Posted on 11/02/2006 8:52:38 AM PST by finnman69
That is about what I have been saying. We retain control of both Houses and pick up a few seats, or at worst, lose 2 Senate and 5 House seats. The latter scenario will be trumpeted by the MSM and the Dims as a great victory. The former scenario will be trumpeted by the MSM and the Dims as a great victory.
Wisconsin did go for Kerry.
I think you have something there.
I think Kerry is actually enjoying the media attention because it is "Kerry the potential 2008 candidate" who is front and center.
The fact he was uninvited to a few meet and greet events is a plus for him. He gets to sit out and still be a good democrat.
All I can really speak to is my own area - Memphis. I think the country will receive one or two surprises from Tennessee. The one I am more sure of is that Corker will win with 54% + of the vote. The one I am less sure of, but getting hopeful about, is that with two libs vs. one Republican, the most Democratic House seat in Tennessee might flip to the Republicans for two years.
This really saddens me! I'm sorry I read it.
Nancee
Ford has been running around like a desperate high school junior running for student body president so it will look good on his college applications. Corker wins it, I'm with you.
ooops, I meant he had Wisconsin going for Bush and Florida going for Kerry in 2004.
You are kidding me right? Newbie.
First of all, you shouldn't throw around charges like 'liar' so carelessly. For it to fit, not only would what I said have to be false, but I would also have to have known that it was false and said it anyway. I'm not surprised that you missed that considering what you say next. As to me being a liberal; well, noone with a functioning brain could read my posts and come away thinking that.
Yes, much, or most, of the population growth is in red states, especially in the South and Sunbelt. But you make the same mistake that others (most prominently Michael Barone and Fred Barnes) make; you don't consider where the growth is coming from. Its as if you think there is something magical about red states that turns people conservative.
Most population growth overall is due to immigration, and the children born to immigrants. Advantage >>> Democrats. Both of the two largest immigrant groups -- Hispanics and Asians -- now favor the Democrats by wide margins. Sorry, but its true. And there is no reason to expect that the GOP can reverse this while maintaining high levels of immigration, be it legal or illegal. White-flight from California did help the GOP in the Sunbelt and Mtn West, but that tide seems to be receding.
Now, it is true that the GOP will benefit electorally (i.e. electoral college votes) from immigrant-driven population gains in states like Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, et al, but only so long as the immigrant community is not numerous enough to tip the balance to the Democrats. In other words, so long as the white share of the electorate remains high enough, and the GOP wins a big enough share of that white electorate. So long as that holds, then yes, the GOP will gain electorally. That is why the GOP currently dominates Texas, but as the Hispanic share of the electorate catches up with its share of the overall population, then that dominance will likely come to an end. And this is leaving out the fact that the Democrats have learned to run more moderate sounding candidates who can cut into the white vote. Sometimes they run as bonafide conservatives, like Ford Jr in Tennessee. And guess what? The media helps them perpetuate this fraud. Do you think Ford Jr would even be close if not for the media covering for him?
You are right about conservative birthrates, but again, you need to examine it more closely. Conservative white families have more children than liberal white families, and that should help the GOP, but lacking any data to the contrary, it seems a safe bet that the birthrates of Hispanic and black women are higher than even that of conservative white women, and that again will benefit the Democrats.
Going back to red states/districts; it is no surprise that population growth there is higher. For one thing, the weather is generally better, for another, there is generally more space available. And of course, conservative values make for better communities. They make for safer neighborhoods. They make for better schools. They make for better business envirnoments. They make for better family environments overall. All of these helps explain why so many blue staters won't to move to them. It explains why so many immigrants are now flocking to them, but like Yankees, most immigrants bring their blue-state politics with them, and vote Democrat. The influx of Northerners and immigrants is one reason why Virginia is bordering on becoming a purple state.
As to the mainstream media; I share in delight that it has lost power and influence. I am glad that public opinion of it is generally low, because it deserves low marks. But they still reach more people than any other single source. Again, other than Iraq-war malaise, how else to you explain how little credit is given to the President and the Congress for the economy? Forget the fact that its misplaced to give too much credit or blame to the govt for the economy; the fact is that most people do it. And while the media was a cheerleader for the 'Clinton economy', they have done all they can to ignore good economic news during the last 4 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_on_el_ge/immigration_politics
But you go on believing that all of the trends are pro-Republican. But when Texas becomes a battleground state, maybe then you'll get you head out of the sand. The problem, of course, is that by then it will be too late.
Who you calling a newbie, Sabato lover?
"Leiberman crosses the aisle = 50-50, Cheney breaks the tie."
Lieberman won't cross the aisle. He calls himself an Independent Democrat. Not Independent; not Republican.
Lieberman wants, Oh so much, for his dem buddies to let him back into their club.
He is with them on virtually every issue, except Iraq.
IMO
How do you possibly infer that I am a "Sabato lover" from what I posted?
Larry Sabato's crystal ball predicts a tie
University of Virginia Professor and director of the U-V-A center for Politics... Larry Sabato...predicts an electoral college tie in the presidential election. While he goes on to say that the election probably will not end in an electoral college tie...if ever there was a year for such an outcome...it would be this year. The prediction also says that if turnout is around 115 to 117 million...Bush should win...however if turnout is higher Kerry may have the edge.
For more detailed information on Sabato's predictions...visit
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2004/president/electoratemap.php Link: http://wtju.radio.virginia.edu/newsarch.rb?d=2004-11-02.html
bump
Right, but later in the day Sabato predicted a landslide Kerry victory. Sabato predicted the tie the Monday before the Eelction.
He does not just lean RAT he is is RAT and a big one.
I agree with your comments. The pollsters are going to have to build new models or go out of business. With people using cell phones as their only telecommunications device and the widespread use of Caller ID to screen out unwanted calls, their methodology is failing them.
FYI Sabato.
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.