Posted on 10/29/2006 12:32:03 PM PST by veronica
US President George W. Bush predicted yesterday his Republican Party would hold on to its majority in Congress, as the signs point to a tightening race rather than a decisive victory for the Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives in the mid-term election next week.
At his first public rally of the campaign, Mr Bush spoke to party faithful in the midwest state of Indiana as the Republicans began to mobilise their supporters in earnest to get out and vote.
Democats also moved into top gear as party leaders worried that Republicans would again out-organise them in the 20 House and three Senate races both sides agree will determine the outcome of the mid-term polls.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
wow, I guess they want to hedge their bets.
There were never any signs pointing to a decisive victory for either party in the Senate. The House is another story, but the article comes up short on details to back up its headline. I'm disappointed.
Pray for blizzards in the Northeast and tropical storms in the Southeast.
Latest polls I've seen have the senate at 51-48 with NJ a toss-up (assumes the republicans win the tri-fecta of Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia); and the House at 227-208 democrat. This is actually an improvement for the pubbies over the last week (50-50;232-202-1 dems).
That is good news about Foley's district. What is happening with Delay's seat, is there a single name to replace him and do Republicans have a chance to keep the district?
Narrowing? So if they had the Dems winning 30, the GOP now has the edge?
No. Please understand, we have the GOTV edge. We want good weather everywhere, well, except maybe Cleveland and Philadelphia! Come election day, people will be stunned at the GOTV chasm between the GOP and the Dems.
Still more important: I'm sensing from a trip to Michigan that the Dems are VERY worried about their own GOTV effort, and are now running ads begging their base to come out.
This could result in as much as a 5% difference on election day. When these factors are combined, virtually NO---repeat---NO Republican is out of the race yet. It means DeWine and Santorum are still reasonably close; that 90% of the so-called "vulnerable" house seats really aren't, and that at least 5-6 (!!!) Dem seats in the House are actually in play.
Important to note that *no* race is decided until the polls close.
And yes, turnout efforts, if one side is better, means 5% difference, which in House terms may mean whether we hold it or lose it.
We ought not disregard the polls totally; although many media polls are very skewed (aka 'polloganda'), most of race polls are real LV samples.
LS, you would be the first to tell us that 6-12 seat loss (maybe more? I dont know the stats) is a historic norm for 6th year presidents. Add to that at least 5 seats of unusual factors that are hurting Republicans (Ney, DeLay, Foley, Sherwood, Taylor) and 11-17 seat loss might be expected.
I am hopeful we keep it at the lower end of that.
I think we keep both houses. I don't see any change in the numbers in the Senate...dems would have to sweep, and they won't. I think, unfortunately, Santorum will lose, but I think we win MD, so its a wash. In so far as the house, I don't follow house races that much, but gut tells me our GOTV will carry the day. Media trying hard, real hard, to supress the GOP vote and it is backfiring on them, imho. The pollsters are playing games and will have to start revising their numbers to maintain some credibility, they samples have been heavily overweighted towards dems.
But don't count on hearing that story if we lose so much as ONE seat---they will portray it as Little Big Horn, Kasserine Pass, and Isandlwana all packed together.
Heck, the damage that Taft has done in OH, it's amazing that every Republican isn't swept out.
Thanks, LS! I agree with you that the GOP will pick up seats in both houses of Congress.
I met DeLay's would-be replacement, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, when giving a speech in Houston last week. She is intelligent, charming, and will win.
I heard parts of a halfhour Sherrod Brown infomercial on radio today. Every chance he got, he spoke about "the DeWine/Taft leadership" that has got Ohio into such a fix. As if a Senator and governor had much to do with each other politically during off-years. The talking point is clear though, and potentially damaging based on Taft's 11% approval rating.
What the heck could "ultra-moderate" possibly mean? Looks like a contradiction in terms to me.
EVERY SINGLE DEM running in Ohio, from Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland to the local dogcatcher is linking their Republican opponent with Taft.
Blaming Blackwell or DeWine for ANYTHING Taft has done are like blaming Condi Rice and John Bolton for Bush not doing enough to stop illegals. One has nothing to do with the other.
I was distributing lit in a "redneck" portion of town---hardly the type you associate with Ken---and a potbellied guy smoking took the lit out of my hand and said, "Hell, he's the only one of 'em that's got any sense." Then he proceeded to demolish BOTH Taft and Strickland!!!
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.