Posted on 08/12/2002 3:18:02 PM PDT by My2Cents
No Democratic tide
BY MICHAEL BARONE
In a column in the July 18, 1994, issue of U.S. News, I wrote that there was a serious possibility that Republicans would capture control of the House in November. It was, so far as I know, the first article in the national press that foresaw that year's Republican victory. The article cited five non-scandal-plagued Democratic incumbents who trailed Republican challengers in media or partisan polls. It's unusual for incumbents to trail in polls and a sign that a party is in trouble when competent incumbents are behind.
Today, amid much talk–cheerful talk by Democrats, pessimistic talk by Republicans–that issues of corporate wrongdoing are going to help the Democrats, there is no evidence, at least yet, of any such tide. Except for districts where incumbents have been forced to run against each other by redistricting, the number of House incumbents trailing challengers in publicly announced polls is zero. The closest thing is a Republican poll showing Minnesota's Democratic Rep. Bill Luther ahead 35 to 34. But Luther underperformed in 1998 and 2000, and is running in a mostly new district.
Five senators have trailed in publicly announced polls, but there is no partisan trend; they include Democrats Tim Johnson (S.D.) , Paul Wellstone (Minn.), Jean Carnahan (Mo.), and Republicans Tim Hutchinson (Ark.) and Bob Smith (N.H.) . (Smith's primary opponent, Rep. John Sununu, runs better.) In other Senate races, no recent polls show significant changes.
Local politics. All this is not to say that there won't be a Democratic trend by November. It does say that one hasn't appeared yet. An August 6 New York Times story said, "Rising voter concern about the nation's future, driven by an unsteady economy and unrest on Wall Street, is stirring nervousness among some Republicans and lifting confidence among Democratic leaders." But the article doesn't cite any numbers in any districts.
Now it is true that Democrats don't need as big a swing as Republicans needed in 1994 to win the House, and they only need to hold their current seats to maintain a majority in the Senate. A swing toward the Democrats that would show up as statistically insignificant in a poll could give them gains in both houses. But it is also true that changes in attitudes on general questions–whether the country is moving in the right direction, which party's candidate will you favor for the House–do not always move numbers in individual races.
Nor is it clear that Democrats have a big advantage on economic issues. The pro-Democrat Democracy Corps poll, taken July 22-24 (the Dow plunged 840 points July 19-23), shows Republicans ahead on the economy (44-39) and not far behind on standing up to powerful Washington special interests (30-31) or dealing with corporate abuses (34-39). Democracy Corps's Stanley Greenberg and James Carville recommend that Democrats attack Bush for conflicts of interest (though his ratings for honesty remain high), on handling the economy (though their own poll shows voters prefer Republicans on that), pensions, and Social Security.
Greenberg and Carville argue that Democrats can campaign on "major reforms to protect investors and people's 401(k) plans." But what voter expects the government to insure him against any loss in value? Democrats have attacked Republicans for favoring "privatization of Social Security," that is, allowing individual investment accounts as part of the system. But that policy has continued to poll well, if the issue is framed as Bush frames it, despite the stock market drop. Now Republicans are trying to turn the tables by attacking Democrats like Tim Johnson for backing "privatization," by which they mean government investment of Social Security funds.
Naturally, people planning to retire soon are disappointed with their 401(k)'s. But most of the 70 percent of voters who own stock aren't planning to cash in soon and are less concerned with their momentary balance than with whether they can expect progress in the lifelong project of accumulating wealth. And large majorities believe the stock market will be higher one year and 10 years from now. In the meantime, incumbents of both parties seem to be doing well, as they did in 1996, 1998, and 2000. The partisan deadlock hasn't yet been broken.
I'm not one to put down people for their appearance, but in that video of prominent Democrats shown at McAuliffe's get together, the Dems in the video looked like a group that could audition for the villains in some kind of children's movie like "The Wizard of Oz" or something. LOL
vaudine
Probably their best shot is prescription drugs. That one should be interesting given the huge price tag involved. That one should be interesting because the GOP will say we can't afford the full course spread, the Dems will say that is because of that evil tax cut, and GOP will say do the Dems really want to roll back the tax cut, and the Dems will say no, but we are mad as hell that you did it in the first instance, and that was mean spirited and imprudent. You with me so far? LOL.
Republicans use facts. Democrats use slander. Ann Coulter is right.
You must have been pressured by those Repub-Tellamarkerters, they can be brutal! Here in Kalif. I get 4 or 5 calls per election cycle.
Yup. And let's all keep in mind that if a Democrat were in the White House right now, he wouldn't even blink before deciding to perfectly time the war in order to create an "October Surprise." (Assuming the RAT didn't just cave in after 9/11 and decide it was all our fault in the first place.) They would have done it to us, and since this war has to be fought anyway, we might as well gain a little something out of it. As long as the president determines there's no legitimate military reason why the war should have to wait until after November 5th, it should absolutely start before that date.
I'm jacked up now, I'm going to e-mail this to the big-house.
Nation wide about a third of the voters register as Democrats and vote in the primaries. About a third more register as Republicans and vote in the primaries. To vote in a primary race in most states you have to declare a party and vote that parties primary. About a third of the voters are registered but do not declare a party and do not vote in the primaries. That is on reason why the primary turn outs are always much lower than the general election. Usually by more than a third.
You quote your own opinion. That carries no weight with me. Information garnerd nationwide from the boards of elections does.
I haven't watched a kid's movie in so long, "The Wizard of Oz" was all that I could think of. :^)
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.