. Bush's crowd was able to scare America into voting for them for a second term-some will argue this is the 1st "valid" victory for the klan-but this time the Iraqi Civil War (call it what it is please); Katrina's "colored" victims & Kanye pointing out Bush's love for his people; Condi's "new" vision of the Middle East & her inability to stop the bloodshed-mainly for Arabs- in the Lebanon-Israeli conflict; Tom Delay's scandals (I live in Houston, so trust me on my plurality here); & Al Qaeida's resurgence w/ its new plans are more than enough reasons to look for a better choice. So long neo-cons. See you in 10 years!!

Posted by: Edwin | August 16, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Just like John Kerry won all those exit polls. Ha ha. Keep dreaming. that seems to be all you have left since your rationality departed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 2:46 PM | Report abuse

What's with the multiple postings today? I wasn't the only one it happenned to.

Posted by: ErrinF | August 16, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The numbers looks very nice for a huge waive that shall sweep at least 30 GOP imcumbents out of their seats...Lets hope that this waive picks up speed before colliding into the november 8th election day, with full force.

Also, im 100% sure that Bush/cheney/rove, will come up with something to supress the vote and steal elections..Lets hop that the waive i so big that they wont be able to stop it.

Posted by: Maria | August 16, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Except for possibly catching Osama Bin Laden, there is no 'October surprise' that can save the GOP from their impending losses come November. The nation did indeed rally around the president after 9/11, but if another terrorist incident occurs on our soil, we will NOT rally around Bush this time. If anything, the Republicans, who constantly claim that 'no terrorist attacks have occurred against us since 9/11', will lose even more votes if another national security blunder occurs on their watch.
Sure, a lot of people expect some sort of 'October surprise' to magically occur to save the GOP, but a lot of people expected Y2K to occur as well. It's all in your minds, people. The GOP and Bush have lost the support of the swing voters, which means they are doomed to lose both House and Senate come November. There really is no scenario that turns things around. More likely, it will continue in the same direction, and things will just get worse for the GOP.

Posted by: ErrinF | August 16, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The usual gang of uber-liberal idiots making the same sweeping predictions I see. did you ever consider that maybe you should be scared? did you hear that some guys wanted to kill 10 airplanes full of tourists? I know you feel safe sitting there in the dark but some of us would like to use the public infrastructure on occasion. the debate about the proper role of government in preventing random attacks is a very suitable debate in a democracy. do you have any valid points to make or are all your ideas in the insult and flame category. I for one prefer a strong offense somewhere else as opposed to a bunker mentality that keeps us all building defensive fortifications here. Let's eliminate the problem at its source. Any objections? this is the framing of this debate, assuming the Dems actually want to do something (anything) about protecting our citizens.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 16, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Except for possibly catching Osama Bin Laden, there is no 'October surprise' that can save the GOP from their impending losses come November. The nation did indeed rally around the president after 9/11, but if another terrorist incident occurs on our soil, we will NOT rally around Bush this time. If anything, the Republicans, who constantly claim that 'no terrorist attacks have occurred against us since 9/11', will lose even more votes if another national security blunder occurs on their watch.
Sure, a lot of people expect some sort of 'October surprise' to magically occur to save the GOP, but a lot of people expected Y2K to occur as well. It's all in your minds, people. The GOP and Bush have lost the support of the swing voters, which means they are doomed to lose both House and Senate come November. There really is no scenario that turns things around. More likely, it will continue in the same direction, and things will just get worse for the GOP.

Posted by: ErrinF | August 16, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I think that there will be active voter suppression efforts, but less obvious since the Republicans probably learned a thing or two from the James Tobin case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301781.html

Certainly, the Dems need to pull it together and have a coherent message.. but they also need to be on the watch for illegal tactics again this election cycle.

Posted by: Nicole | August 16, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

GO DEMS GO DEMS GO DEMS GO DEMS GO DEMS GO DEMS GO DEMS

Ahem, sorry. Uh, Karen, you were saying...

Posted by: GoDems | August 16, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

This website proves people who support democrats are just plain crazy. Conspiracy? Vote Supression? Bimbos? I think the most important thing written by Chris Cillizza/DNC operative at WaPo is that NPR hires a democratic polling firm. can we all just admit the media is totally in it for the libs? CBS and CNN news chiefs marrying DNC fat cats, AP reporters married to top DNC fundraisers, WaPo reporters married to black helicopter conspiracy peddlers. The MSM told us the republicans were down 5% in generic polls a month before 1994 elections. Please, keep writing. It will help with turnout. As both Santorum and Burns inch up, and their opposition sinks, convince yourself you would only lose for voter suppression, photo IDs, broken machines, funnel clouds, radioactive clouds, October suprises, or a WaPo hack getting a sore finger. Jimmy Carter badmouthing Israel and wishing Castro good health for years to come is enough to win it for the republicans.

Posted by: Karen | August 16, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

AndyR, you forgot Montana, and Tester's increasingly good shot to defeat Burns.

Posted by: Arlington Mike | August 16, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse


WOW! I can't wait for the great times to begin. Will we see Congress do something worthwhile for a change? After complaining that the Feds did not take action last year for Katrina (The Louisiana
halfbreed governor would not ask) the governors have decided they will not allow the feds to have control over the Nat. Guard during a Natural Disaster! Congress did nothing under Clinton either. I say we throw away the parties and force people to think about the people they vote for and not blindly follow the media. Check to see how many days Congress does not work, its unbelievable!!

Posted by: Karen | August 16, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse


WOW! I can't wait for the great times to begin. Will we see Congress do something worthwhile for a change? After complaining that the Feds did not take action last year for Katrina (The Louisiana
halfbreed governor would not ask) the governors have decided they will not allow the feds to have control over the Nat. Guard during a Natural Disaster! Congress did nothing under Clinton either. I say we throw away the parties and force people to think about the people they vote for and not blindly follow the media. Check to see how many days Congress does not work, its unbelievable!!

Posted by: Karen | August 16, 2006 2:14 PM | Report abuse


WOW! I can't wait for the great times to begin. Will we see Congress do something worthwhile for a change? After complaining that the Feds did not take action last year for Katrina (The Louisiana
halfbreed governor would not ask) the governors have decided they will not allow the feds to have control over the Nat. Guard during a Natural Disaster! Congress did nothing under Clinton either. I say we throw away the parties and force people to think about the people they vote for and not blindly follow the media. Check to see how many days Congress does not work, its unbelievable!!

Posted by: Karen | August 16, 2006 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Ugghh, pink... don't know but it's enough to make you nervous. It could also happen in september--anniversary and all.

Hey MikeB, did you say were native American? Me too. Bit, anyway. My grandmother was Cherokee, from Oklahoma.

I might add, Keith Olberman has a piece up on Crooks and Liars where he has Tom Ridge saying that the bush people [i think the aboriginal connotation fits them very well, except it's unkind to aboriginals] spilled the London investigation faster than the Brits wanted it, to use it against Lamont. And possibly jeopardized their efforts, as well. Feel safer now? It's all about politics. Always. Just like before 9/11 when the republican congress refused to act against terrorism because all they wanted to do was poke around clinton's pants.

But now, maybe things are changing. That's Tom Ridge we're talking about--you know, bush's pick for first director of Homeland Security?

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

ok I'll disclose it, the october surprise it that I'm undergoing surgery. I'll blame it on the republicans and the wave will be even bigger.

Posted by: Rob Millette | August 16, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Do not forget youngsters, we still have the October suprise coming. Hmmmm. Wonder what it possibly could be??

Posted by: lylepink | August 16, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Rmill why does everyone keep saying that the GOP senate is safe? If we take an analysis of seats that could turn with the polls mentioned above then I see a strong chance of Democrats taking back the senate too.
PA -is a given
RI- I don't think Chafee will win his primary if we take what happen in wisconsin and connecticut as a barometer.
VA- One more screw up like yesterday and Allen is toast
OH- Dewine's chances are looking worse and worse everyday
CN- Leibermann or Lamont will both caucus with the Dems
Missouri- The stem cell issue is going to bury Talent.
AZ- I have my doubts, but Kyl is no McCain and with the current wind Democrats could pick this one up
Tenn- Ford has a good (not great) but good chance in this one.
Nevada- Carter might be able to pull this one out but I just don't know. More help from his pops definitly won't hurt.

That's four definites (PA,MI,RI,OH) in my book, and four leaners (VA,AZ,TN,NE). If we take the poll numbers at face value the Dems should be able to pick up two of those leaners. That's six and that is also trouble for GOP

Posted by: Andy R | August 16, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, oh I expect Rove to try the same old scare and terrorist alter tricks that have served he and Bush so well over the past several elections. Now, hoever, people have either figured out the scam or are simply fed up with hiding under their beds. I think Roive ids a one trick pony and isn't nearly the "political genious" he is made out to be. He is simple a tired politcial hack and protected pervert whose time under the sun has run out. So, look for the Democrats to win control of both Houses. After that, though, we need to hold their feet to the fire and get us the heck out of Iraq *immediately* and start unravelling all of these insane neocon tax breaks and agenda's of Bush and Cheney. If we don't get that, we need to emulate what is going on in Mexico right now and shut this country down.

Posted by: MikeB | August 16, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Yup, bigjim, I expect we'll get another tape from bin Ladin. Now, I'm not saying he works for them--although the families are sure cozy. But I think he wants republicans elected, because they want what he wants--a global relgiious war.

They truly are braindead and morally vacuous. Look at kind of the crap that they put out:

'The real problem with modern feminists is that they really are all Hezbollah now -- as well as Hamas and Al Qaeda -- in every important way. The women's movement bought into the fundamental premises that motivate the terrorists a long time ago... They must either acknowledge their symbiosis with terrorism and accept the reality that they have no major philosophical differences with terrorists; or alternatively, deal with the contradictions of the dead-end ideology that underlies both movements'

Can anyone really believe this? How fu**ed up are these people?

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Never underestimate Bush's capacity to gin up an incident before the election. He's really proving the old "fool me once" adage is wrong and continues to play us as fools.

Posted by: bigjim | August 16, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The under the table, surprise everyone after election day race.

NY25.

Maffei (D) defeats incumbent Walsh.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | August 16, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Continuing my analysis of the above factors and others, I have the Dem pick up in the US House at a minimum of 12 seats, with a likely range of 20-22 and at the upper end of 25-30 seats.

The US Senate is more problematic as the wave is spread out over an entire state population rather than a condensed district.

In my analysis, a minimum of 3 seat pick up with 4-5 possible. Depending on the CT situation, turnover of control in the Senate is highly fluid at this point but if I had to bet today, I would say no.

Posted by: RMill | August 16, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, Who can doubt that Rove-inspired Red Alerters will be clanging through the election cycle.

But it will be hard to quell the tsunami of disgust that is bearing down on Bush-policy-loving incumbents.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 16, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Aand here's more. Whatever you do, don't buy a prepaid cell phone for your college kid...

'Prepaid Cell Phone Purchases Have Authorities on Heightened Alert'

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

it is often said that the democrats need to "step up" and offer clear alternatives in order to capitalize on the coming wave. then no or skeptical coverage is given to those ideas which do emerge. In order for the good guys to be able to ride this wave, more serious attention needs to be paid - by the media and the voters - to ideas / proposals which are being made, and their possible outcomes.

Posted by: meuphys | August 16, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I expect we're going to see lots more of these:

A terrorist scare aboard a passenger jet bound from London to Washington, D.C., began when a female passenger complained of being claustrophobic, got into an argument with airline flight attendants and was forcibly restrained, Massachusetts police tell ABC News.

--Some nut argues with a flight aattendent and we get a 'terrorist scare'. Until after November 8, I urge you all not to pick any fights with nurses, waiters or traffic cops.

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

koz and bhoomes s00k. just thought i'd pre-empt them.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

True, JoshA, and they are working very hard to suppress Dem votes. However, if you are not a Dem, you may not be aware what strong feelings there are among many of us, and how hard we will be willing to work to take back our country.

Posted by: Drinl | August 16, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have long held a turnout advantage, as well as a willingness to suppress Democratic votes. Given those factors, the idea of a "wave" is very premature.

Posted by: JoshA | August 16, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

' It means that the national environment is clearly slanted in Democrats' favor at the moment and barring some sort of major national event'

Knowing that they'll do anything to stay in power, what do y'all think this major national event will be?

Posted by: Drindl | August 16, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company