Bits and Pieces, Four Days Out

self | 11/3/06 | LS

[saganite]

marked for post election rereading

[TheBigB]

Hoping and praying you're right, m'friend.

[Lando Lincoln]

Thanks LS.

[Petronski]

The Fox All-Stars crowd is exceedingly pessimistic.

Is that primarily (a) bad data, (b) groupthink, (c) scare psychology, or (d) something else?

[Molly Pitcher]

Thanks! Will you add more as the weekend winds up?

We're 25,000+ calls in my county as of late this afternoon.

I also heard more anecdotal stories today of the poor Dem GOTV effort. they may be also complacent, but we can't let up on our work thinking that may be the case.

Also, we're going, supposedly, to have some folks from the National office join us tomorrow.

[cardinal4]

I hope you are right. I was never really worried about the Senate, its Nancy Pelosi that I always worried about..

[LS]

A combo. They are all using, I think, bad data. No different than in 1994 when all the then "all stars" had the Dems winning big.

[LibLieSlayer]

When mort states that a dim strategist has seen the Republican Internal Polls and says dims have it in the bag, you know that it is ALL BOVINE POOP!

Rove ain't gonna let no slimy POS dim look at the family jewels!

LLS

[COBOL2Java]

I was never really worried about the Senate, its Nancy Pelosi that I always worried about..

Ditto that. I remember the Reagan administration, and how Speaker Tip O'Neill would annually declare Reagan's budget "Dead on Arrival". Even though Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years, it was the House that caused the most trouble.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Thanks for posting this. It's sensible.

[WashingtonSource]

They were already discussing what the practical impact would be of a Democratic House and possible Democratic Senate. Fred Barnes had a few good tid bits to report on GOP gains from an inside source, but no specifics.

[LS]

That's for sure.

All: think back. In 2000, Rove said, despite SOME polls that had a Bush blowout, that it would be a "very close election," and it was. In 2004, Rove was more optimistic. He didn't guarantee victory, but pretty close. He indicated it wouldn't be as close as 2000.

This year he has pretty much guaranteed that the Dems won't win either house. I think that tells us a lot.

[cardinal4]

Nancy has made plain her disdain for guns, tax cuts, and Iraq funding. I disagree with her plans for the House..

[Petronski]

Not to be rude, but "primarily" bad data? Or do you think they're also doing their own scary GOTV effort with conservatives?

I guess what I'm asking is, is there method to their madness, or will they be genuinely surprised Tuesday night?

That's a nebulous question, I know. I'm just trying to get your feel for it.

[kcbc2001]

I think the technology factor is huge! That's one of the reasons why I believe that polls are only going to get even more inaccurate, the more people use cells as their primary phones. I'm under 35 and everyone I know has a cell phone and the majority (including myself) use it as their primary phone. Thus, they aren't getting called to participate in polls, regardless of political party.

They are really just getting a hold of people who have a landline and answer their questions-and they tend to be older voters. In the MI govs race, older voters tend to be for Granholm, but the under 35 group is majority DeVos. So, it will be interesting to see who actually comes out to vote and who ends up winning. This whole idea that the under 35 group is solid Dem is a MSM lie.

That's why I think there are going to be some surprises on Tuesday.

[edmond246]

I've looked and looked, but I live in the Ohio 13th district where Craig Foltin is running against an ultraliberal democrat, and I believe he has a chance to win and no one is talking about this. He has won with substainal margins in his town of Lorain where he is mayor, where EVERY other person in the gov't is a dem. He is the only repub, and it's the mayor.

Now if anyone can find any polls on this CD #13 (Foltin v. Sutton) that'd be greatly appreciated.

I've only seen two polls. One Survey USA poll from July that had him down 5-8 pts and one that the Dem's released that had Sutton up by 22. *yea...rite*

let me know. you guys are the best.

[axes_of_weezles]

In AZ, it's simply bogus to suggest that J.D. Hayworth will lose. Randy Graf, however, can't break into single digits. The AZ papers say he simply is a one-note samba, and can't speak to health care or any issue but immigration. It's clear immigration is the #1 issue in a district like this, but it will not be the ONLY issue. He has about one day of recovery time. If he trails by double digits on Sunday, he's finished,


Nice to have a RNC supporter for Graf. If you know the ground truth and polling data -publish it. Not the crap that comes from the MSM. Zogby had Graf within 5 points and the NRCC pulled his funding for the second time. He is relying on locals and PAC's for support. But then you would rather have a RAT, than someone who has valid complaints about border security and will call the Bullsh*t flag. What will you do when he wins? Either way the Congresscritters will have to work with whatever is elected. I suppose you prefer a Gay friendly liberal, like Kolbe from southern Arizona.

[AZ GOPher]

Gosh, I love your optimism -- I really do. I'm a diehard GOP, as if my wife, and we both voted Kyl and Flake here in Chandler, AZ. I just can't bring myself to your views on the ultimate result, however. Here are my reasons for more worry than you depict:

1. Let's face it, the political environment is just TERRIBLE for Republicans this year. The MSM is running negative stories on the GOP by something like a 72% to 17% ratio. The difficulties in Iraq given them plenty of grist for their mill, too.

2. The closer we get to election day, the more predictive the Congressional generic ballot becomes. We're getting slaughtered on that front, by historical margins. Even if you make the "Democrats oversampled" argument and adjust 5-8% for it, we're still getting clobbered in relative historical terms.

3. This is the sixth-year election of an incumbent president, which is always tough even without the factors in #1 and 2 above. We would probably lose a few seats for that element alone.

I'm not trying to be a downer. I hope and pray for a very different result from the one I'm openly lamenting above. I just don't realistically see it, though. . .

[Petronski]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not really sold on the predictive value of generic party preference polls. The reason I say this, primarily, is the inherently local (and gerrymandered more than ever) nature of Congressional voting. I'm talking about the "my guy's good, the rest are all bastards" phenomenon.