Reply With Quote
Another wet dream. Much like the 'great electoral shift' you predicted for '04.
Voter Anger Might Mean An Electoral Shift in '06
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
By Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01
[QUOTE]Two-thirds of those surveyed by The Post and ABC News said the country is heading in the wrong direction. Asked whom they were likely to support in next year's House elections, 52 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate, while 37 percent said the Republican. While this testing of generic preferences is not always a reliable indicator of elections, the result suggests that Republicans for now are in trouble.
Republicans may find solace in the fact that 60 percent of those surveyed approved of the job their own House member is doing -- but that, too, was the case one year before the 1994 election. Then the percentage declined throughout 1994; if the same happens next year, Republicans will be in serious trouble.
In another indication of unrest, a majority now say they have little or no confidence in the government in Washington to solve problems, another statistic that is similar to findings at this point 12 years ago. Confidence deteriorated steadily throughout 1994.
When asked which party they trusted to handle the main problems facing the nation, regist*Sic*ered voters preferred Democrats by 49 percent to 38 percent. On the eve of the 2002 midterms, when the GOP defied historical trends by gaining House and Senate seats, Republicans led on that question among those most likely to vote by 51 percent to 39 percent.
None of these results can be used to predict the future, but together they explain why many GOP strategists privately are in such an anxious mood. One claimed that this is the most sour environment for the party in power since 1994, when Democrats lost 53 House and seven Senate seats and surrendered their majority. Another said Republicans have not faced such potential backlash since 1982, when the party lost 26 House seats in the midst of a recession.
*SIC*The Post-ABC poll found that 68 percent of Americans say the country is off track, with only 30 percent saying things are going in the right direction. Among those who offered a pessimistic assessment, 30 percent cited one of a basket of economic issues: gas prices, jobs, incomes, inflation, the deficit. This downbeat mood has so far been impervious to strong economic news, including the recent announcement of a 3.8 percent annual growth rate in the third quarter.
*SIC*Democrats see hopeful signs in an uneasy public mood. In the Post-ABC poll, Americans prefer the opposition party to congressional Republicans on every issue measured but one, including Iraq. The only exception was on terrorism; there the two parties are tied.
But those strengths are offset by two glaring weaknesses. A majority of Americans say the Democrats are not offering the country a clear direction that is different from the Republicans, and on the question of which party has stronger leaders, Republicans thump the Democrats by 51 percent to 35 percent.
*SIC*At this point, he counts fewer than 40, although he said that could grow to 50 or 55 by the time of the election. Democrats will need some breaks to pick up the 15 seats needed to take back control, but Rothenberg said conditions have deteriorated enough to make that possible: "It's not just a cool breeze in their face, it's a strong gust."
Adding to the Democrats' challenge is the fact that there are only 18 Republican-held seats in districts that voted for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in last year's presidential race, compared with 41 districts held by Democrats that were carried by Bush.
*SIC*In the Senate, there are perhaps half a dozen GOP seats at risk and a handful of potentially compe ive races in states held by the Democrats. Vulnerable Republican seats include Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Missouri and Ohio. Democrats would have to win virtually every compe ive race to retake the Senate, while avoiding losses of their own. Sometimes races all break in one direction, but not always.
In recent elections, parties have made their biggest gains in Senate seats where no in bent was running, but at this point, nearly all the GOP-held seats at risk require the Democrats to defeat the in bent. "The fact that Democrats have to knock off five Republican in bents to get the Senate back makes it hard," said Charlie Cook, who produces a leading independent political forecast.
Washington Post
What I'm seeing isn't just a shift, its a stop the truck and go the other way. Now if we can just get over those gerry-mandered voting machines.
Another wet dream. Much like the 'great electoral shift' you predicted for '04.
I don't think there will be a major electoral shift in the sense that it will dramatically change the way that the elections conclude. Popular polls don't often account for the fact that national majorities don't decide any contested election in this nation. So, in states that have been strongly GOP for years, the GOP candidates will continue to win. The difference might come in the handful of swing states, where the Democrats might be able to win back a handful of seats and bring the balance somewhat closer to equilibrium, but even that is a difficult task, given the advantage that tends to come with being the in bent. I'd be shocked if the balance swung more than a few seats.
And, dan, just FYI, I'm not sure why you're using "*SIC*" between snippets, since "sic" is generally a shorthand that indicates that the quoted text contains an error.
Yes, the error was the rest of the article which is a bunch of opinion.And, dan, just FYI, I'm not sure why you're using "*SIC*" between snippets, since "sic" is generally a shorthand that indicates that the quoted text contains an error.
I generally agree, although I sense that there is somewhat of a unifed discontentment by the politically apathetic against Conservatives that has not been present before, and I think these polls show it. Will it turn the electorate in swing states necessary to bring both houses of Congress closer to balance? That's the magic question, no doubt that Democrats may be looking at gains in 06, and as the President's approval ratings go, Conservative approval rating will follow.I don't think there will be a major electoral shift in the sense that it will dramatically change the way that the elections conclude. Popular polls don't often account for the fact that national majorities don't decide any contested election in this nation. So, in states that have been strongly GOP for years, the GOP candidates will continue to win. The difference might come in the handful of swing states, where the Democrats might be able to win back a handful of seats and bring the balance somewhat closer to equilibrium, but even that is a difficult task, given the advantage that tends to come with being the in bent. I'd be shocked if the balance swung more than a few seats.
It would take an act of God to stop the GOP base from showing up next November.
Eh, a few more administration indictments will do it, and boy, do we have scandles coming down the turnpike after the new year.
Can you say AIPAC?
Stop reading the polls, they obviously don't matter when W can steal two elections.
^^yes. Be happy he stole the elections.. Ha ha ha hahhhh!!! ha ha ha haaahhhh! eureka! Bwa ha ha! It is done.
Can you say "wet dream"?
I'm sticking to my prediction that if the Fitzgerald investigation results in any more indictments they most certainly will include Joseph Wilson.
The only shifting the Demos are gonna do is from low gear to "reverse".
Is that how the RNC is spinning it this week?
There's a lot being learned about Mr. Wilson's activities vis a vis France, Niger, and the CIA.
Not to mention we now have a Retired U.S. General claiming that Wilson disclosed his wife's iden y, on several occassions, more than a year before Novak ever printed her name.
So, no spin...just new facts. The world didn't stop when Fitzgerald won his indictments. Neither did the investigation.
If Valerie Plame was a covert CIA Agent, seems to me Joseph Wilson was the first to "out" her.
That was, of course, after Aldridge Ames did it in the 90's -- which, by the way, is why she was brought back to the U.S. more than 7 years before the Novak article and her secret spy career ended. (<< A fact [if he can be believed at all] disclosed in Wilson's book)
It will be another great political event in the history of the United States and I'll be right there in the mix of it all. God I love this country!!!!
technically, lies are "facts" too. Is that what you mean by "facts?" More lies from the GW spin-machine?
Talk about a wing-nut!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
