People, listen up.
The Exit Polls Were Correct. They had only a few percent of skew, but the important part of them was the question:
What issue was more important to your vote today?
Look it up. It wasn't immigration. It wasn't the economy. AND IT WASN'T IRAQ.
The #1 issue was corruption scandals.
Put all this talk about the party not moving far enough right or too far right away. This is a conservative country. It approved of the party's right/left position on the spectrum in 2004 and NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THAT.
The only difference in 2006 was the GOP had a ton of corruption scandals this very year. Not recently. Not in Bush's 2nd term. This very year. A conservative country will not tolerate corruption.
So hit the numbers and find those Democrats who took GOP seats in heavy red districts, find a squeaky clean candidate to target him or her and get them out of our seats.
Do Not Waste Time On Philosophical Introspection because the exit polls showed that's not what drove the vote. Get rid of corruption scandals, change nothing on any other issue at all, and we retake Congress.
Michael Barone say 8% skewed to dims. He knows!
LLS
Word!
Word!
Do you have any links to polls that support that theory?
It's very important for you and everyone else to understand this critical point:
exit polls are NOT true scientific polls! They are certainly more accurate than an internet poll posted on a web site, but they aren't at all representative of a random, evenly distributed sample of people. They only measure people who actually went out to vote as opposed to people who stay home, and furthermore they don't take into account the significant biases of people who von't and don't want to answer the exit poll.
As a true gauge of the sentiment of the people, exit polls are only a little bit better than worthless.
"Look it up. It wasn't immigration. It wasn't the economy. AND IT WASN'T IRAQ."
What about the folks who "sat it out?"
You are leaving out one crucial factor.
A "conservative" country will INDEED tolerate corruption,
as long as the democrat media, by omission, keeps them ignorant of it.
"The #1 issue was corruption scandals."
It was cumulative. And it was never answered in a way to show the "party" got it, was doing anything about it.
Hastert didn't impress me, over his handling of the latest item.
Corruption was number one. I think it then went Terrorism, Economy, Iraq, Immigration.
Yet many also claim Iraq was a big item. Iraq is going to be dealt with, by a new SecDef, a Baker/Hamilton (Select/ bipartisan of course)Committee, etc.
The only thing done about immigration was a very last minute fence deal, so representatives could go back and campaign on it.
Some how this reveals the voters KNEW it was a last minute deal, and they were NOT impressed. Like: "that is the best they can do, with 6 years in the majority?"
Etc.
You have a good point. Better than Rush's explanation. But I thought Allen was supposed to be squeaky clean. Foley came out of nowhere (pardon the pun.) Hastert was nicer than Santa Claus hisself....and they dirtied him up pretty well.
I don't see William Jefferson's cold-hard cash having any negative effects.
I got polled after voting and illegal immigration wasn't even listed as an option. If it had been I would have checked that one. I checked THE ECONOMY. The mid-west is bleeding severely.
Not so simple. There was no more corruption in the GOP than the Dems and the little that there was, was rooted out before we knew the story.
Fortunately, the Dems are being run by lightweight Pelosi, ancient Murtha and corrupt Reid. It's not like the Tip O'Neill days.
We here in Bucks County, Pa. saw our 1-term Republican Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, a "squeaky clean" father of six, a man who prior to 2004 served 10 years as a conservative elected County Commissioner, a humble man who never cheated, spoke harshly, or uttered one word of derision against anyone -- and he lost on Tuesday by 1,400 votes. (approx. 125,500 to 124,100).
Michael Fitzpatrick supported President Bush's Iraq policy, with some caveats such as we need to develop a fresh policy to win, etc. (a stance most Iraq war supporters accepted, including myself)
Fitzpatrick also won accolades and endorsement from the Sierra Club for previously developing and funding a plan to purchase approx. 200,000 acres of farmland for Open Space.
He was resoundingly pro-Life, and a devout Catholic, and was beloved of Democrats and Republicans alike the past 10 years for his keen interest in creating parks and improving our 'environment'.
On Tuesday night, the volunteers at our local Republican campaign headquarters were calling and calling stacks and stacks of phone numbers of normally reliable Republicans, yet they would not come out to vote.
Why? I am certain it was not Michael Fitzpatrick.
I believe that the Republican dilemma is that most people know in their hearts that we MUST continue a shooting fight with Muslim extremists in Iraq or elsewhere, but they just cant stomach to see our fresh young American boys coming home maimed or dead.
Freedom exacts a heavy price. Unfortunately, an additional 10-percent of Americans on Tuesday loudly stated that they refuse to pay the price.
And he partially agrees with your point.
THE POWER OF THE PRESS WON THIS ELECTION.
Unfortunately, they like the bad guys.
"Do Not Waste Time On Philosophical Introspection because the exit polls showed that's not what drove the vote. Get rid of corruption scandals, change nothing on any other issue at all, and we retake Congress."
Sorry, but your political analysis here is simplistic and naive. Corruption was but one small part of why Pubs lost in the mid-terms.