Posted on 09/21/2006 10:57:13 AM PDT by okstate
Cook has OH-02 as "likely Republican" with others like Pombo, Musgrave, and Cubin.
If this poll is true it certainly doesn't bode well.
I don't think it's either. I think it's ISSUES, and the perception of th WoT as the central issue, combined with gas prices, has played a central role in the GOP's rebound.
Right. In a walk. Baloney. You obviously know nothing about Ohio politics. This seat was tightly contested last time and she was supposed to lose last time. The fact that she's up three (per YOUR bogus polls) suggests to me that it is close to a "walk."
Come on, people. We see this every 4 years with states like Wisconsin and Minnesota, where it just "stands to reason" the GOP can pick up the 10-11,000 extra votes to win . . . yet we never do. There's a guy in Indiana---Hostetler---NEVER wins big, but always seems to win, and, I'm told by insiders, is now ahead. This was a seat the Dems expected to win. I'm even told Ney's seat is pretty safe now. Imagine that! A switchout two months from the election and we still hold the seat.
Yes, right. In the regular elections of 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 the Republican won an average of 74 percent of the vote. 74 percent! Not in the 40s. The Democrat never got over 30 percent until the special election. OH-2 is one of the most conservative districts in the country. In 2000 and 2004 the district voted 13 percent more Republican than the country as a whole (in the Presidential vote).
"she was supposed to lose last time."
Name one non-partisan analyst that predicted a Schmidt loss. I know for a fact that Charlie Cook for one predicted a Schmidt win. But he did say that if she won by less than 5 (which happened) then that would "be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong". Now we are seeing that played out -- why Strickland is winning by 15 or 20 and why DeWine is losing to a Marxist in a conservative state.
Ohioans are fed up with Ney, Taft, and the like. It's unfortunate that those not involved like Jean Schmidt and Ken Blackwell are suffering, but we can't deny that they are. There comes a point when we have to look at reality and take off the tinfoil and recognize that pollsters aren't in some cabal to destroy the Republican party. If they don't predict elections within the margin of error they lose their jobs. So why would a nonpartisan company falsify results? Drop the conspiracy theories already. It's getting tiresome.
The more research I do on this district the more discouraging these results are to me.
I live in the district. I am disgusted with Taft and crew, but I do not think there is any concern in this race. The 1st district is another story though.
I hope we can hold onto Chocola and Sodrel's seats too, but that might be too difficult, unless the environment changes.
You've misunderstood my posts. My argument is that being associated with Bush is hurting GOP candidates.
Did you happen to notice whom Schmidt REPLACED? One of the more popular Republicans I've seen in this area in a lifetime. No one was going to come in and get 70%. And special election? vs. a "war hero" when Iraq was going "badly?" She should have gotten creamed. Take my word for it, it was a stunning loss to the Dems. A stunning loss, from which they still haven't recovered and it's affected the very way they ignore their military/vet candidates now.
And you keep repeating this idiotic mantra that Blackwell and DeWine are in all this trouble---yet all you have to back it up are the very bogus polls that I keep trying to tell you have ALWAYS been bogus in OHIO, ALWAYS wrong.
I think in some cases yes, in some cases no. But overall, it's irrelevant. It's the issues that count. Bush doesn't "play" 100% down the line in any section of the country. For conservatives, they're upset over his illegals position---but thrilled with his strong stance on the WoT and quiver at the thought of lesser men being in office. For liberals, he's "too conservative," yet still is needed to rally the base. I don't think too many candidates would resist having Bush come in and campaign for them.
I think in some cases yes, in some cases no. But overall, it's irrelevant. It's the issues that count. Bush doesn't "play" 100% down the line in any section of the country. For conservatives, they're upset over his illegals position---but thrilled with his strong stance on the WoT and quiver at the thought of lesser men being in office. For liberals, he's "too conservative," yet still is needed to rally the base. I don't think too many candidates would resist having Bush come in and campaign for them.
Chocola's #s aren't great---they are far, far better than the pollsters say---this from an internal polling unit. But he has a TON of money, and will begin spending it.
"all the folks that think McEwen is hot $hit should consider that if Ted Strickland goes to Columbus in January, he owes the biggest thanks to Boob McEwen for making his entire public career a rousing success."
I couldn't have said it better, myself. In any event, I'm not worried. Jean Schmidt will run behind party lines, but this district won't elect a Democrat.
I'm starting to wonder if you enjoy being clueless or just can't help it. Is it that difficult to understand that OH-02 is a CONSERVATIVE distict? It's not just conservative, it's EXTREMELY conservative. In any ordinary year a Democrat shouldn't even have a chance. The fact that Hackett got so close is a huge concern and now it's made even worse by the fact that this challenger is so close to Schmidt.
Yes, I recognize that Bolton was very popular, but that's because he's a conservative in a conservative district. And Hackett losing was not a "stunning loss" for them, for reasons I've already stated.
As for polls that are "always wrong" in Ohio I need only point you to the polls taken between Bush and Kerry before the 2004 election which were ALL within the margin of error and therefore should be called "accurate" and certainly not "always wrong". ARG, the LA Times, and Gallup got it wrong in Ohio. FOX News, Survey USA, Strategic Vision, U of Cincinnati, Mason-Dixon, Rasmussen, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Zogby (phone not Internet) got it right. Bush won by 2 percent, the EXACT result Survey USA, Strategic Vision, and Mason-Dixon all found in Ohio. The other companies were all fairly close, within about 1 or 2 points.
You're like a liberal, completely in denial of all the facts and unable to back up a single point with anything more than pointless ranting and senseless drivel.
"It means that Ohio will probably be disastrous for the GOP."
OK State paid for by Howard Dean. The seminar Democrat is back folks. Just Ignore him
LS, do not waste your time with OK State. Let him post to himself. He is a DNC Troll.
THAT IS EXACTLY what is happening with 90% of the polling going on now, and why, at this point, I would tend to believe internals more than externals. And by the way, in WI in 2004, the numbers, as Jay Cost showed, were pretty much with us. Bush only needed 10,000 to carry the state, and there WERE the 10,000 Republicans available. They just didn't turn out in WI.
I've repeatedly cited to people the absolutely unchallenged work of Gerald Wasserman, a statistician from Purdue who looked at the 1996 presidential polls and found them to be ALL statistically deviant in that not one of them was biased to the right. He calculated the odds at 54,000 to one that they would ALL have Dole losing by a bigger margin than he did if it were just an "accident."
I've also cited, with no refuatation, the established work of Thomas Mahl, who showed that ALL the major pollsters in 1939 were compromised by British agents "doctoring" polls to get pro-British results. So it apparently is pretty easy to tilt the polls---all of them---to get the desired result.
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.