Posted on 07/27/2006 9:09:32 AM PDT by Reagan Man
the poster boy of which is Howard Dean.
How so Bob? LOL
The left is eating itself.
The whole thing is entertaining if nothing else. Snort!
Great column.. kudos..I'll even forgive you the Yankees waxing the Rangers three straght..<P.
BTW..what about Jodi as a long shot VP candidate in 2008?
I particularly liked the phrase "diaper Democrats". A perfect characterization.
I'll wait to see the next analysis by Michael Barone.
bttt
Democrat politicians are like diapers. They need changed frequently and often for the same reasons.
I wish the Diaper Democrats in my state who keep voting idiots into office would grow up.
The diapers are in need of some serious washing! No, better yet, since they are all "Pampers" let's just throw them out!
Quote: "The conventional wisdom about the 2006 elections among both Republicans and Democrats now is that the Democrats will take control of the House and could also win the Senate. One House Republican committee chairman, who publicly exudes optimism, privately predicts -- and has predicted for six months -- a loss of 30 House seats.
Bob Novak,7-27-2006."
Rush was just talking about this. I have read Barone's take and he is, as of yet, not seeing it this way. I will trust Barone. Still, it is not a bad thing for the Republicans to be scared stiff.
I mentioned this remark from Bob Novak because his prediction of the GOP`s takover of the House in the 1994 election, was almost perfect. Believe Novak said the GOP would get a 55 seat pickup. IIRC, the outcome was a 54 seat pickup. Michael Barrone is usually pretty good with his crystal ball. We shall see. While Democrats aren't helping themselves out, Republicans shouldn't become overly confident about the outcome of the November election.
Right, but Novak is basing this prediction on people who he has "talked to." Well, that is nice.
The way I look at elections is simple. I could give a rats arse about what the MSM says, what conventional wisdom says, or what Bob Novak says. Issues decide elections. When your party is on the wrong side of an issue or has no agenda for dealing with issues, you are probably going to lose. Moreoever, a campaign occurs before every election where you get to sell your agenda and sell the voters that you are on the proper side of the issues. It seems to me that the MSM and the rest want to skip the campaign, hell skip the election and just name the winner.
Bottom line, can the dems supposed "in the bag" victory stand the scrutiny of a campaign, i.e. reality? Can it stand the actual election? Perhaps, but not automatically and not by default. The Republicans do get to campaign and better run a good one.
Bob is a pro. Bob isn't writing smarmy opinion pieces for zero dollars on some web site (er, like me!). So I take what he says pretty seriously. Some people point out "why the Dems are idiots" , and they may be right, but it doesn't mean they know jack about what is happening in the 435 House Seats on the block and the 33 odd Senate seats.
Michael Barone is probably the best at handicapping. I believe he sees a significant trend towards the donk's.
No matter how idiotic the Donkeys are they have some advantages: the are running against the GOP. Some things going against the GOP are:
* Perception of long running incumbency (94 in House, two terms of Bush in WH). American's middle likes to flip the rascals out.
* The Economy. Always a top issue. Battaling statistics say either 1- it's doing great or 2 - the middle class is being killed off by globalization. Rule One of American Politics: We vote our wallets.
* The War. Regardless of how freepers feel about it the media is slowly making their "Iraq = Vietnam" quagmire meme a 'fact' in many peoples (small, tv-driven) minds. * Wedge Issues: Guns are less effective with Dems largely having thrown in the towel on it. Abortion seems to have cooled down as an issue. The Donks are doing a good job on Stem Cell Research convincing dottering old people than can live forever if Bush would just allow unlimited funding and use of baby parts in medicine.
* Bush fatigue. "Bush is an idiot" "Bush is not respected" "Bush is hated in Europe" ... again, the relentless onslaught is having an effect.
Remember, we don't have overwhelming majorities. The House is the safest place. There are a lot of gerrymandered districts on both sides. Many states are just a few percentage points leaning R. Many states have one R and one D Senator, clearly showing they are not strongly out of reach either way.
In summary I would not write Bob Novak off as a fool because of this, or other, clever articles pointing out Dem stupidity. Watch some network news and contemplate the message that most Americans are getting.
Here is what the Political Oddsmaker has to say. He really does have a pretty good record.
2006 U.S. SENATE AND GUBERNATORIAL RACES: Santorum only incumbent Senator now picked to lose; GOP still favored to retain House and Senate but odds declining
2006 U.S. HOUSE RACES to be posted in mid-November
ABOUT THE POLITICAL ODDSMAKER: Since 1995, The Political Oddsmaker by Ron Faucheux has made over 2,700 picks in U.S. Senate, gubernatorial, U.S. House, major mayoral and initiative elections, with an overall record of correctly predicting winners over 98.2 percent of the time. The Political Oddsmaker had a 99.4% accuracy rate for calls made in the 2004 general elections. This was the highest accuracy rate The Political Oddsmaker ever achieved (previous high: 98.2%)! The Political Oddsmaker called 512 races correctly in 2004 and 3 incorrectly out of 515 total calls in the general election with 15 races rated even.That's why it's America's most popular elections handicapping service! To contact Dr. Faucheux for interviews or speeches, call 202-626-7515 or e-mail rfaucheux@aol.com. See www.faucheux.com.
You may not take into consideration every aspect of an upcoming election, no matter what the source. I do. As with all pundits, Novak is wrong at times and he can be hyper-annoying too. However, to not consider Novak's inside the beltway expertise as serious political journalism, is to be foolish in the extreme.
So do I. See #18.
Btw, for the most part, I agree with your post at #16.
This sentence says it all.
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.