Frightening internal polling (House GOP to lose 30 seats?)

RedState ^ | Jul 30th, 2006 | HoosierTeacher

[rface]

Rush Limbaugh announced on his show that the GOP house internal polling shows a circa 30 seat loss for 2006.

It is hard for me to write much on this subject, as internal polling is secretive and not generaly available to public scrutiny. But there are some thoughts for discussion here.

One, is Rush correct? I don't think Rush makes it up as he goes along. He is human, and can make errors (as can anybody talking solo for 15 hours a week). But I haven't known him to lie outright on a political matter ever. I believe Rush has reported what he has gleaned from a GOP member of congress or a staffer.

Two, is the information correct? Is it a leak, or a misinformation campaign? I guess I don't see much value in leaking incorrect data to Rush exagerating a potential house loss. So I tend to believe the leaker was being accurate.

Three, should Rush have reported this (and should I write about it)? No to the first part. Internal polling is not meant to be leaked or reported. Once millions of Rush listeners have the info, it is already public and so I offer it here for your analysis.

Four, implications? Internal polling isn't the "for public" polling that you get from groups like Zogby, Gallup, Rasmussen, etc. Internal polling is the hard core, scientific, no spin accurate stuff that the candidates and the parties get and is held close to their vests. Only the best of the best work directly for the parties and candidates. My point is that if the information Rush reported is accurate, there are dark times ahead.

Implications go beyond this too. With the recent failure of the GOP by raising the minimum wage and cutting (but enshrining) a major tax, and with no movement on issues like arctic and offshore drilling, the slow pace of federal court appointments, and unreal spending, the GOP is losing the base. Despite our war on terror and a robust economy, Americans see casualty numbers and gas prices.

Having just adjourned for a recess, I see little the house can do other than campaign localy in the near term. If we blow this election we have no one to blame other than ourselves (a moderate to liberal GOP senate and a spend happy house).

"Where have you gone Ronald Reagan, a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you".

[Misterioso]

Joe Six Pack is long gone. Now it's Joe Suitcase.

[Coop]

Can we quote you on that? We'll see in November, and I'll save this post...

Just be sure to save this post too, 'kay? :-D

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1674750/posts?page=24#24

[brytlea]

Well, that MIGHT fire up the base.
susie

[brytlea]

I think most of us who are sorely disappointed in some things Bush has done don't hate him.
susie

[Coop]

But we're not talking about losing control. We're talking about LOSING THIRTY SEATS!!!!

"Man the lifeboats!!"

[brytlea]

Interesting. I suppose he will elaborate over time. I rarely get to hear him anymore, unfortunately.
susie

[Dave S]

My impression is that if we lose more than 6 seats or so, we will lose control.

You are thinking of the Senate where we lose six and we lose control. We might well be on the way to losing that as well. My bet at this point is we lose PA, OH, MO, and whatever state Conrad Burns is from. Stem cell vote is going to kill Talent in Missouri. Talent is against emryonic stem cell research and there is major initiative on the ballot which is going to increase turnout just like the anti-gay marriage proposal did two years ago. Unfortunately, this time about 70% of the public is in favor of the stem cell initiative and Talent is not. Talent won by only a couple percent last time against the widow Carnahan. This time he's got a real heavy weight that he's competing against.

[Torie]

Regarding the Midwest, the Nussle and Ney seats are headed to the Dems quite likely, and there is a lot of trouble in Indiana, and Pryce looks to be in serious trouble in Columbus. The Kennedy seat in Minnesota is iffy, and there is a marginal open seat in Wisconsin. The Hyde seat is a tossup. The Midwest has its share of the action, although not as big a share as the Northeast does perhaps.

[KevinDavis]

Here comes the Doom and Gloomers and the sour pussess...

[BushMeister]

OK, the current count is 231-201-1 (my brain was, for some reason, stuck on the count in 2000 or so). From ANSWERS.com: "The two vacant seats are New Jersey's 13th congressional district and Texas's 22nd congressional district." Have these races been decided, or will they wait 'til November?

So, if we lose 14 seats (down to 217, including the two open seats) we could lose control. However, some "Blue Dog" democrats might actually vote to caucus with us, or, say, vote for Hastert over Pelosi for Speaker, if the Dems took control by a seat or two.

[RFEngineer]

"Can you imagine a socialist matriarchy of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, Barbara Boxer as Senate Majority Leader, and Hillary Rodham as President?"

Who would you blame that this is a reality? Conservatives?

[Dilbert56]

Gerry-mandering has made such a dramatic change much more difficult. A few years ago my neighborhood switched districts. My new Representative's district is absurdly drawn:

The Rep we used to have, moonbat Maurice Hinchey, now has a similarly contorted setup.

They weren't drawn like that for convenience. They're made to create safe seats for each party. The special election for Duke Cunningham's seat shows that voters may reject an individual but need a very good reason to reject their party. Also, the other party has to offer a better alternative. The Democrats aren't offering any, let alone a better one. They've got the platform du jour.

"Hey Nancy, what's our nude erection for this week?"

"No Harry, it's 'New Direction' you moron."

"So what is it?"

"Something new, we call it 'We're really against George W. Bush'"

"Great. Let's have a press conference. Nancy, we have to show unblinking resolve"

Harry, you know that's the only kind I have.

[brytlea]

I honestly don't keep up with that stuff (fundraising) and what you say makes sense...HOWEVER do you have a breakdown of what sort of people are donating? Is it just lots of individual donors, or is it skewed by a number of wealthier donors? (I'm not sure if I'm asking this right--I basically want to know if the fundraising numbers really give a picture of individual voters).
susie

[RFEngineer]

Reality = realistic possibility

[wolfcreek]

This could be a backhanded move to get people to the polls. If only a small percentage more voters turn out, the results could be quiet different.

[BushMeister]

Who would you blame that this is a reality? Conservatives?

How did my comment elicit such a question from you?

[Howlin]

They've had a busy day.

[Coop]

I don't have it handy, but the numbers are broken down as you asked for those wishing to do research. I can say that the past few elections the Dems (that's right, those folks supposedly for the little guy) had more large donations from wealthy folks, while the GOP had more of Joe SixPack's average donations.

Do you see how often the rhetoric doesn't seem to match up with the numbers? :-D

[DB]

I tend to agree. They squandered the opportunity to lead, instead they pandered using our tax dollars.

Imminent domain is a good example of not leading. As soon as the courts ruled cities could take peoples property solely so the city could get more revenue congress should have acted decisively. Yet what has happened. Nothing.

And illegal immigration... Same old, same old...

[brytlea]

Very frustrating when someone cannot have an opinion without being called a tool of the left. Oh well.
susie