For the political junkies among you, a round up of US mid-term election stuff.
According to some of the new polls, the Democrat "generic" lead has taken a sharp hit, the lead hovering at about the same margin they had in the last Presidential election. Pew Research Center (where there's a fairly lengthy breakdown on issues);
A nationwide Pew Research Center survey finds voting intentions shifting in the direction of Republican congressional candidates in the final days of the 2006 midterm campaign. The new survey finds a growing percentage of likely voters saying they will vote for GOP candidates. However, the Democrats still hold a 48% to 40% lead among registered voters, and a modest lead of 47%-43% among likely voters.The narrowing of the Democratic lead raises questions about whether the party will win a large enough share of the popular vote to recapture control of the House of Representatives. The relationship between a party's share of the popular vote and the number of seats it wins is less certain than it once was, in large part because of the increasing prevalence of safe seat redistricting. As a result, forecasting seat gains from national surveys has become more difficult.
According to others, it hasn't. "Democrats' leads shrinking but still strong".
For the most optimistic of the optimists, there's Hugh Hewitt. Now generally, one is best to throw out the high and low end predictions, but most discounted his sunny optimism in the last Presidential elections, too. As it turned out, he was right, and "most" were wrong. One of the possibilities he offers to explain this "last minute break" to the Republicans echoes something I mentioned* a week or so ago -
a.) the pollsters consistently underweighted GOP turnout and are scrambling to avoid being Zogbied.
Mystery Pollster explains what "Zogbied" means, after two media outlets recently refused to run their findings;
Yes, we often disagree, but there are limits to what can be waived off as a mere difference of opinion. If Mr. Zogby or any other pollsters want to explain and defend the practice of reusing sample, our Guest Pollster's Corner is wide open.
(Bookmark Mystery Pollster for analysis of everything poll-driven in the US.)
And if that doesn't sate your appetitie, Real Clear Politics has enough to keep the most hardcore amused for the remainder of the day.
If you want to drop your own predictions in the comments, be my guest! Honourable mention to the readers who come closest in predicting Republican/Democrat losses and gains. (Both Congressional and Senate).
If the dems pick up the 15 seats to take control, that means they have a majority of 1. With members of congress voting across the aisle on many issues, that means that every member would have to be there 100% of the time. Not likely. With all the predictions of a huge dem win, getting a majority of 1 would seem like a huge loss to me. The senate will stay Republican, with Joe L being courted with many offers from both sides. I wonder why the msm has not made any comments on what a majority of 1 would be like. Nothing would get done, and the dems could not get their non ideas thru the house. That would be very bad for them in 2008. I want the GOP to maintain control of both houses, just to watch the faces of all the talking heads trying to explain what happened. In every election every party loses some and gains some seats. We have not heard of any dems that may lose. So, in order for the house to change leadership it means that all 201 dems have to win, plus another 15. Also, 33 of the dems running are very conservative in their views and against ssm, abortion, etc. There is no guarantee they would vote for the liberal Pelosi on certain issues. If she can't control her members, and they vote against her, she will be forced to resign as speaker. I find it funny that you have Obama out there telling Blacks not to vote for a black man. Has anyone seen Jessie Jackson around. In Canada we have one national election office, that sets the rules, makes up the voters lists and oversees everything. In the states you have at least 50, and in some cases each district sets the rules, according to the party of the govenor of the state. Expect cries of election fraud. So far, all charges of fraud have been against the Democrats.
I predict that the 2008 election will still be about Iraq, and the question will be, why did the democrats and msm work so hard for America to lose.
This sounds a bit paranoid, so I'll note that I'm throwing it out as a question only:
Polls for the past two or three elections have consistently over-estimated (or, if you prefer, misoverestimated) the number of seats in the House and Senate and the number of Presidential popular votes that the Democrats would receive. This has been followed by accusations of vote fraud. Now, I think that there is more than one reason why polls consistently predict more Democratic votes than actually get cast, but I wonder whether one reason is to set the stage for accusations of vote fraud.
I'll predict that the Republicans end up with 51 Senate seats and 219 House seats; I guess that that means Democrats +4 in the Senate and Democrats +13 in the House.
I'll say Dems +3 in the Senate to make it 52-48 GOP (including independent Joe Lieberman with Democrats), and Dems +22 in the House for a narrow majority.
MaryT: you are absolutely correct.
The answer is that the MSM is in a fever-pitch propaganda war against Western civilization.
The only tools we have are the blogosphere.
Thanks again Kate.
I think the conspiracy theory is a little far-fetched. This late break to the Republicans is largely due to the fact that scared Independents are shifting back from the Dems over the perennial #1 issue in American politics - taxes. The shift has been 25% to 35% in favor of the GOP.
Those voters are highly susceptible to Bush's recent new promises not to increase taxes. Meanwhile, the Dems have no discernable tax policy on the table at this time.
The GOP will survive with a 3 seat majority in the House and 52-48 in the Senate with Chafee, Santorum and DeWine going down.
I agree with Mary T and Ace on most everything, except that I predict that Republicans maintain control of both houses. Perhaps narrowly, but maintaining control is of major importance.
Reasons: Iraq. Taxes. Economy.
And when it comes time to actually get in there and vote, what is one going to be thinking?
IF Dems get control back, when then?
Iraq : cut and run.. for sure we get hit again.
Taxes: Do I REALLY want to vote to raise my own taxes??
The economy is GREAT.... what if the dems get in??
AND raise taxes.... ??
I think when push comes to shove, they will vote Republican.
If dems lose, they will scream voter fraud as they have consistently since 2000. That only means that they tried fraud and it didn't work for them.
I've felt that the MSM has been so wholeheartedly, unabashedly, cheerleading for the Democrats, that perversely, the GOP will hold both houses.
Wondering how the gays will vote. The democrats supposedly support ssm and the gays, but notice how they have this thing about discrediting and outing gays. Whose side are they on. I wish that if the republicans maintain control that Pres Bush tries to pass a law stating releasing classified info by newspapers could be considered treason. Great todo about the Flame leak, but the msm has not done anything to condone those leaking secrets in time of war. Kerry threatened a tv network with loss of license if they showed Stolen Honor, and it worked, so why not revoke publishing rights and jailing the leakers. Clinton dropped the ball big time by cutting the budget and putting up a wall between the CIA and FBI. The democrats and msm have still not accepted the fact that the Islamoterrorists want to kill all of us. No one has ever explained what OBL would do if the western civilization is defeated.
Another thought, how many americans would go vote tomorrow if they knew they could be carbombed, killed, beheaded etc. like the Iraqis did.
Here's my take on Iraq:
Most Americans have been disappointed with Iraq which accounts for the depressed polling Republican numbers over the past two months.
Based on my own unscientific polling, my independent friends who plan to vote Democrat say that dissatisfaction with Bush's conduct of the war is their key reason. Most of them want to stay the course (Joe Lieberman types), but insist that the war was mismanaged. This is the same line the neocons are apparently taking:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612.
Those Independents who are leaning Republican are often lukewarm about Iraq, but are more concerned about taxes and the economy. I wouldn't call Iraq a vote-winning issue among Independents like it was in the 2004 presidential race versus John Kerry. The unapologetic supporters of the war are bedrock, yellow-dog Republicans and I would estimate them at about 25-30% of the US population.
I think that the Republican hold on its Independents, rather than its base will be the key to victory this time around.
maryT:
Maybe they ought to pass a law that would outlaw their own government from making documents available on the internet showing how to build nuclear weapons.
Ace - you should check into the reaction of those "neocons" whose comments were selectively released by Vanity Fair, before citing them as a source.
FWIW, here's the projection of a Republican pollster:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/a_republicans_t.html
Kate,
Point taken.
Where did those documents come from-translations from documents found in Iraq. Proves that saddam did have, or planned to have wmd. Also, what was in all those trucks, with red cross, un, ect leaving Iraq before the invasion, heading for Syria and Lebanon have in them. They were never searched. Wonder what other info is out there telling us what they planned to do. Are you following the trial in Britain of the terrorist and the plans to blow up and kill thousands both in the US and Britain. If the democrats win tomorrow, the world will be in more danger than ever. Hope TO is on their radar and not the rest of Canada.
Watching all the CNN news and talking heads interviewing Dean, Carville, Ford, Gergan etc. and for some reason they are not as optimistic as 2 wks ago. Still think the dems will win the Congress, but not by the 40-50 they said for weeks. Senate will not change. They say, if the dems don't win, it will be because of voter fraud. They forget that it is the democrats who practice fraud by registering illegal voters. There are over 10,000 lawyers ready to pounce tomorrow if lines are too long, voters are challenged, etc. Dean is giving out a phone number for democrats to call from polling stations and lawyers will be there in minutes. Kerrys gift, Ortegas election, Saddams guilty verdict are all having the effect of getting the republicans to the polls. Pelosi is saying she will reach across the aisle to work with republicans to set the agenda if she is speaker. Why didn't she co-operate for the past 6 yrs. With the contempt the democrats have for the military (like the lib and ndp) I would expect re-enlistment to fall to zero.
Pelosi has said in her first 100 hours as speaker she will raise the minimum wage by 2.00. There are supposedly 15 million workers in the US working for minimum wage. Could their economy stand a 30 million/hour wage increase plus the elimination of all the tax cuts.
I remember reading somewhere on the net, after the last Presidential election that the msm had forgotten one 'cultural group'; the Celts. The Celts, who would rather keep their right to own property; and a rifle to protect themselves and that property, than have free medi care and welfare food banks. The blogger was talking about the working people celts, (poor and not so poor). I predict that the intrepid freedom loving Celts will suprise the msm again and the house and the senate will remain Republican.
'Any surprise that Don Newman had a lengthy interview with John Zogby, within sight of the Masonic Obelisk in Washington, on CBC's Politics last night?
Thank God for blogs and Fox. At least we have a modicum of balance given our choices in the MSM. The lefties are so entitled, they figure they can feed us any statistics, no matter how skewed or how many errors there are in their collecting of them.
I guess they think we're stupid. Thanks, Kate, for disabusing them of this notion.
What some people here are forgetting is that the pre-election polls in 2004 were remarkably accurate. Most had Bush winning by anywhere from 2 to 5 percent, which is exactly how it turned out (3%). It was the early exit polling that threw people off - including some Republican pundits.
BATB: "Thank God for blogs and Fox. At least we have a modicum of balance given our choices in the MSM. The lefties are so entitled, they figure they can feed us any statistics, no matter how skewed or how many errors there are in their collecting of them."
Fox happens to show the Dems 13 points ahead in the generic vote - a much higher spread than the Washington Post. Fox's poll was also one of the very few to show Kerry ahead in 2004.
Should be an interesting day, there is a power outage in one voting district. Applications to have hours extended in another, due to voting machine breakdowns. The dems are geared up to charge election fraud in close races. Regardless, if the dems win by a slim percentage it will be considered a loss, after all the predictions of huge support.
I admit I don't understand the ins and outs of Canadian politics. On the other hand, you folks don't seem to have a clue about what is going on in the U.S.
The ideological difference between the political parties in the United States is wafer-thin, and both are part of an Establishment which is rotten to the core. This election will change nothing, no matter which side 'wins.'
I am going WAY out on a limb and predict that Hillary Clinton will win in NY but not by the margins expected.
A really close NY election could harm her 2008 presidential run and then more left wing Dems might jump on the Obama Barack presidential band wagon.
IMHO my prediction is a waaaay long shot that deserves some odds /s. Mrs. Clinton has the all important advantage of being the incumbent with her fund raisers and a winning -get out the vote- team in place. And she also has the ever popular Bill Clinton.
Also I thought Mrs. Clinton could hardly keep the smile off her face when John Kerry fragged himself last week. I also predict JF Kerry is sunk when it comes to the Democratic nomination for Pres. in '08.
I wrote the Republicans will maintain power in both the House and the Senate a little while back on sda and I am sticking to it. I am just glad I do not have any money down and will only be eatting crow if I am proven to be way wrong.
Even if the Repubs do lose control many of the new Dems will have gotten in by being right of center in their campaigns. The left wing Dems might have some problems mustering support and votes from these new Senators and Congressmen when the leftwing Dems (like Kerry and Pelosi and Rangal) push their agendas.