Replies

For nearly 70 years the overriding situation that must exist for Democrats to be elected is the economy. If the economy is bad when they are out of office they are likely to be elected. If the economy is good when they are in office they tend to get re-elected.

There is one issue that overrides the economy. That is national security. Since 1980 if there is danger the voters will vote Republican even in bad economic times.

It is interesting to look at the change in positions of the two parties over the last 75 years. In the 30s the Republican party was isolationist. It believed that if we just left the rest of the world alone, it would leave us alone. The day before Pearl Harbor Robert A. Taft made a speech in which he made the point that if we remained neutral we could avoid a war with the Axis powers.

Of course Pearl Harbor on the following day blew that out of the water. Then for a few years both parties agreed on the need for international intervention by the USA.

But by the time Jimmy Carter was elected the Democrats had changed sides. The Democrats were in the "suck up to dictators and they will leave us alone" mode.

Ronald Reagan put the Republican party firmly in the position of using our national strength and power to defeat the Soviet Union and win the cold war. As the Republicans became more interventionist, the Democrats gradually changed to isolationists.

The cut taxes policy of the 1930s Democrats became the policy of the 1980s and later Republicans. On both the Domestic and Foreign policy sides the Republicans and Democrats have switched sides.

It is interesting to note that a majority of voters did not change sides. A majority of voters switched parties but not views on the major issues.

The media, which thinks that the voters have changed their minds, fails to take into account that the voters for at least the last two generations has not changed their views. They have changed parties but not their views.

Democrats have done what the Republicans did 75 years ago. They have chosen to oppose the President and his party out of dislike for the president. It is a very dumb thing to do. They are not in opposition based on belief or logic. They are opposed to a man because he has defeated them in 3 straight elections.

I am reminded that the media hated FDR. And the media's polls reflected their views. They polls showed in 1936 that Alf Landon would win the presidency in a landslide.... that the Republicans would take the house and senate. But on election day FDR won the biggest victory of the 20th century and a fillibuster proof senate.

Why? Because he reflected the views of a majority of voters. The polls were wrong in 1936. They were wrong in 1948. I believe they are wrong in 2006.

The pollsters have two problems. They are modifying the results based on outdated turn out percentages of Republicans and Democrats. The Republican get out the vote effort is the best ever. The Democrat turn out effort is not nearly as good as it was just a few years ago. It is nothing close to what is was here in Ohio just a few years ago. It was always Union based, and the Unions in Ohio have lost 150,000 members in the last 15 years.

The pollsters are failing to take into account that the number of Republican and Democratic voters are nearly equal. And with the huge Rove directed turn out effort it is very likely that the Republicans will hold the house and senate.

The media has banked its credibility on a huge Democratic win. If they fail, some of the media will change sides. There will be huge pressures to make a profit. Media heads will be fired. Someone will figure out that a right wing cable network will be a huge success. That network will go on the air and bury fair and balanced FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.

We need to remember that even ABC is to some extent driven by profits. ABC may be run by left wingers... but it signed Sean Hannity and distributes his program to stations all over the USA including stations owned by ABC. Why? Because it needs the money Sean's show generates.

But the real change that effects an election is the grass roots effort created by Karl Rove. Two years ago the volunteers managed to reach 250 thousand voters by election day. This year the REpublican volunteers reached the 250 thousand mark with 3 weeks left to go.

LS says the Democratic grass roots effort in Dayton, a traditional Democratic strong hold, is next to nil. Perhaps that is because much of the Democratic (Union) base does not support the national party. They are not isolationist, they are not for tax increases, they are not for the goofy things much of the party leadership supports.

I remember the 1974 governors race in Ohio. The race was very close. And as usual Cleveland results were the last in. Republican candidate James Rhodes was only a few votes ahead with Cleveland still out. He "knew" he had to be at least 50,000 votes ahead with Cleveland out to win. So he called in the press and conceded to Gilligan about midnight. He believed he would lose by about 40 thousand votes so he conceded and went to bed.

He was awakened about 4 in the morning with the news that he had won. He did not believe it at first. But it turned out that the Democratic party in Cleveland did not like the positions that Gilligan had taken. They had done nothing to turn out the votes for Gilligan. Rhodes to his great surprise carried the Cleveland area.

What LS reports leads me to believe that at least in Ohio the Democratic party base may not support the cut and run position of its leaders. Perhaps that is why their grass roots game is not in play.

The media polls were dead wrong in 1936. They were wrong in 1948. They may very well be wrong in 2006.

Lets all think like we are going to win and work like we might very well lose.