Posted on 11/01/2006 12:43:56 PM PST by rface
"We're going to win," President Bush asserted confidently in his latest press conference, when asked about the midterm elections....
Vice President Dick Cheney tells interviewers he is "optimistic" about the Republican Party's ability to hold on...
But the voice that gives Democrats the biggest chills is that of Karl Rove. Mr. Rove has seen the private polls from individual races, he tells interviewers, and the data point "strongly" in one direction: a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
Is this a classic bluff..... Or do Rove and his bosses really know something that's not knowable by the rest of us?
The rock-solid pronouncements of Rove, who cites not just internal polls but also the GOP's advantage in fund-raising and organization, buttress the predictable positive outlook...
"Rove is relying on the Rove mystique," says John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont-McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. "A lot of Democrats are paranoid about it. ...
..... a comment by John Kerry that was interpreted as a slight against US troops in Iraq. "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Kerry called it a botched joke.
Republicans maintain a funding advantage. At the end of August, in 30 of the most competitive races, Republicans had $33 million cash on hand versus $14 million for the Democrats, says Rove. The Republicans also tout their so-called 72-hour turnout operation. There have been reports of greater early-voting turnout by Republicans than by Democrats.
says GOP pollster Whit Ayres.... if the Democrats don't retake the House next Tuesday, "they should hang it up as a political party. If they can't win in this climate, when can they win?"
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Not just this, but all of what you wrote is spot on. Who knows, under such circumstances I 'myself' might even vote for a Democrat for the first time ever (and I'm 63!).
Her remark about "unknowable" really means, "I'm too lazy to check out the facts of this, so I'll just pretend it cannot be known.
Or, am I just being too harsh on the lady?
John / Billybob
Can't really argue with your points. But the Republicans have "quit dancing with the one that brung 'em to the dance" in a lot of respects.
I didn't see or hear Carville say that. . . which scares the crap out of me for thinking like him.
How, just exactly how, can a phrase that had absolutely-none-whatsoever reference to President Bush be "misinterpreted" as other than the supposedly intended meaning of being a slam at President Bush...just exactly how again????????? Errr....when I was in Kindergarten and I wanted to 'dis' somebody, even I knew that I had to at least SAY their name in connection with the slam....sheesh...
Shut up you crazy feminazi DemonRat,Edelman.
You're not being too harsh. The vast majority of "journalists" today aren't the type we used to see who dug for the story and found out the facts. Now they appear to spend their days sipping lattes while standing by the fax machine waiting for the latest DNC talking points. Their evenings are spent at cocktail parties discussing tomorrow's spin with DNC operatives.
The average Freeper probably knows more about polls and why so many are bogus these days than the average "journalist." Being propagandists has made them lazy thinkers, if they think at all.
In midterms from 1898 the majority party in the House has averaged a loss of 5.8% which, given the GOP has 232 seats, translates to 13 or 14 seats. A loss of 20 seats would be about 8.6% and that's happened in 12 of the 27 midterms in that period or about 44%.
If you look at absolute numbers instead of percentages, the average loss is 16.6 seats but 20 or more seats are lost only 11 times or 40.7%.
Well, we'll find out next Tuesday.
I'm confident - especially now after Kerry's insults.
Some of these races are hard to predict, but I'm keepin' my fingers crossed!
Christian Science Monitor typical left wing whining.
All your Diebold are belong to us.
Dean: What happen?
Reid: Somebody set us up the Diebold.
Kerry: We get stay in school or stuck in Iraq.
Reid: What!
ROVE: How are you gentlemen!!
ROVE: All your seats are belong to us.
ROVE: You are on the way to destruction.
Clinton: What you say!!
ROVE: You have no chance to survive make your time.
ROVE: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
That's why everybody talks about turnout. That is nowhere as predictable statistically as the proportion of people who identify themselves with one or the other party. It depends on whose "base" is more motivated actually to make the effort to vote.
In addition, there is a middle ground of independents. Often these remain uncommitted until they are actually in the voting booth. It tends to be their last perception of one emotional issue or another that sways them, which is quite impossible to sample statistically inasmuch as the formative issues haven't developed at the time of the poll. No poll taken last week could have accounted for the independents who will be swayed by the Kerry debacle, for example. Will that be many or few? You can bet the Dems are polling furiosly in private right now to find that out - Kerry's sudden course reversal into an apology may well have been the result of such an effort.
Exit polls are taken with no effort to sample the respective parties at all. These do reflect accurately the proportion of the parties who vote, but are quite at the mercy of the voters' willingness to share the personal information of a secret ballot. Some do, some don't, and there's no way to control this such that you get an accurate representation of what actually happened inside the booths. Party enthusiasts tend to be proud of how they voted but most polls already account for their numbers. Many independents are much more reticent and will tend to state what the interviewer seems to want to hear rather than what they actually did, which is, after all, their business and nobody else's. And that's a very critical demographic.
That's polling 101. For a couple of years I used to do it for a living. There's science involved but it's mostly really an art, and nobody is right every time.
Oh, it's real. The left is the walking dead.
we are not privy to the REAL polls and the real data.
I think this is the "bunker" mentality of the left. This is forcing them to acknowledge that the left is the minority view. They are probably even less than the 19% they claim.
This POS! If this is the face of the rat party then the confidence is real for GOP.
He'll just say you've "misinterpretted"
his comment about resigning! <>g<>
"If she did the hard work of going after more detailed polls, with a better handle on turnout rather than gross numbers from "adult Americans," she would know what Rove knows." -- Congressman Billybob
I too have doubts about the physical turnout issue. Isn't the presumed voter turnout based on persons polled who CLAIM to be "likely voters"? I don't know how this issue is dealt with statistically but when asked, many people who will say they are going to vote just won't. This is simply a case of human nature. We know that what people say and what they do are often inconsistent. I mean, who is going to be honest enough to admit that they will probably not get off the couch to cast a vote? It's easier to say "yes" rather than acknowledge failure to meet this basic obligation of citizenship.
When you combine a lower than expected physical turnout by Dems with known over sampling of Dems in the polls, there's not really any Rove magic at play. He just undestands reality IMHO.
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.