Posted on 10/31/2006 8:09:22 AM PST by LS
I believe the big news of this election will not be a change in congress, though it is possible, but a really unexpectedly low turnout. We had 77 million of so in 2002. I doubt we see 70 million this time, about half the 2004 numbers. In such a world, the most organized operation wins. That is generally republican.
The old media loudly notes that republicans are disillusioned or depressed and cite polls. What they do not note is that the same polls reflect lower numbers for democrat motivation. In addition, I expect the independent vote to be way down. Those folk are pissed at both parties.
Dead or alive...
I wouldn't go that far, but...
I can't help but recall 1998. Freepers spent weeks anticipating how many seats we would pick up, what with the deadly duo of mid-term losses, and Clinton scandals. The election day threads were full of reports of "long lines" at Republican leaning precincts. Then the actual vote totals began to be announced, at the party in the White House picked up seats in a midterm election for the first time since, what, 1938?
While we were "measuring the drapes" for our increased majority, the Democrat base was livid, and working their tails off, and the independents were so disgusted with politics that many of them did not vote at all.
It may be a mirage, but I see something like that happening this year. I don't think we will gain seats (feel free to jeer if we do), but the losses may be far less than than the media/Democrats, who are busy fine tuning articles of impeachment, are predicting.
Lump me in with those 'top Republicans'... 90% of these polls are DBM/DNC misinformation.
That's been my position all along, too.
Zack, they USED to have it. But not since 2002 has it been effective. I'm telling you, I'm on the ground in OH and signs of Dem effort are entirely missing. No walkers, no door-knockers. In entirely Dem neighborhoods, no bumperstickers or yard signs. Mark my words: they will underperform. I don't know how much, but at least 1% off their "averages."
Well, I don't know the 2002 numbers, but those would be the ones to compare to, not a U.S. election year.
Meant to say "U.S. PRESIDENTIAL election year."
Fascinating. Where did you hear this?
"We are in far better shape in several races I'm familiar with than the Democrat Media is portraying."
I agree!! The RAT/lib/socialist media is spewing the RAT party line. The RAT/lib/socialists have skewed all of their "polls" toward the RATs. The RAT/lib/socialists will skew the "exit polls" toward their own RAT candidates. Then, believing their own bought-and-paid-for lies, they will be whining and moaning the day after crying "foul", "vote-tampering" and the always favorite, "disenfranchisement".
LS and I have corresponded over a long time and I know about the fine work he's doing in Ohio.
And there will be no "but" here.
What has my attention is that polling companies do NOT make their serious money on political polling. They make it in marketing studies when there are no campaigns in progress.
Yes, all the things we have pointed out are true. There is a 2:1 hangup ratio on calls. The sampling is heavier Dem than GOP (but people REALLY need to understand that this is not orchestrated -- they ask people to self identify and that is what the random calls are yielding, more Dem than GOP). Yes more cellphones now -- and maybe that skews towards Dems.
Yes all those things are true, and the pollsters know it and are not morons. They TRY to correct for them. They probably do not do so successfully, but they do try. They don't just accept unadjusted results because that would risk their reputations and their marketing revenue after the election is over.
Anyway . . . I believe the polls are inaccurate. They just aren't inaccurate to bizarre extremes.
My college son voted absentee in his first election. I mailed his ballot yesterday. Straight R.
GOP gains seats in each house.
Works for me. I love an optimist.
Now, if we can just turn them all into conservatives.
Taranto's Best of the Web for October 27 also has an interesting point about depressed Democrat turnout [emphasis mine]:
Despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally," the New York Times reports, "there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans." What shenanigans would those be? The paper explains:"This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we're having to go out of our way to counter them this year," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist. . . .Who exactly made the notion that elections are stolen or rigged "so common in the public sphere"? Wouldn't that be the Democrats, who never got over their grudge over Al Gore's photo-finish loss in 2000, who preposterously claimed Ohio was stolen in 2004, and who are already warning that if they don't do as well as they expect this year, it will be because of Republican dirty tricks?Democrats' worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.
And more than three times as many blacks as whites--29 percent versus 8 percent--say they do not believe that their vote will be accurately tallied.
Voting experts say the disillusionment is the cumulative effect of election problems in 2000 and 2004, and a reaction to new identification and voter registration laws.
Given that many of the Dems' complaints are made in expressly racial terms--e.g., blacks were disfranchised in Florida, or a requirement to show ID to vote is racist--why should it be surprising that blacks are more "disillusioned" than whites?
Last week I wrote a letter to the editor which appeared in several of our local newspapers concerning the major consequences that we as conservatives face is the Democrats take control of Congress.
Today I received a letter from some screwball writing about how he went ahead and voted a straight Democrat ticket as a result of my letter.
My letter never made any metion of any party affiliation. It simply made mention of the battle between left and right.
Apparently this screwball want America to become part of a G**less New World Order groupthink. He and his kind want to see christians and conservatives thrown under the bus.
I can assure you if this screwball has his way a lot of communities like ourswhich depend on christians and conservatives for their economic and social exsistence will certainly go to pot.
This goofball not only had the gall to not include his return address on the envelope, he also had the gall to put my dad's name on it. He wasn't the one that wrote the article. I did.
It's amazing the collosial amount of ignorance and stupidity that some people choose to exhibit with what's at stake in this election.
Regards.......
I can theoretically see Senate net pick ups although I wouldn't bet on it. I'm not seeing it in the House where if end up with a net loss of just 5, that's a good night.
With that said let me unveil a few new long shot R pickups in the House
TN-9 Jake Ford is a third party spoiler
OR-5 Rich Republican pumping in his own cash in a year where the GOP can pick governorship there.
And we all know about IN-7 and WV-2
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.