I want to see Pelosi behind George Bush when he gives his next SOTU.

This is all good for us. We'll win in TN, and it will be close enough in MT, VA, and MO that no one will do anything (again! :-) when the Good Guys are able to hold onto the Senate.

It was so emboldening to us when Cleland, leading in the polls by 6-8 points, "lost" after GA went to all-electronic voting. Yes! The babies will be saved!

I want to see Bush behind bars, but alas that's not looking likely even if the Dems take both Houses.

And the difference is shrinking NOT BECAUSE the polls are changing.

It's shrinking due to manipulation by the pollsters.

They think the repukeliscum are getting more energized.

The Dems are more energized than the pollsters realize.

I still expect Ford to beat Corker

I want to see Pelosi behind George Bush when he gives his next SOTU

...making bunny-ears over his little peanut head.

Living in TX, as I do, it's hard not to be aware of the numbers of reported vote-flipping incidents in this area during the period of early voting. All in the same direction: Dem votes flipped to Rep. As the Dem advantage shrinks to "only" 10%"or so, one has to add in the effect of that kind of crapola on the outcome. I have no idea what kind of percentage could be lost to a combination of a) clean but ill-functioning new electronic machines with b) confused voters unable to vote their preferences correctly -- not to mention c) rigged voting machines. There's no way to know, apparently...

I want to see Pelosi behind George Bush when he gives his next SOTU.

Yes, preferably poking him in the back with something sharp every time he says "it's hard work" or "the stakes are high."

Agree that it's not time to worry yet, Scout, with the House races. The Senate was always going to be gravy if we got it. But given the voting irregularities of both 2000 and 2004, as well as the fact that the GOP, you know, owns the media machine, it's not really strange that people would start to panic at the prospect of things going awry at the 11th hour. No one has ever disputed that the Republicans are great closers.

Have just read yesterday's Chicago Tribune editorial endorsements--very telling. They urge a vote for the pathetic Republican candidates for governor (I'm voting Green on this one, as the crooked Dem incumbent will be safely reelected) and Cook County board president, while hinting broadly that people should sit the rest of the races out. That means the right-of-the-Attila-the-Hun Tribune editorial board, usually so vehement in its full endorsement of all Republicans, is worried that the disaffected swing voters will throw Denny Hastert's fat ass, and those of much of the rest of the Illinois Republican Congressional delegation, out of office. Very entertaining reading, and a preview of what y'all can look forward to in the LA Times.

It pains me to keep linking to Cap'n Ed, but: ...The last Pew Research poll was taken in early October. In a month, the Democrats have lost non-minorities altogether. The gap among all whites went from +5 Democrats to +5 GOP, a ten-point swing. White females had supported Democrats by a 15-point margin and a majority (55-40), but now give the GOP a 2-point lead. The Democrats have also lost the middle class, a big problem in this election... Households earning between $50K-$75K and $30K-$50K have both slipped to the GOP. The former switched from a 14-point margin for the Democrats to an eight-point Republican lead, while the latter has had an even more dramatic shift. Those earners had favored Democrats by 22 points, but now go Republican by 3. The Democrats even lost the tie they had with earners above $75K, and now trail there by seven. They did extend their margin for earners below $30K from 25 points to 30...

---
Nancy Pelosi for President?

I like cleek's SOTU scenario better than mine. Beats watching Denny have a long-overdue massive myocardial infarction on national TV. Wait...

There's no way to know, apparently...

And that's just the way they like it, PW. Who is it again who's fighting so hard against auditability?

suck it, chuck

No doubt the MSM will portray this as a rising tidal wave of support for Bush.

Kevin,

With all due respect and fully cognizant of the fact that many will see a tinfoil hat on my head, I really think you might be missing the point: Whether or not the Democratic lead is actually shrinking, the media buzz that it IS will give much needed cover to those who intend, to once again, steal this election.

Please imagine the stakes for this administration--including prison time and even possibly worse--and then tell me that they won't be willing to do whatever is necessary.

A bit of hedging now Kevin? First the Dirty Republicans post and now the "numbers can only go down."

It looks like ALL the media people are heading for cover.

Other than the Media Whores the leads we had two weeks ago are still there, Don't panic just vote.Call ten people tell them to vote, tell them to call ten people but just vote vote vote Oh yea, Don't forget to vote.

Like Chuck says Lierman is a trader,Best he be with your party.

Let's remember that in 1994, at least one generic poll had Democratic support for the House up by three or four points. And we all know what happened that year. Given cell phones, caller ID, etc, it's hard for me to think that polling has become MORE precise in 12 years.

Chuck wrote:

Even if the Republicans steal this election, it hardly begins to make up for Tammany Hall and Cook County through the years.

This is a remarkable and typical refrain that we hear a lot these days from our wingnut "friends." Somehow the fact that there was a time when Democrats did bad things--a fact that nobody disavows--fully excuses Republicans for whatever they do now.

It's particularly interesting to note that people like Chuck want to have it both ways--1) the Democrats were despicable for doing what they did AND 2) because they did what they did, it's now fine.

In Chuck's case, stealing elections is not only justified, but doesn't even "make up for" those past abuses.

If the Republicans do not get stopped in this election, it will be the turning point to the end times of America. Do we collectivly have a brain or not? I think we do, but am worried Bush & company stealing another election. Are we ready if this happens?

Hey what happened to that kidnapped American soldier casey abandoned on al-maliki's orders?

Our SCLM sure dropped that one like it was hot.

sorry for going OT

I don't get it, 2/6 polls show bad news for democrats, so of course we're doing badly? We're not up by 20, but we're not only up by 6-10 either. These are called outliers. We probably REALLY are up 15%. The other 4 polls ALL have us up by at least 13 points. Ironically, the farther back these polls start, the lower the numbers are for democrats, across the board. Those started Wed are far lower then those that started Fri. There is no correlation between ending dates and lower democratic numbers. This doesn't tell me that things are getting narrower.

Make no mistake, the only way the republicans keep the house is through illegal means. PRetending otherwise is just another irresponsible ploy to prevent yourselves from having to take your heads out of the sand.

The fear among the electorate is palpable. The mere presence of doubt among Democrats proves that the evoting machines are unconstitutional. They suppress the vote by simply existing!!

There is no logical reason why the Dems won't take both houses tomorrow. People are pissed. People are voting. Any doubt at victory at this point is proof positive of broken elections.

Kevin:

Pretty much sums up my thoughts last night as well.

Polls always close as an election nears. Does anybody remember any race, even a landslide, where the polls moved *away* from the losing party the weekend before the election?

I surely don't. Clinton's polls narrowed in '92 and '96. Even Dukakis closed the gap with Bush 1.

Bob

I didn't mean to imply that they are not millions of stupid people in America.

But even stupid people can learn. What's your excuse, Chuck?

Well, the latest CNN poll shows a 20% lead by Dems on the generic Congressional question.

I don't think the average lead by the Dems has changed much in the past few days, but the variability has gone sky high. I find it hard to figure what that might mean. Are people more susceptible to precise wording of the question, and how it was led up to? How do you get one poll at 20% and another at 4%?

My general inclination is to take the average off all polls and work with that, but when I see this much variability I wonder how reasonable even that might be, since a good portion of those polls pretty much must be based on a defective methodology -- though we don't know on which side.

First of all, one does not "make up" for things that may have been illegal or immoral by doing more things that are illegal or immoral -- unless, apparently, you're a Christopublican, and the nameless dark figure who controls your soul demands it.

But Tammany Hall??? Talk about your childish historical comparisons. Might as well make some obtuse and equally bizarre reference to Reconstruction.

You know, your antipsychotic meds would also help calm your pre-election nerves if only you would take them.

Not too stupid. Too false. People have learned what the Rs are up to. Maybe they will get them to the polls, but last time I checked it is a secret ballot. Old ladies are voting D!

Dems will win big if we get out and vote.

Get out and vote!

Your over-confidence about a Rep win obviously shows that you advocate stealing elections because that would be the only way at this point.

Credit where credit is due: Via Atrios, Fox News is reporting ...

Nearly half of likely voters — 49 percent — favor the Democratic candidate in their House district and 36 percent the Republican, with 15 percent still undecided in a FOX News poll conducted the final weekend before the midterm elections.

More Democrats (37 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) say they are extremely interested in tomorrow’s elections, and more Democrats (89 percent) than Republicans (81 percent) say they plan to vote for their party’s candidate in their district.

As Chuck points out, Republicans are more "talented" at GOTV efforts (not to mention STV efforts), but this year they have to overcome greater apathy as well.

So thank Dog for a) popular perception of Democratic weakness and b) those voting machines.

I want to see Pelosi behind George Bush when he gives his next SOTU.

Yes, preferably poking him in the back with something sharp every time he says "it's hard work" or "the stakes are high."

I was thinking more along the lines of her whacking him with a riding crop.

I think George would give his best speech ever with a ball-gag in his mouth. And he'd look so funny in a corset and heels with fishnet stockings. Finally, the Republicans would see the president they've always fantasized about. Maybe we'll see Federally Funded Meth for everyone!

BECAUSE GOP GET MORE PEOPLE TO THE POLLS. Is that too "stupid" for you to understand?
Posted by: Chuck on November 6, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Yes - the GOP really does seem to have people energized and motivated this election. Or, to use Andrew Sullivan's word; intervention.

It's particularly interesting to note that people like Chuck want to have it both ways--1) the Democrats were despicable for doing what they did AND 2) because they did what they did, it's now fine.

They use the same reasoning to justify torture; "At least we don't saw people's heads off! (we just beat them, freeze them alive, drown them, rape their children in front of them, put them in naked pyramids, insult their religions, bomb their homes, and shove chemlights up their butts) - We're so much better than they are!"

Chuck:

You're correct.

Watching you get anally raped by 12 gay Republican men would be an infinitely more satisfying expression of poetic justice :)

Pass the popcorn!

Bob

Oh but Chuck, *we* do !

Bob

Well, I disagreed with your categorization of Lieberman as a switch, OBF, but you may be onto something here with the Smirky-in-a-ball-gag imagery. What a pretty picture!

You already made your prediction.

If there is nothing surprising here, then you took it into account when you made your prediction. Tomorrow night you will know whether your prediction was close, and adjust your beliefs/knowledge in light of the returns.

As will we all.

GOP MUST GO

....It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome....

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time. But the process of recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result that is seen—in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to Kuala Lumpur—as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression he launched against Iraq....

"American Conservative Magazine"

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html

Pelosi behind Bush = good
Bush behind Bars = double plus good
Rumsfeld in Iraq, w/o body armor = triple double plus good

I'm just passing through and I'm sorry if this has been addressed - has anyone pointed out that we have been fired up and motivated and a hell of a lot of us have already voted? And the much higher than average number of absentee ballots requested this election cycle.

The polls of likely remaining voters are most probably comprised of a higher than the general population percentage of undecideds and Republicans.

Matthew - are you out there to back this up? You are the real Statistician, not me, as I have stated repeatedly in the past.

- It's okay for Republicans to steal elections, because Dems did it back in the 1960's.

- It's okay to torture ay-rabs, because they saw people's heads off.

- It's okay to suspend Habeus Corpus, because Lincoln did it.

- It's okay to run up a huge deficit, because Dems just wanna give your money to welfare queens.

- It's okay to listen on all Americans' telephone or electronic communications, because Hillary had peoples' FBI files in her office.

- It's okay for a prominent Evangelical Leader to snort Meth and have an affair with a gay prostitute, because his wife got lazy and fat, and at least he had the decency to keep it secret, and not make it public, like the Dems want.

- It's okay for Bush to cause the deaths of 650,000 innocent Iraqis, because they were dancing in the streets on 9/11, and Truman killed even more Japanese, and hey, everybody's gotta die sometime.

- It's okay for Bush to let companies pollute, because the Dems strangled them with regulations for so long.

- It's okay for Bush to violate international treaties on nonproliferation, because Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are trying to get nukes.

- It's okay to let an entire American city be destroyed, and allow it's poor to be drowned, because they're just lazy black people who don't contribute anything anyway.

- It's okay for Rove to out a covert CIA agent, because she was a liberal, and therefore, secretly worships Stalin.

- It's okay for Bush to back a coup against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, because his supporters shot back when a sniper killed 10 of them at a demonstration.

- It's okay for Bush to back a coup against the democratically elected leader of Haiti, because, Duvalier was such a good supporter of American policies (like torture). And besides, Aristide wouldn't help funnel drugs to the US.

- It's okay for Bush to thumb his nose at the UN, because it's full of evil brown-skinned people, and you can't negotiate with them, you can only bomb them.

- It's okay for Bush to thumb his nose at the EU, because they're all socialists, which is the same as Communist, and it's only a matter of time before they elect a Stalin to come in there, kill everyone, and put the Muslim Immigrants in charge, and put Burkhas on all those hairy-armpitted European women.

re: "American Conservative"

Why do conservatives hate America?

... and put Burkhas on all those hairy-armpitted European women...

and the problem, exactly?

Oh yeah, I forgot:

- It's okay for Israel to bomb civilians because Palestinian Suicide Bombers target civilians too.

Rumsfeld in Iraq, w/o body armor = triple double plus good
Posted by: mister pedantic on November 6, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Naw, send him in with Body Armor. The snipers will get him. Preferably with one of the .50 cal rifles he sold to Al Qaeda in the 1980's.

Chuck's a moron. Seriously, why bother talking to him? You should just read what he has to say and realize that this is how all Republicans feel. They don't care if they steal elections. They don't care if they supress the vote. They don't care about other Americans.

I want you to understand something. This is their soul, this relentless need for power. Even if you don't think they are bad people, you have to realize they are capable of extremely evil things to hold onto power. Given that, it's hard to see how this doesn't end in violence at some point, even if it's very far down the road. They were forming militias and arming themselves when a president as moderate as Bill Clinton was in charge. What do you think these kind of people will do when someone who seriously challenges them is elected President?

http://www.amconmag.com/

seems to be offline, or overburdened.

And the difference is shrinking NOT BECAUSE the polls are changing.

It's shrinking due to manipulation by the pollsters.

They think the repukeliscum are getting more energized.

The Dems are more energized than the pollsters realize.

I still expect Ford to beat Corker

Posted by: POed Lib on November 6, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

I concur with your observation. It is merely a ploy to discourage democratic voters and we are not buying into it. I don't think Ford has lost yet either and I am not going to give up home on the Democrats controlling house and senate and a change to these flawed policies coming about.

I want to see Pelosi behind George Bush when he gives his next SOTU.

Yes, preferably poking him in the back with something sharp every time he says "it's hard work" or "the stakes are high."

I was thinking more along the lines of her whacking him with a riding crop.

I think George would give his best speech ever with a ball-gag in his mouth. And he'd look so funny in a corset and heels with fishnet stockings. Finally, the Republicans would see the president they've always fantasized about. Maybe we'll see Federally Funded Meth for everyone!

Posted by: Secret Republican Gay Sex Ring on November 6, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we'll see Federally Funded Meth for everyone!

Good one.

OBF/Republican Excuse-Maker:

Fantastic post. Rhetorically devastating. That one's a keeper.

I want you to understand something. This is their soul, this relentless need for power. Even if you don't think they are bad people, you have to realize they are capable of extremely evil things to hold onto power. Given that, it's hard to see how this doesn't end in violence at some point, even if it's very far down the road.

Oh, boo hoo you little baby. If I recall correctly, isn't one of your humiliating little points about George W Bush the fact that he said that he looked into the soul of Vladimir Putin and pronounced him someone the US could work with? Now you can see into my soul?

The fact of the matter is, the American people reject the Dumbocrat/liberal position of "well-intentioned loser" time and time again. I know you'd like everyone to feel good about themselves and I know it's anathema to keep score in your kids' soccer game, but listen to the truth--winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing. Americans throw losers aside and revere only the winners.

Did you forget that there's a war on, moron? What, are we supposed to let the enemy win so we can all feel good about how we told the refs that we really dropped the ball in the endzone?

Why do I think of the Arizona Cardinals and the Atlanta Hawks every time I think of the Dumbocrat Party?

I already voted too.

I voted twice.

Even if the Republicans steal this election, it hardly begins to make up for Tammany Hall and Cook County through the years.

Even if the black guys stealing the stereo out of your car to buy crack beat you over the head, chuck, it hardly makes up for 400 years of slavery, don't ya think?

Two new polls out today which also show the 'shrunken' Dem. lead expanding again in generic congressional election - CNN: Dems +20, Fox: Dems +13

I am suprised Faux News' poll has a spread as big as it does. The networks need to sell a horserace. I think that is what is behind CNN's numbers. Otherwise, who will watch Wolf, LK and Anderson Cooper on Tuesday night? Personally, I am gonna watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Even if the Republicans steal this election, it hardly begins to make up for Tammany Hall and Cook County through the years.

Tammany, yes. That was 19th century and the chaos of unrestricted immigration. It's tempting to say that Tammany was milder corruption than it could have been.

Cook County? You're dreaming. Daley had a political machine, not a printing press. It's been a fetish of Republicans that Daley fixed races, but no investigation ever showed spit. Particularly the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race. 3 investigations exposed trivial amounts of illegal voting. In a time when there were audit trails.

Flash forward to Florida 2000. 100,000 uncounted double marked ballots, most of which were double marked for a single candidate. The law directed that they be counted. That was ignored. Discounting every hanging chad, every screwed up Palm Beach ballot, Gore still won easily.

I assume Kevin knows the 2004 results, but I don't remember 5 senate races decided by the swing of a percentage point or less. I remember Kentucky and maybe Florida and Pennsylvania. Which ones were the five?

I agree there should be 3 or 4 pretty close ones this time (Mo, Va, Mt, and Md -- maybe RI or NJ and even MI). Results in really close races seem largely a matter of chance, and don't really balance out over time, but from the Republican standpoint, they were so lucky in Bush squeaking out a win in 2000 that they can hardly feel bad if they lose some close ones in 2006. However, my guess is repubs win the three of the four close ones -- Mo, Va, and Md and lose MT.

I think I saw the Bush approval rating at 45%. Why did that go up?

Right wing poll conspiracy huh? It is amusing to what the ripple of paranoia among liberals.

It's the voting machines! It's the pollsters! It's the Bush Saudis controlling everything!

It looks like to me most liberals have suddenly relized how far out on a limb they have been for 6 months and are beginning the CYA.

Survey USA has put Webb up 8 in Virginia. I don't know how pollsters work in terms of manipulating results for marketing purposes, but it would be a heck of a way to make a name for yourself if you predicted a blow out that no one else saw. And it is almost a free shot, since the poll had a 3.7% margin of error, that would mean 7.4 percent of the 8% win is within the margin of error. So if Webb wins by more than .6, they are correct in their poll and, if he wins big, they are genuises who saw something that no one else saw. Of course, I think Allen squeaks it out, so Survey USA then would come out a loser.

I think I saw the Bush approval rating at 45%

You saw wrong.

"Bush approval rating dips to 35 percent"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/06/bush.poll/

It looks like to me most liberals have suddenly relized how far out on a limb they have been for 6 months and are beginning the CYA.

You must mean the Republican candidates that are running away from Bush like the plague, the one's that aren't outright snubbing him at planned appearances.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061106/WIRE/211060306/1117/news

Survey USA also had Md tied on Friday. So they really stepped away from everyeone else on two races. It may mean they are wrong on both, but the rest of their polls look pretty reasonable.

"The media/blog theme of the morning seems to be a barely concealed panic over the shrinking Democratic lead in various generic congressional polls."

Not on my blog.

Rassmussen has Bush at 45%, tied for the highest he has been all year and the highest he has been in over a month. Since Rassmussen was the best (or among the best) pollster in 04, it seems clear the election is tightening. It is just a matter of how many races are close enough for the tightening to turn them into Republican victories. I would say Mo and Va most likely, perhaps Mt and even Md (although most of that would be attributable to Steele being good and Cardin being mediocre). I doubt it would have enough effect on Pa and Oh. But it should swing perhaps 5 to 10 house races back to the Republicans.

The only way to panic about a "shrinking" Democratic lead on the generic ballot question is by comparing apples to oranges. Different pollsters use different methodologies and you can't make comparisions across diverse poll results. If you want to check for movement, you have to look at aeach pollster individually over a span of time, that's the only way to spot a trend.

The two polls showing single digit leads for the Dems are by USA Today and Pew. Neither has a generic ballot benchmark against which to compare since at least the first half of October.

Both Newsweek and Fox have been publishing weekly generic ballot polls and both of them show no erosion of Dem support (Newsweek holds steady in the mid teens and Fox is steady in teh lower teens).

It now looks like Va and Mo are 50/50, which probably means Republican holds with superior GOTV operations. Ford is apparently done in Tenn. Burns seems like he has been too consistently behind to win. So it now looks most likely 51/49, unless Steele completes the miracle run in MD, which I think he will on his strength in the black vote and, if so, it will be good for the country if that happens. We need to get away from 90% of blacks voting for one party because it is not healthy for race relations and I doubt that it is good for blacks.

A VICTORY FOR "DEMOCRATS," YOU MEAN.

If your version of victory is for centrist Democrats to "win" so there can be more of the same legislation produced after the Clinton "victory" in 1992: Welfare Reform and NAFTA . . . by all means keep sending in those "Democrats."

The real winner in 2006: Reagan. Why? Because the debate since he rode into Washington in January of 1981 is over to what degree the Democrat or Republican running embraces Reagan's economic and foreign policy legacy. It's political death to mention raising taxes much less raising them to pre-Reaganomic levels. And now, to disparage the military or to cut military spending is heresy, too. The Libertine-Socialist Democrats are done forever; they had their chance from '64-'80 and ruined the USA. We will never forget.

I look forward to tomorrow when the great man again gets his due: whoever wins, the victor in 2006 is Ronald Reagan; rest in peace, great friend of the USA.

TOH

It now looks like Survey USA may have jumped the shark. They have McCaskill up 51/42, similar to their 52/44 number for Webb up. The Missouri poll almost certainly is wrong, and both the TV station sponsoring the poll and even Survey USA seem to be acknowledging it with the announcement of the poll. But if by any chance Webb and Mc Caskill both win big, Survey USA becomes toast of the town.

As I review the data, it seems particularly important to look at the dates the polls were conducted given the recent events that may have had an impact on the numbers. The Times, Newsweek, Pew, and Washington Post polls were all completed no later than November 3rd or 4th indicating that they would have recorded some of the impact of the John Kerry remarks and the associated media attention the story received. In these four polls the average on the generic ballot (using likely voters where available) was 51.75 percent for the Democratic candidate and 41.5 percent for the Republican candidate.

The USA TODAY, CNN, and FOX polls were all conducted to include voter data from November 5th and only the USA TODAY poll included data from November 2nd. Note that the USA TODAY poll has the narrowest margin on the generic ballot of likely voters...which one could argue partially reflects the momentary impact of the Kerry story. In these three polls the average on the generic ballot (using likely where available) was 52.67 percent for the Democratic candidate and 39.33 percent for the Republican candidate.

While I'm not an expert on polling, my understanding is that it takes at least a couple days for current issues to be reflected in a poll. If you look at the Kerry incident, it made its way into the media on Tuesday, October 31st and it remained a topic through the Thursday November 2nd cycle. The Ted Haggard scandal first hit the media on Thursday November 2nd and remained a topic through Sunday November 5th. When looking at these dates in relation to the dates of these surveys, there is obviously a degree of overlap and an imperfect division relative to these two media blockbusters. Nonetheless, the polling results seem to reflect the impact of the two issues whereby the first four polls show a larger slippage of Democratic support while the final three polls suggest a greater slippage for the GOP.

Read more poll analysis here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Fox News has a well-known liberal bias. In fact, it's one of the most radical, far-left media outlets around.

brian: Since Rassmussen was the best (or among the best) pollster in 04...

61-percent of American adults believe that Republican leaders have been ‘protecting Mark Foley for several years. - Rasmussen Poll 10/5/06

brian: We need to get away from 90% of blacks voting for one party because it is not healthy for race relations...

Right, right. If they'd only stop voting for Democrats, white people wouldn't have to dislike them so much. They bring this shit on themselves with their stubborn resistance to good Republican policy.

...and I doubt that it is good for blacks.

Ah, but wait, you do care about the black man, even more than he cares for himself. Rescue him, won't you? He's like a child and needs your loving guidance.

We need to get away from 90% of blacks voting for one party because it is not healthy for race relations....

Why? Does it make you want to go beat their ass?

Thanks, trex. You know how much I love water squirting through my nose--how sex-ay it makes me feel.

If its close that will be just what the Rove gang need to steal the election again. A few disallowed votes here, a few phoney votes there and the repugs eek through. And no one's the wiser.

So if the polling shows Dems ahead by 20 points on election day but the result is 2004 all over again (as Bush promised it would be the other day), will you again mock those who smell a skunk here by saying "we wuz robbed!"?

Even if the Republicans steal this election, it hardly begins to make up for Tammany Hall and Cook County through the years. Chuck at 12:22 PM

BECAUSE GOP GET MORE PEOPLE TO THE POLLS...Chuck at 12:55 PM

... that there's a war on, moron? ... Norman Rogers at 1:51 PM

You guys are tough. I state what seems obvious, that it would be good for our country if 90% of blacks did not identify with only one party, and you effectively call me a racist. I realize it would mean democrats losing votes and that might be all that is important to you. And I also realize blacks had good reason to line up with democrats in 1964 and thereafter and that fault to a signifiant extent rests with some republican tactics/positions in 1964 and thereafter. But we got to get past race in this country and that means getting to a day when blacks feel comfortable with both parties. It should make all of us feel uneasy that in our country blacks feel like they should support only one party. It also results in blacks being taken for granted/advantage of by democrats. I recognize that other groups, particularly ethnic groups, have gone through periods where they for years supported only one party before becoming comfortable with both, but a racial divide makes it even worse than, for example, all Irish voting democrat. The sooner blacks and the republicans complete the process of blacks feeling comfortable with both parties, the better for our country. The black experience is particularly strange because they lined up with republicans for almost 100 years, with democrats hostile to them, then in a short time switched allegiance almost completely to democrats. Just another unfortunate aspect of the racial baggage this country carries.

It is one of President Bush's accomplishments that he helped move along the process of blacks becoming comfortable with republicans and Steele winning would be another big help in that process.

There must be some reasonable folks on this thread who agree with the concept that racial politics is not good for the country.

"Why do I think of the Arizona Cardinals and the Atlanta Hawks every time I think of the Dumbocrat Party?"
Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

because you're a moron

-----

"Did you know the Iraq operation was war gamed in 1999? A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now. And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos."
Posted by: Mike on November 6, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yep. Bush is a putz.

Novak has a good piece up projecting dems plus 19 in house and plus 2 in senate with Steele and Chaffee winning (chaffee maybe easily) and Burn, Santorum and DeWine losing. I know Novak probably has few fans here, but he is a smart and experienced guy and he gives a good breakdown/analyis of the races.

http://www.humanevents.com/evansnovak.php?id=17896

brian:

Michael Steele is the one pushing the identity politics vote, attempting to play the race card.

The GOP is just not in the best interest of people near the bottom of the economic ladder. That has nothing to do with race and everything to do with class and economics.

And black folk know this. Even in the churches. There's still a big divide between black and white evengelicals on things like support for the war and the social safety net, even if there's a broad agreement on many other social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

And that's why blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and have not been fooled by the snake oil the GOP has tried to sell poor people who also happen to be religious. They know damn well that government can help them in time of need -- or it can ignore them.

Like Bush did in the Katrina aftermath.

This is a sign of savvy in the black community, brian. Of knowing where one's true interests lie.

Bob

Bob,

You can't fault Steele for using his race after democrats use the race card constantly. It may be true that blacks have largely voted their intersts in the past 40 years, but my point is that it will be good for the country as the republican relationship with blacks improves and blacks conclude that more votes for republicans are in their interests, which to some extent is what is happening in maryland.

I don't think you're a purposeful, malicious racist, brian. But you don't get it, guy. You really don't get it. In this day and age, that's almost worse than the willfully spiteful stuff.

Effectively missing from your heartfelt plea for racial unity is any recognition that people vote the policies they think are most in keeping with their values, and that your party still isn't selling anything the majority of black Americans want to buy. You shake your head in disbelief that more blacks don't vote Republican as though the GOP's own actions have nothing to do with that result. Then you express laughable confusion--or disingenuity--by pretending that the antebellum and immediately post-Civil War GOP has anything in common with today's Republican party. Do you need a remedial course on Southern Democratic politics during Reconstruction? Or did you just throw that one out because the GOP talking points keep blathering on about the "party of Lincoln?"

As for Bush "moving along the process of blacks becoming comfortable with Republicans," that is pure bullshit. Looked at the statistics on blacks voting for the GOP lately? The single issue on which the GOP has attracted measurable but still insignificant black support--and that only from fundamentalist black Christians--is biffing on gays and lesbians. This is your proud legacy of racial reconciliation?

brian:

That "argument" is completely illogical.

What you're actually saying is that it would be good for the *Republicans* to get black votes.

Well, duh.

You didn't even address the issue of whether it would be good for black people.

Bob

I think the obvious solution to racial harmony in our country is to get more white southerners to vote Democratic.

So many rednecks voting Republican...that can't be good for them.

/brian

brian:

What would make the country healthier, brian, would be if blacks were represented in the upper income brackets at the same rate as white people.

Then, you know, you'd have a number of entirely sincere black Republicans and nobody'd think twice about it.

But the black Republicans pushing the Alan Keyes bootstrap snakeoil only draws in a handful of ideologues or entrepreneurs who got lucky and moved on up.

I think all Americans would endorse the black economic demographic mirroring the white economic demographic. Also things like infant mortality, life expectancy, health, etc. All the stats that measure quality of life.

But they don't.

And that's why such a huge number of blacks are Democrats.

QED

Bob

trex:

Touche :)

Bob

just in from my final read of the Real clear Politics poll averages. It's not looking good for my predictions.

It's not looking good for my predictions.

That doesn't surprise us.

CNN and Newsweak come out with polls far exceeding others in the extent of the margin Dems will win.

Newsbusters notes:

just like Newsweek, CNN didn’t reveal the specifics of the polling questions, or the Party affiliations of the respondents. Any guesses why these organizations are choosing to keep this information from their readers?

Luckily, the number of viewers this sorry excuse for a network keeps plummeting, all the while they pronounce FOX-News on its deathbed because Fox has dropped from double the CNN viewership to less than double, although both are hemorrhaging as the public tires of tendentious drivel.

Remember when Ted Turner said that CNN would "crush Fox like a bug?" As usual, Ted was excreting that from his most productive orifice, and I don't mean his out-sized under-brained mouth!

if at first you don't succeed...

vote gop again?