Posted on 03/03/2006 9:55:31 AM PST by jmc1969
Republicans who run away from President Bush will only help Democrats win control of Congress in November, top Republican pollster and strategist Ed Goeas said yesterday.
Republicans would be making the same mistake as Democrats in 1994, when they ran from President Clinton, worsening the anti-incumbent atmosphere and resulting in Democrats losing both the House and the Senate.
Mr. Goeas based his conclusions on results of the bipartisan George Washington University Battleground 2006 Poll released at the National Press Club.
Democratic pollster and top strategist Celinda Lake said, "Republicans will not benefit from any presidential coattails. In fact, many Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush."
She noted that although 86 percent of Republicans rate Mr. Bush positively, only 67 percent of conservatives do so. She said her party can help itself by nationalizing the upcoming elections" -- making them a referendum on Mr. Bush.
Both pollsters agreed that Arizona Sen. John McCain, a maverick Republican liked by Democrats, is the only national office holder in either party with an approval rating of more than 60 percent among Republicans, Democrats and independent voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
We'd better unite behind Bush. Bush needs to unite us behind him.
Is this all we're going to be rereading until the elections? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy...that is what the press is hoping for. And the gutless Republicans just play right into it. The difference between Dems and Reps is that Dems will stick together for the good of the party, not our Republicans. Maybe it's a more admirable trait, but it will do us in. Reminds me of the what we used to type in school. I never fully understood it, but I do now: NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR PARTY.
Meanwhile the GOP fundraising has been incredible. Want a better measure this far out about how a party could be expected to fare during elections? That's it. The money people are often "in the know" politically and tend to tighten their purse strings if they feel their money would be going to waste.
Hmmmm....no. Health care and the assault weapons ban put Republicans in the majority. Clinton only got re-elected because of Oklahoma City.
No, Clinton got re-elected because Bob Dole was a lame candidate.
It depends on what Bush does between now and November. He won a lot of conservative support with the Roberts and Alito nominations. He lost a lot of conservative support with his continued support of unlimited illegal immigration.
The MSM will try to take advantage of any slips by Bush to split the party. It won't work unless Bush gives them some good ammunition, because few conservatives believe the media any more.
Dole was lame, but Oklahoma City was the reason for his re-election.
I have always said that I would like to vote for a party with the policy positions of the Republicans and the Spine of the Democrats.
We don't need to be alarmist, but our adversaries are largely united (unless the moonbat lefties ruin it) and I just feel like WE DON'T GET THE MESSAGE OUT sometimes.
WE won't make the difference, if the GOP weinies in Congress continue to run away from him...
THEY are the ones that are going to lose their majority!
The economy started kicking into high gear at about the same time. Its impossible to say.
Democrat activists are drawn to these threads. The Mods know this.
The right wing pretenders have only one goal, to suppress conservative turnout.
Because, you see, the only, and I mean ONLY, principled stand is to oppose the leftward most candidate running for office. That will always be the Democrat in this particular time in America, in every single race. The ONLY way to oppose such a traitor is to vote for the rightward most candidate who is viable.
The only way to have even the barest chance to make any progress on matters is to ensure the Democrats do not make major gains in Congress this year.
All FR stalwarts must send money to GOP candidates in vulnerable districts, or perhaps volunteer their time for those campaigns. Remember the Texas Strike Force in 2004. It does not matter if you live in those districts. Prevention of Democrat victory is vital.
They don't call us the stupid party for nothing. Republican Congressman had better wake up and smell the coffee and get behind the administration or they'll lose the House, at the very least.
If uniting behind Bush means voting for and supporting my Republican candidates in November, I'm absolutely behind that and you can count me in.
However, if uniting behind Bush means blindly and mindlessly supporting anything that he suggests even if I don't agree with it, count me out, because I'm simply not going to do that.
The only question is how many, and that depends on how many of this BS so called loyal base stay home in 06-08 because the media explained to them how disappointed they should be.
"She noted that although 86 percent of Republicans rate Mr. Bush positively, only 67 percent of conservatives do so. She said her party can help itself by nationalizing the upcoming elections" -- making them a referendum on Mr. Bush."
This is a bit deceptive. I worked in polling and was surprised at how often it came up that people who identified themselves by party I.D. as Democrats then identified themselves when asked next about their political philosophy as being conservative. It happened quite often.
For one thing, a lot of people don't understand the political philosophy, meaning and definitions underlying those labels. For another, "liberal" is still a pejorative in the minds of many and they will not readily self-identify themselves as that.
That there is such a wide and nearly mathetically unreconcilable difference between the 86% approval for Bush among Republicans but only 67% among "conservatives," this tells me a lot of Democrats are being netted in among the conservatives. There is just too small a number among that 14% of Republicans who say they don't approve of Bush to create a 32% disapproval subset among conservatives. However I've not down the math. It just looks fishy to me. But I could be wrong since I haven't crunched the numbers.
One other caveat to my remarks, if the question of philosophy was asked only of Republican voters with a follow on question about whether they're conservative, moderate or liberal then I am wrong. But I doubt that's how they did it. Usually it's just asked of all participants as a follow up to the party I.D. question and as I said a lot of Democrats misidentify themselves as "conservatives" to avoid the liberal pejorative.
You have got to be kidding!
What you see is the result of our being in the majority for a change!
The majority naturally is defensive and the minority is naturally on the attack. It has nothing to do with spines or any other bone of contention.
Yes there are, but not necessarily Republican losses. Of course I imagine that's what you were implying, so I'll ask why you think so.
-Is it because of the GOP's dominant performance in fundraising?
-Is it because of the GOP's lower number of defended seats in the Senate?
-Is it because of the historically high number of incumbents, as a percentage, that are re-elected each cycle?
-Or is it because of some poll numbers and "talking head" articles that tell you to worry?
If the election were held next week, then I'd agree the GOP would lose some seats (especially gov seats). But the election isn't next week. It's eight months away. The GOP is going to have a lot of money to spend, and Dubya will be out on the stump. And Pubbies will be welcoming him. Some tentatively, no doubt, but he'll be raising some major bucks for them.
If they don't hang together they will certainly hang separately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.