Posted on 10/25/2006 9:38:25 AM PDT by LS
We are now two weeks out and there have been several interesting developments, all posted here on FR in the last 24 hours. Let me review a couple of them, and then "connect the dots," and suggest what might happen.
We have seen Zogby pull a poll today because it was "oversampled for Republicans."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725448/posts
Fine. How many of these were not caught, and were oversampled for Dems? I have argued for three months that the pollsters, all of them, are using out-of-date voter registration models that oversample Dems by 5-10%. I thought they would have learned their lessons from 2004, especially people like Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato, but nooooooooooo!
Next: We have seen that "voter intensity" analysis shows, far from "staying home," GOP voter intensity is even higher than in 2004---and it was already higher than the Dems' intensity by 1.5-2%. Now it's up to a 4% advantage.
When you combine what I think is oversampling of Dems by pollsters with the "voter intensity," I think ALL of the polls are off by a good 5%, minimum, in the direction of the D.
How will that voter intensity be affected if, early on, all hope of getting the Senate disappears? For example, say we have early returns showing either Steele or Kean (or both) winning; or Santorum or DeWine holding? Of Corker and Allen winning fairly easily (as I think now will be the case)? Will we see a ripple effect? I think so.
Probably because they are less visible, you might not have as much impact from some early Dem losses in CT (for ex., Shays and Johnston) or in NY (Reynolds), combined with, say, the losses of one or both seats by the Dems in trouble in GA, but there will be some impact nonetheless. In short, if, before the races are decided in the midwest and west, it becomes clear that the Dems can't win, you may well see a monstrous disillusionment on the part of the Dems "voter intensity," which could decisively tilt the field in western/mid-western races.
If that happens, Bean in IL, the three races in IN (all an hour behind OH), the races in IO, and the races in CO may all be affected.
It's hard to fathom, unless you know where the money in the state party and Trailhead was. The big money was pro-Ref-C. The base was ag'in it.
It was a horrible strategic blunder by the big money guys that (1) alienated the base; and (2) released the constitutional spending limits just after the rats had taken control of the legislature.
I would like to have a nickel for every time, after November 7, we hear the words "Diebold", "intimidation", "disenfranchisement",... well you get the picture.
I doubt that is true. I do think the highly negative campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans has turned the moderate swing voters off.
The Gray Davis/ Bill Simon race for governor of California was highly negative on both sides. Karl Rove tried to convince Simon to go positive but he refused to do so. But just as Rove predicted the resulting turnout was nearly limited to the Democrat and Republican bases. Only some 6 plus million voted for governor. And the California Democrat base was larger than the Republican base so Davis won.
But in the districts and states that Republicans must win to retain control of both houses the Republican base is a majority. So if the moderates do not vote that is very good for Republicans. We know negative ads by both parties turn moderates off. They tend to say fie on both your houses. It blows my mind that Democrats are more negative than Republican campaigns.
But many who are considered swing voters are members of the so called religious right. A generation ago these voters, made up of mostly blue color workers, voted almost always for Democrats. It is in recent years as Democrats became the party of abortion, that these voters started voting for Republicans. A majority of them are still registered Democrats. They will come out to vote and will vote for Republicans.
The foolish media tried to tell us that those whose big issue is anti-abortion would prefer millions of dead unborn babies rather than elect members of a party which had a gay member who sent dirty emails to former pages.
But this year even more then in 2004 these and many other potential Republican voters are targeted by the Republican get out the vote machine. The thing that has changed the most in the last decade has been the building of the Republican get out the vote effort. It is far superior to effort every made in the past. The amazing thing is the rise of Republican grass roots efforts, has at the same time been accompanied by the decline of the Democrat grass roots efforts.
Yet all the pollsters continue to predict a big Democrat turn out and a low Republican turn out.
I think they are as wrong as they were in 1948.
Please make your post more clear. Who are all those people you are mentioning and are they incumbent Republicans or are they challenging incumbent democrats? Thank you.
In Colo Spgs, it is the retiring R congressman who just held the seat, Joel Hefley. He has done everything in his power short of explicitly endorsing the Democrat to defeat the Republican Nominee, Doug Lamborn.
See http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061015-121053-2884r.htm.
In SD 22, it is a group of moderate R's opposing our R candidate, Mike Kopp. I'm pretty sure I know who is pulling the strings--I suspect it is two influential and powerful former R office holders; but I don't really feel comfortable naming names on a public forum without more than a solid suspicion. The two of them and their camp followers are doing the evil deed, I believe.
I can say that it is my understanding that three R's: Kiki Traylor (the moderate R who lost to our nominee, Mike Kopp in the primary) and two R precinct committee heads; have publically announced their opposition to the R, Mike Kopp. So I don't have to be coy about that.
Frankly, I don't understand it. Mike is a solid and non-inflammatory guy. He's conservative; but SD22 is conservative (it includes a lot of Tom Tancredo's congressional district). Mike's only "sin" is that he's an evangelical Christian. The moderates want to purge the party of evangelicals and this appears to be part of their effort. They would rather lose this senate seat to a radical liberal than see an evangelical elected.
And I would hasten to add, our problems in CO are not all due to fallout from Ref C and Holtzman, the tidal wave of Dem 527 money the last two cycles has been tough to overcome.
bttt
"Frankly, I don't understand it. Mike is a solid and non-inflammatory guy. He's conservative; but SD22 is conservative (it includes a lot of Tom Tancredo's congressional district). Mike's only "sin" is that he's an evangelical Christian. The moderates want to purge the party of evangelicals and this appears to be part of their effort. They would rather lose this senate seat to a radical liberal than see an evangelical elected."
Egads ... the conservative crackup. This is what they (eg Kolbe) are doing to AZ-08 (Graf) as well. :-(
We must all hang together, or we will hang separately.
Thank you. Are we in good shape in these two districts?
As Jeffco goes, so goes Colorado, quite literally.
And I would hasten to add, our problems in CO are not all due to fallout from Ref C and Holtzman, the tidal wave of Dem 527 money the last two cycles has been tough to overcome.
You are absolutely correct. We have been outspent 5-1 or 10-1 in some of the races.
Well, it's not a "conservative" crackup. The folks trying to drive the Christian Conservatives out of the party are, for the most part, democrats with an R next to their name.
It's, if anything, a "Republican" crackup.
Voter intensity matters a lot.
Where did you find that it is higher for the GOP than the Dems?
If it is, I think, needless to say, these polls should be completely ignored.
I am not one to ignore polls, but if that is the case, we are in good shape to at least keep from losing control of both houses and probably still have a workable majority....maybe lose two in the Senate and 5 in the House.
I say that now, but I must admit, the temptation to look at the polls is still huge and will be even if it is true taht the GOP is more motivated contrary to media speculation. Whoever invented polls should be shot.
Do you mean the two where the RINO's are trying to unseat the Republican candidate? If that was the question, we look good in the Colorado Springs congressional race.
OTOH, Senate District 22 is very tight and should not be--it's a very Republican district. The RINO's anti-Kopp effort is hurting us badly combined with a VERY expensive campaign by the dem (who never mentions she is a dem).
Affie Ellis in HD29 (a democrat HD) is looking very good. Ken Summers in HD22 is solid. And Ramey Johnson in HD23 is surprisingly solid (that's a moderate to dem district)--But then Ramey is really, really, really moderate, if you know what I mean :).
The tight-as-a-tick races in Jeffco are Matt Knoedler, Mike Kopp, and Dick Sargeant--all senate races. But Dick's race being tight is great news. That seat has been held by dems for a while and noone thought it would be competitive. Dick has done a real grassroots effort--I think he's worn out several pairs of shoes walking precincts. There's a good chance he takes that seat from Mo Keller. If he and Matt both win, we pick up two seats in the State Senate! If Affie and Ramey both win we take back the House!
Lamont = Lamborn. Goofed.
Of course, this assumes undecideds don't break massively for Dems at the last minute or something.
I am confused, are you talking about local state races or US Congress races?
Even people who strongly disagree with the Iraq war may not want to hand Washington over to the Democrats. They may only want to smack their Pubs into line.
It seems that this can only help Rs, who significantly outdo Dems in the absentee business. But you are definitely right about the Diebold/conspiracy stuff starting up.
No mention of Strickland or Taft. Just "one on one" with Ohio's voters.
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.