Wishful thinking.
He cites the Abramoff scandal? First of all, Dems are dirty, too-no matter how hard they sping. Secondly, no one cares! They are so silly--dragging out an attempted scandal every couple of weeks. Scandal fatigue, really!
If a good Democratic year starts out with the GOP President selecting and confirming a 55 year old conservative to the Supreme Court for the next 25 to 30 years after getting a 50 year old conservative confirmed to Chief Justice for the next 25 to 30 years, that sounds like a good start to me.
All the libs have are FAKE NEWS and FAKE POLLS to justify their FAKE NEWS.
~shudder!
CNN "INSIDE POLITICS" Transcript: Clueless Stu Rothenberg SLAMS Bloggers
CNN "Inside Politics" ^ | February 18, 2005
Posted on 02/18/2005 3:13:04 PM PST by PJ-Comix
WOODRUFF: As we've seen in our coverage all this week, online blogs are receiving a lot of attention. And some say their influence is overstated.
With me now again, Howard Kurtz of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," and political analyst Stu Rothenberg, of "Roll Call" and the "Rothenberg Political Report."
Stu, let me start with you. We just heard Howard's report giving us a look at who some of the bloggers are. But you're a long-time political observers, analyst. What do you make of the blogs?
STU ROTHENBERG, "ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT": Well, I think blogging is simply another vehicle for people getting their opinions out. Everybody has opinions. For hundreds of years they've used different methods, whether it's soap boxes or pamphlets, talk radio.
Now blogs. They're opinions. And they're as good as or not as good as the particular opinion and the person who is offering it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1346323/posts
The only two things that matter are two political adages:
1) All politics is local. This means that corruption is something that other people do, not "our guy."
2) It's the economy, stupid. Nuff said.
Since the RATS have no message other than to bash Bush they don't stand a chance.
"ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US"
Or in other words wishful thinking+WAG based on mumbo jumbo=dem victory.
Heard it before in 2002.
For example the teapot dome scandal in the Harding administration. Harding was a republican who sold very valuable government owned oil fields to supporters for peanuts. His secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall took the blame and went to prison. The press referred to the secretary of the interior as Harding's Fall guy.
Did it hurt Reupbicans? Harding's Vice president was elected in 1924 with 70 percent of the vote. The republicans won huge majorities in the House and Senate. As far as election returns were conserned the Teapot Dome scandal was a tempest in a teapot.
Think that was a long time ago? Look how Iran Contra hurt Reagan and the Repubilcans? You say it didn't. I guess it hurt Republicans about as much as Whitewater and Monica hurt Clinton and the Democrats.
There is no historical president that election outcomes are determined by scandals. Yes Carter beat Ford after Watergate and Bush beat Gore after Monica. But the scandals were not the reason.
The odds of Democrats doing better in the house are quite slim. Democrats demanding that terrorists be free to talk to other terrorists embeded in the USA is the biggest loser I can imagine.
Needs BARF ALERT.
IOW, his mood ring tells him........
Delusional. The national influence at local elections will be minimal, and despite that, the majority of voters understand what the republicans and President Bush have been trying to do and also believe that the Democrats have been wrong and obstructionist. The signs are all over the place, such as real, non-rigged polling, decline of MSM readership/viewership. I for one predict a republican GAIN in both houses of Congress.
Obviously I hope he is wrong, sure depends on whose column we read though, actually nobody knows with certainty.Reminds me though of the 1998 election, all the talking heads and everyone else were saying the republicans were a shoe in for gaining even more seats, well they did a good job, because alot of non-thinking republicans stayed home, figuring we were in, their one vote won't make a difference, so we lost seats that year, we must vote regardless of what is said and by whom, just vote.
The pundits said the same thing in '02. The fact is, the Dems probably WILL gain seats this fall. Then again, they may very well not. Who knows? Nine months is an eternity in politics.
Rothenberg is correct in my opinion, as I have posted previously with my own numbers. I currently have the GOP losses in the House at about minus 10. But the season is early, and events matter a lot on this one. But the GOP is poorly positioned, unless events move their way, on Iraq, and on scandals, and on the time for a change itch in the sixth year of a presidential term. Stu has a 2-4 loss in the Senate presently. I think it is more on the order of 1-3, because of NJ. I certainly hope Burns of Montana does not run, because I mark him up as a loser. Florida is now basically near hopeless.
I've seen this jughead Rothenberg a couple times on TV. He isn't very intelligent.
Abramoff's indians gave four million to the 'pubs, and three million to the 'rats (that makes the 'rats only a little pregnant, I guess)..........