The conventional wisdom remains that Republicans are swimming upstream, with nary a paddle, going into Election Day. The House seems lost, the Senate up in the air. Everyone hates Bush, and Iraq, and Republicans. Because Bush is bad. Etc., Etc.
Not so fast.
Three national polls out Sunday showed a surprising turn that we here in Washington state should not ignore. Generic congressional polls from Pew Research, ABC News/Washington Post, and USA Today/Gallup all showed clear and sizeable gains Republican gains from earlier polls in October.
The astute reader will remember this author has cast doubt on generic Congressional polls and related conventional wisdom before. Yes, and with good reason. Generic, national polls remain unreliable for reading individual House, and even Senate, races, not to mention the other challenges of modern polling, to correctly measure actual turnout, to actually obtain polling answers from likely voters, and so on. However, demonstrable changes in generic poll data can reveal important trends occurring.
Across the board, and as even acknowledged in today's New York Times, the Republican base is coming home. Each of the three polls cited above captures the same clear movement. Republicans are increasingly engaged, Republicans are motivated to vote, Republicans are concerned about a Democratic majority. [Note: the USA Today story covering the Gallup poll bears a starkly different tone than the Times coverage provided above, and other stories percolating on the net as of this typing on the collection of the three polls from Sunday. Generally, the story's theme conveys conventional wisdom thinking, while the data it reports is similar to the other polls. Take that contrast for what it's worth].
More interestingly in light of the GOTV machinations discussed at the same post linked above discussing generic polls, both the Pew and ABC/Washington Post show a GOP edge in voter contacts. About as good a verification as you can find that turnout operations are humming.
Why this shift? I argued the Republican base was coming home, even before John Kerry's helpful "stuck in Iraq" gaffe, and even more obtuse, tone-deaf rebutals for over 24 hours (before offering a meek apology) that accelerated Republican momentum. Note the Pew poll found that the Kerry story had deep penetration into the voting populace, just about the last thing Democrats were hoping for.
Meanwhile, though House races remain generally difficult to poll with regular reliability, Senate races are less challenging. And recently released polling by Mason Dixon, an independent pollster respected by both sides of the aisle, showed notable shifts towards Republicans as well (though admittedly no benefit for Mike McGavick locally). Republicans are gaining in Montana and Maryland, and even Rhode Island, seats once thought firmly in Democratic hands. Republicans are also showing greater strength in Tennessee, while races in Virginia and Missouri remain bruising toss-ups. That overall Republican rise seems likely to help in the many tight House races where a one or two percent shift can mean victory or defeat.
Add all the data points up, and you have evidence of a late trend benefiting Republicans. Nancy Pelosi has even come out of hiding to hit the campaign trail in the Northeast, branding GOP leadership a "freak show." Nice talk for her base, but quite motivating for Republicans too. Democrats may want to have left her back in that closet she was hiding in for the previous couple weeks.
The entire shift in the campaign mood helps Republicans less in states like Washington where voters began casting ballots in large numbers weeks ago. Will it still help Reichert and McGavick? Yes. Might they still lose in a broader national tidal wave election, wiping out Republican majorities in Congress? Sure, and McGavick faces the longer odds of victory of the two. Would it be wise, however, to ignore the conventional wisdom and wait for the actual results, especially based on recent news? Definitely.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 06, 2006 06:58 AM | Email ThisAs we near election time, the people that support the President (or at least, don't support the left) are making the decision to vote Republican. Granted, many feel Republicans don't deserve it (and in many ways they don't), but it's better than a vote for the idealess anti-war tin-foil hat wearing left.
Posted by: Easycure on November 6, 2006 07:28 AMLocally, with Burner now toast, it's pretty clear that folks are waking up.
Posted by: Hinton on November 6, 2006 07:48 AMWill someone PLEASE get Bush to veto a spending bill or two!!
Posted by: Cato on November 6, 2006 08:23 AMAs for Hate Bush...yeah we hate Bush, but it's not because of the man he is, it is because what he has done or allowed to happen.
Abu Gharib (he blamed the troops)
Guantanomo (He blamed the troops again)
Unprecedented presidential powers (have you seen the signing statements?)
Unmatched incompetence
Unparalled corruption (seen the missing numbers and war profits in Iraq lately?, and the list of Republicans friends going to jail)
Unwarranted Eavesdroping ( It's always been easy to get a FISA warrant, very few have been turned down, but not good enough for this guy)
Katrina, how's that reconstruction going down there. Brownie said what to me on Vidoetape before the storm?
Halliburton, Global warming, Cheneys Secret Energy task force, record oil profiteering, $3 gasoline, FEMA, The Supreme Court, Diebold, Florida 2000 Ohio 2004, Terri Schaivo, Stem cell research, golden parachutes, shrunken pensions, unavailable and expensive healthcare, Habeus corpus, No WMD's, sacraficed soldiers and Iraqi citizens, wasted or lost billions of dollars,Taliban resurgence, expiration of Assault weapons ban, North Korea, and Iranian diplomacy, intelligent design as a science, swift boat hit squads and on and on.
(Thanks to Molly)
So when you repeat you O'leilyism that we just hate, just because we hate, that is not true.
We hate him because of his policies, not because of all his mispeaks, that would make Kerry look like a Rhodes scholar.
We understand the Bar is lower for this guy, but he is bringing all of America down to this low "Limbo".
He meant what he said and whatever spin he tries to put on it, he hates America. He is the frontrunner/image of the Democrat party today (until the '08 nominee is selected).
Karl Rove didn't spin the gaffe, BTW. It was the pajamadein that blew the whistle.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2006 09:24 AMBut John Kerry hates America?
Let's see;
He spoke out against an unpopular war (In which he was there) in Vietnam, That he felt and latter proved was messing with our soldiers minds and the locals. We then left with his help, and now have great trade relationships with Vietnam.
We tried throwing democracy down someones throat before at the end of a gun, it doesn't work.
He's a public servant that is worth, I don't know, 600 Million. He is constantly voting against his best self interest as far as his pocket book, because he knows there is more to making America great, then just acquiring wealth.
He has not been associated with any of the "K" street lobbyists, to pad his own pocketbook, like has been shown with this group of GOP.(and with supeona power, the rest are going down too.)
He is constantly fighting for the lower and middle classes when it comes to fair pay, healthcare and environmental protections, and asking for us to be a pay as you go country.
He is always there voting for Pell grants and student loans to help those who want to move up the ladder to enjoy the "American dream" have a chance. (Bush cuts all of these, they like the cheap labor)
Even Jesus said to help those with the least among you (or something like that) Who follows more in those footsteps. Kerry or Bush and the "You're what I call my base" millionaire folks.
So even if he said that "If you don't work hard and go to school, you end up in Iraq."(Which you know is a Rovian spin)
Would he not be right in saying, that many people who can't afford an education, or lack of job opportunities end up in the Military. (starting pay $1100 per month)
I am sure that many of the Officers have come from well off families, but not so much the enlisted man who actually are dying. (I don't see the Recruiting officers at the Mega churches filling the ranks, they are just lowering their standards at the high schools)
Nice Job also by the GOP not to raise the Death Benefits for the killed soldiers, or fully fund the anticipated needs for the returning vets.
Why do you support the party that really hates the troops?
They love to use them to protect their buddies over there making the profit.
That's why they earn 1/5 what the soldiers of fortune earn over there. They like cheap labor.
Talk about a union that is need to protect them.
Thank god the Generals are speaking up.
So tell me again who hates America?
Oh that's right, John Kerry supports Gays, and Stem cells, wants responsible gun ownership, believes in responsible spending, thinks that business should pay living wages and be respectful of the commons, and wants people to have affordable healthcare...he hates America.
Does it hurt your brain to be this easily swayed by the Limbaughs, O'Leily's, and the Roves of the world? Or is it because Evolution does exist, and you just haven't been naturaly selected to move up the ladder.
However, in the nation as a whole, it's going to be an ugly day for Democrats. And that's well deserved. They really owe it all to themselves. In their unmitigated zeal and Bush hatred, they've left reason and nuance aside and committed several serious blunders that have handed many races to Republicans. Then again, how can they hide their utter contempt and racism for a candidate like Michael Steele who offers a real alternative to the endless Black victim message that the Democrats peddle.
When left naked to stand alone in the market place of ideas, Democrats will lose every time. Their only hope is Demographic enclaves of socialist anti-American hatred like Seattle. And their just aren't enough Seattles and San Franciscos to give Democrats and overall advantage, because most Americans know that rugged individualism is what got us to where we are, and handing over power to progressive statists is not going to give us more success. If anything, we've tried that over the last 60 years and the welfare state has been an abysmal failure. All of the successes of the past 60 years have been where there has been privatization and competition. Two words that send Democrats scurrying out of the sunlight and back to their blue cocoons.
Get out there and vote.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 6, 2006 10:24 AMWhen you look at America, and the strength that we will have by pulling us up from the Bottom. So that all Americans have a chance to suceed, not just those with acquired wealth, you will see the overall goals of the Democrats.
They understand when everyone does better, even business succeeds and has a robust economy. Clinton proved it. That's why the constant attack, a strategy that helps all, wasn't good enough for these greedy folks.
But the misunderstanding is that if you cream your customers, by not allowing them to enjoy the fruits of this country and leaving them living paycheck to paycheck, you loose your customer base. (Their still buying now, but on credit cards)
Henry Ford new this. He paid his workers so they could afford his product. seems simple enough.
But not this group, take a look at the Great lakes area. They have esentially killed off the entire area.
So let's act like Jesus would, not like the Mega Churches are telling you how he would.
That's what just amazes me is that there is a Christian right...makes no sense at all.
The Democrats stand for more Christian values then the Republicans any day.
Posted by: danw on November 6, 2006 10:28 AMNo.
Wait.
In liberal-land I didn't TAKE this, I BORROWED it!
If you want another September 11th Vote Democrat.
If you want the Government to take all your money Vote Democrat
If you want to be forced to pay for others medicare who don't work because they are too f**** lazy to work Vote Democrat.
If you want Cradle to Grave taking control of your life Vote Democrat.
If you have limited Brain Cells Vote Democrat.
Yes, vote Democrat, the party of Tax and Spend! Yes, if you want to see your tax break go bye-bye, and your taxes to go UP,UP,UP, vote for the Dems.
If you want whiny pissants who hate capitalism, that which MADE this country,VOTE DEM!!!
Ramadan O.K., Christmas has got to go!!! You like that? Vote Dem.
If you want to fight them here, not over there, VOTE DEM!!!
If you can't tell that Wall St. and Main St. are one and the same, Vote Dem!
If you want insulting cheap shots and degradation of troop moral, cuts to the military and war on your front door step, VOTE DEM!!!
If you think the government should dictate your entire life, how and where you spend your money, Vote Dem.
I'll be voting Republican.
If you think the American taxpayer should foot the bill for millions of illegals and liberal welfare recipients, vote Dem.
If you want silly slogans like "freak show" and "Yeeeeaaaahhhhhh" to rule your intellect, vote Democrat.
If you want degradation of troop moral by constantly slagging them off, and you read the info about how Saddam WAS actively pursuing nukes in 2002 and still think he had no WMD, vote Democrats.
If you have absolutely no sound fiscal ideals, and no plans for the future, see the stock market soar, consumer spending increase, and jobless rates fall to all time lows, and still think the economy (it's the economy stupid) is screwed, vote Democrat.
If you think there isn't a P.C. war on all things Christian, then you need to have your meds upped. Lst time I checked, Christmas tree's were secular, why are they being banned across the nation. Why is it not o.k. to say Merry Christmas anymore? Someone want to tell me why kids in Florida can't do a pageant about a penguin on christmas, because it might piss off some muzzies?
You want people who embrace a woman who gives warm fuzzies to **** up dictators, by all means, vote Democrat.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 6, 2006 10:30 AMOh yeah, would that be because the D's were in office when that happened?
I'm also concerned about the THOUSANDS of babies who are killed solely because the womb provider was irresponsible and did not want to taake responsibility for a PREDICTABLE OUTCOME.
Whe I see daily tallies of those two stats with the body county from IRAQ, then I'll think you really care about HUMANITY.
Posted by: Old Faithful on November 6, 2006 10:46 AMBTW... do you READ or just react?
"I'm just asking"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 6, 2006 10:49 AMWhat do you mean?
Posted by: Bob on November 6, 2006 10:50 AMPosted by Bob at November 6, 2006 10:39 AM
Nope.
But it's well documented that the polls, especially the mainstream media polls, routinely over-sample Democrats and under-sample Republicans.. by as much as 8%.
Do the math.
Better yet, do the research and look at the internals of the polls.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
From today's White House Bulletin...
a point that has been noted in this space before:
* Recent Polls Outside The Historical Norm For Party ID. A spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month's elections. One reason for that, possibly, is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID. A memo circulating among Republicans on the Hill, authored by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years. According to Winston's analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.
In most of the years between 1992 and 2004, Democrats held a slight advantage in party ID. Winston based his data on VNS/Media exit surveys, and concluded in 1992, Democrats held a 3 point advantage; in 1996, they held a 4 point advantage; in 1998, a 1 point advantage; and in 2000, a 3 point advantage. In two election years, 1994 and 2004, the percentages of people identifying themselves as Republicans and Democrats were identical, i.e., no advantage to either party. 2002 was the only year in which Republicans held an advantage over Democrats, with 40% identifying themselves to exit pollsters as Republicans and 38% identifying themselves as Democrats.
In short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as 4 points over the other in party ID. But in recent polling samples used by eight different polling organizations (USA Today/Gallup, CBS/NYTimes, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/Opinion Research, Newsweek, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and Time), the Democratic advantage in the sample surveyed was never less than 5 points. All these organizations conducted surveys in early October. According to Winston, the Democrats held the following party ID advantages in these early-October surveys:
* USAToday/Gallup: 9 points.
* CBS/NYT: 5 points
* ABC/WP: 8 points
* CNN: did not provide sample party ID details.
* Newsweek: 11 points.
* AP/Ipsos: 8 points.
* Pew: 7 points.
* Time: 8 points.
Party registrations shift over time, and many political operatives believe the country starts to gravitate away from a party that has been in power over an extended period of time. Republicans have controlled the House since 1995. Winston acknowledges that possibility in his memo, writing, "It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that this year's election could fall outside of historical results, but any survey that does should acknowledge that the data presented are based on a foundation that reflects a structural shift in the way the electorate identifies itself with a party."
BTW... did YOU believe the polls that said Kerry was running away with the Preidency in '04?
"I'm just asking."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 6, 2006 10:55 AMhttp://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,227707,00.html
you guys make me laugh so hard. you probably think that the terrorists in iraq are in their "last throes" (thank you big time dick).
Posted by: dinesh on November 6, 2006 11:16 AMIf you asked most people who would win the World Series this year prior to its start, you would have thought the St Louis Cardinals should not have bothered to show up. We all know how that turned out.
Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2006 11:25 AMYour taxes will have to go up sometime, we will all have to pay for the $320 million bridge that Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens wanted and the $1 trillion it's taken to oust a certain middle east dictator and convert it to a democracy.
Posted by: Cato on November 6, 2006 11:35 AMThey want the Democrats to win.
The only cavil they have is with Nancy Pelosi:
Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.
In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.
WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."
Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."
Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."
"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.
While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.
Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."
He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."
Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."
Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.
"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."
Maybe Howard Dean should see if these guys could help him tap some of Osama's vast funding in return for pulling out of Iraq.
Senator Kennedy and Ex-Prez Jimmy Carter approached the Soviet leadership in 1983 for help in the '84 elections against Ronald Reagan, according to KGB documents.
Why shouldn't the Dems tap into their overseas "Hate America" allies?
Posted by: daveinboca on November 6, 2006 11:37 AMNo, it's not. Some polls this election cycle noted the spread in voter id being significantly different than in the past. One explanation is oversampling. The explanations for oversampling range from media bias in favor of D's, to the increased difficulty in contacting a representative sample of the public due to changes in communications technology (internet phones, cell phones, etc.). Others have speculated that voter id really was shifting. Your data doesn't support your conclusion, or any conclusion for that matter.
Posted by: Bob on November 6, 2006 11:54 AMYou will also hear the KLOWNS point to the unreliable Polls as EVIDENCE "THEY WUZ ROBBED AGAIN!!".
I can't wait to hear them vent, new conspiracy theories and all the other crap they spew as excuses for the loooooooosers they are.
They are not LIBERALS....they are Socialists/Marxists/Leninists et al.
Thay are truly wrong-headed!
We tried Prohibiton before, and it led to an underworld of Liquor. Or is there reason that Alcohol as a legal drug, has too powerful of a lobby? I am not much of drinker myself, but when your government doesn't come down harder on the effects of this drug, not only on the Drunk drivers and the suppliers, you have the right and duty to grieve to your elected officials.
Abortions on the other hand are a sticky subject. I don't care for abortions, but from what I know is that there has always been and always will be abortions. There are plenty of places in the rest of the world that allow them. So making them illegal in the US hurts who?
Those with the means and the desire, will be able to obtain doctor supervised safe abortions.
Those who don't either will have a dangerous back alley type, or bring another unwanted child into this world.
The funny thing is, that under the Sex perv Clinton, He was able to lower the number of abortions by allowing the poorer amongst us able to make a living, that the thought of another child was not such a hardship. He also allowed teaching of and availability of Birth Control to more people. He new that only teaching abstinence until you are 29 years old, was not a good plan.
So make your decision on Abortion. Show some care and compassion after the child is born, so that parents won't feel the need to have them. When good jobs are available, the number goes down.
Or keep them poor and struggling then when the decision is made, women will need to take their lives into the hands of some back alley butcher.
No women ever wants to do it, but if the compassionate conservatives were more concerned with what's going on outside her body that effects her, than what's inside her body, it would reduce the number.
Yeah, Yeah. I have heard the stories about how women are using these as birth control. ( I have also heard about the 4 family farms lost to the estate tax) Well when the only thing you allow is abstinence training, and you have 47 Million without healthcare, whose fault is it.
Posted by: danw on November 6, 2006 01:21 PMNow they can claim that they were right if the Rep's win and have another 2 years of conspiracy theories about Diebold, Florida and Ohio.
Of course they say that Washington in 2004 was just the system showing it works.
Now drink some more kool-aid and everything will be just fine...
Posted by: Ken on November 6, 2006 01:25 PMDidn't this Windmill Blog get started talking about tainted elections? (never proven)
While ignoring the rest of the countries 'suprise' results (first time the polls have been so wrong).
Just because that is what this group likes to do, you try to paste your indescresions on others because you think they must be doing it as well.
Well not so much, that's what you call values. letting the people decide how they want to be represented.
Voter supression and fraud is not good for anyone. Why do you do it?
Is it perhaps, that the values of your party just don't meet with what most of America wants?
As for Dave in Boca.
Do you think Gerge Bush is not the greatest recruiting tool these folks have?
Let's see.
The guy who is killing muslims and wants bases in their holy lands?
or the ones who want to get them out.
The Religous leaders love this guy, easy to get the people riled up.
Gerge Bush and the rubberstamp congress bad for Americans, and the entire world.
Sorry just don't want Armageddon in my lifetime.
Posted by: danw on November 6, 2006 01:39 PMThat was an interview by WND and not the Bush administration. We can't go in and kill terrorists without reading them their Miranda rights.
Posted by: swatter on November 6, 2006 01:43 PMI miss your point. Out of one side of your mouth you are saying it is a civil war, which means Muslims are killing Muslims, not "the guy".
The part that I do get is that you want to listen and follow terrorist orders rather than the recognized governments of the countries that have asked us and our forces to be there. Which is, of course, the point, the Dems pander to the terrorists and their demands - especially if it is the opposite of what Bush wants.
Posted by: Right said Fred on November 6, 2006 01:58 PMKinda like O'leily getting you all fired up about the so called war on Christmas. It's not happening, but he has you distracted enough not to notice the rest of the country is turning to cr*p.
My point is, that you can't negotiate with the "elected" governments, without also including the religous leaders in the negotiations. They have too much power over the masses. (What us democrats are scared might happen here.)
Again talking has to fit into the solution to the middle east at some point in time?
Do you not agree?
Do you think we can just bomb them into democracy?
Bush has made it pretty clear that he doesn't believe in diplomacy, and there is nothing that a new congress can do until he changes (But he doesn't change). So we need a Democratic congress just to slow him down, so he doesn't blow up the friggin world.
"Bush has made it pretty clear that he doesn't believe in diplomacy"
Au Contraire. He shows that, unlike that moron that klintoon had working for him, Bush & co. are masters at diplomacy. Perhaps it's just beyond your reasoning abilities.
I took the liberty of checking the TV schedule for ya - Auther is almost over, but you can still catch Cyberchase if you hurry...
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 6, 2006 02:38 PMSee http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=96725954-d282-4ad5-9592-b9f1649a9efb
for the details.
This is the same polling group that had Dave Reichert up 6 points in their last poll, leading various posters here to claim that Burner was "toast" and "going down in flames". Evidently the fat lady hasn't quite sung her last note yet.
apparently the republicans on these threads do not believe in the market concept of competition, whereby defeat can force recalibration and even change. the republicans need to be defeated so that they recalibrate/change and come back as a party of 1) accountability; 2) fiscal responsibility; 3) small govt. the republicans are 0-3 for the last 6 years on those 3 measures of conservativism.
Posted by: dinesh on November 7, 2006 11:35 AM
