Posted on 09/12/2008 4:57:16 AM PDT by 11th_VA
PRINCETON, NJ -- A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.
(snip)
The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup's "likely voter" model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.
If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
**(GOP “could regain control of U.S. House ...”)**
As long as they cut spending and drop earmarks (Republicans) I would be delighted to get rid of Mizzzz Nancy, the heretic.
Manzullo is my “adopted” congressman since I live in the 4th district (Luis Gutierrez).
Ozinga is at least getting positive reviews from what I’ve seen.
But Berry will win that district and the 10th though I don’t except Kirk to lose.
McCain will probably win the 8th (right? right? Bush’s margin was not that big) but that ***** Melissa “fiscally conservative means Pelosi for Speaker” Bean will still win.
The suburban Chicago seats I fear are going the way of the suburban Philly seats.
It's not impossible for him to win it. Halvorson just has more money than he does, currently about 1/3rd more.
"But Berry will win that district and the 10th though I don’t except Kirk to lose."
Kirk's days are numbered, especially if the Dems are in control of redistricting for 2012, his seat will be wiped out (I believe IL will drop a seat, to 18).
"McCain will probably win the 8th (right? right? Bush’s margin was not that big) but that ***** Melissa “fiscally conservative means Pelosi for Speaker” Bean will still win."
He might, though it might matter little. Bean clearly shouldn't be in that seat (which once sent Rumsfeld before Phil Crane), it is Republican. Her opponent has $800k at last report, but she has over $2.6 million.
"The suburban Chicago seats I fear are going the way of the suburban Philly seats."
Idiots if they are.
That’s a shame. They’re attractive personalities who represent the GOP brand very well. Their being gone for a long time wouldn’t matter...Newt’s been gone a long time, too, and he’s certainly put his mark on the current debate.
I simply pulled their names out of the air. I’m sure there are other young, attractive GOP spokespersons. My point was simply that the GOP needs to identify those who will be speaking for it in the remaining 2 months.
Oh, there are some under-50 folks in the House, the question is which ones would be suitable to put out there. Some are telegenic and able to convey a good message, it’s just a matter of identifying which ones. But it also has to start with leadership, too, and they’re not getting the job done. Newt couldn’t withstand the blistering attacks when he was Speaker beyond that short 4-year period. Of course, they’ll attack our people ruthlessly, regardless. You’ve seen what they’ve (the media/Dems) done to Governor Palin with their pathologically unhinged, slanderous and false attacks that are best described as evil.
He’s a great guy. Before he was our Congresscritter, he and his wife founded the first crisis pregnancy center in Rockford and the one here in Freeport.
Yeah, I’m having a hard time coming up with them, too. But I’m not talking just about elected officials. I’m talking about “commentators”.
I guess what I’m getting at is this: this is beginning to look and feel to me like 1994 when a national game plan worked. We need telegenic people carrying our message (and counterpunching) on TV and in the media. They don’t have to be running for anything. But they should have a tight, consistent, theme....maybe even another ‘contract’.
I haven’t thought it all through, but it’s better than scatterred responses from individual candidates. They can use local media.
I’m not getting the same vibe as 1994 at all. This entire election has seemingly become Palin-centric. It’s very different from ‘94 when the momentum was with the entire GOP from top to bottom nationwide. The battle now is to hold on for dear life to what we have now, including the Exec branch, not making sweeping gains, which just isn’t happening. The Dems are only in panic mode over being in a losing position to take the Exec, and they’re not sweating it so much over Congress.
As for names and faces to put up on the tv, I’m a bit stumped. We just don’t have a whole lot of stars. Unfortunately, the bitter hatred we see from the media permeates down to the local level. They’re even more now in the bag for Obama as Dhimmis than they were for Kerry and Gore. Sick stuff.
I’m thinking more and more that the NRCC ought to make a portion of their fundraising an al la carte system, where people could donate to specific congressional districts. The reason the national committees are running low on cash is because the base is burned by the committees defending too many RINOs that don’t deserve it. Of course, that’s probably why the national committees would never go for it. They still want the option.
Still, I think it’d dramatically up their coffers, and may entice some better qualified candidates to run if they knew the national folks were ready to back them up.
They’d never do it. They want to be in full control and squander it defending RINOs. Folks out there are better off just giving directly to the candidates of their choice. Probably almost better off setting up an independent website with stats and links about the districts, races, and candidates. The candidate would submit a little blurb about how much they need to raise to be competitive and how much they’ve raised.
The one thing that bugs me is when I see how much money some candidates have raised in safe districts (ludicrous amounts) that would be enormously more helpful if it was evenly distributed to other candidates. For example, you’re sitting on $5-$10 million and your opponent is a nobody with near $0, you need to be cutting $1,000 (or more) donations to the hundreds of other candidates. This is one example where “spreading the wealth” is imperative and vital.
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.