October 31, 2006

Election News: Better Than We Could Have Hoped
— Ace

Not good, mind you. Just not awful. Hope is still alive, which is critical.

Dems lead comfortably (or so the polls say) in 210 House elections, with eighteen more polled as true toss-ups. That means they'll have to take all of the races they lead in (they'll maybe lose one or two of those) and then the lion's share of the toss-ups just to squeak a majority in the House.

Can they do it? Yes, they can. Is it a certainty? No, not hardly. No better than 60-40 at this point.

40% isn't exactly a longshot.

Republicans claim their GOTV efforts are on pace with 2004, if early voting is any indication. Which it may not be -- Allah suggests it's possible that the "diehards" are responsible for most of the early voting, and that those less determined to retain GOP control will be far less likely to vote on Election Day.

It's a plausible scenario. But it's also plausible that rumors of the death of GOP motivation have been greatly exagerated.

Meanwhile, Julia Corker's dad is up by eight over Ford in one poll.

The delectable, deliciously saucy Ms. Corker promises "Elect my Dad, and I promise I'll 'accidentally' let my sex video with Lauren Bush get put onto the Internet."

Fair news from New Jersey, Viriginia, and Missouri -- polls show them as tossups, which means the Republican has a better-than-even chance of winning, I think.


Dems Have A Massive Get-Out-The-Poll-Respondants Drive Going... and yet it's not poll respondants which determine elections. It's actual voters.

Has Tennessee -- a border state, though Southern and heartland in leanings -- really gone from an eight point GOP lead in voter identification to a one-point deficit?

In just two years?

I suppose it's possible-- after all, Republicans now trail Democrats in terms of public confidence on every single issue except terrorism, and even there, it's a tie.

On the other hand, those reports come from polls which also have Democrats leading in party identification by five to twelve points.

There's a hard number that would suggest this massive change in party ID is real, isn't there?

Changes in official party registration, right? Not "polling." Just actual counting of how people are now signed up, politically.

True enough, people often don't bother to change their actual official party ID as often as their real party leaning changes. And yet, one would think that if there were such a massive change in party ID, that would at least be partly reflected in the hard nunbers.

And if that's the case -- the media sure is being pretty quiet about it, aren't they?


Correction: I'm informed that no one really calls Tennessee a "border state," as it was part of the Condfederacy.

Which just makes my point stronger. Have eight percent of all Tennesseans given up their cross-burnin', fag-bashin', Jew-hatin' ways?

I doubt it. So many of them are stupid and uneducated that they actually join the military.

They're simply not smart enough to now be plurality-Democratic.

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 519 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Fair news from New Jersey, Viriginia, and Missouri -- polls show them as tossups, which means the Republican has a better-than-even chance of winning, I think.

That's interesting, seeing as now it looks as if Allen's going to lose, when he had been ahead for forever.

No matter much you made of it, Ace, that BS about Webb's book looks like it's turned people AGAINST Allen in the last few days.

Posted by: Vyce at October 31, 2006 11:41 AM (nEOKu)

2 The delectable, deliciously saucy Ms. Corker promises "Elect my Dad, and I promise I'll 'accidentally' let my sex video with Lauren Bush get put onto the Internet."

I just downloaded it from Jim Webb's website!

Oh my!

Posted by: EC at October 31, 2006 11:44 AM (mAhn3)

3 The delectable, deliciously saucy Ms. Corker promises "Elect my Dad,
and I promise I'll 'accidentally' let my sex video with Lauren Bush get
put onto the Internet."

That's what politics needs...more hot girl on girl action!  Thank God Al Gore invented the Internets or Intertubes or whatever they're called!

Posted by: Drew at October 31, 2006 11:45 AM (Y2fNF)

4

That's what politics needs...more hot girl on girl action!  Thank God Al Gore invented the Internets or Intertubes or whatever they're called!


You mean the InterBoob?  YouBoobToob?


Posted by: otcconan at October 31, 2006 11:47 AM (ZTS4B)

5 In Extremely close votes, it's always the late recieved, but acceptable absentee ballots of servicemembers that spoil.

If races are within .5% on election evening, they will go to the 'pubs, cuz the servicemembers are being disenfranchised by innefficient mail order, however, if you are deployed, not stationed, but deployed, your absentee can arrive late, and still be counted in most areas, if not all.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 31, 2006 11:54 AM (QTv8u)

6 I don't know how you would get a true count in Texas.  We do not have to register for a party.  I vote in the primaries as a democrat because all of my local people run on that ticket, i.e., sheriff, judges, clerks, etc.  It has never been a problem for me in the past because by the time Texas enters the primaries, the presidential ticket has been decided.  I usually throw my vote to the most unlikely winner, last time I voted for Sharpton.  But, I identify myself as a republican, but they think I'm a democrat.

Posted by: Sue at October 31, 2006 11:59 AM (h8Vr0)

7 Tennessee's a border state?

I believe Tennesseans will be surprised to learn that...

Posted by: Rocketeer at October 31, 2006 12:04 PM (GFaLW)

8 Rockateer:

KY, WV and MO are called "border states" because they are on the border of the North and South, dating back to the Civil War. TN and MD are sometimes lumped in as border states.

Posted by: buzz at October 31, 2006 12:09 PM (kwhut)

9 Also, I have heard that Foley's old district and TX-22 (a cBS poll) are looking decent. Also, the "generic" is starting to tighten to pre-Foley numbers. All of that means that a wipeout isn't likely.

Posted by: eddiebear at October 31, 2006 12:13 PM (wnU1W)

10 Buzz,

Trust me, I know - though MD actually is a border state like KY, WV and MO. Strong though not majority Confederate sympathies in the Civil War, but did not secede.

Pedantic, maybe, but it's pretty loose. I've never heard someone call Tennessee a border state. I don't see how anyone justifiably could.

Posted by: Rocketeer at October 31, 2006 12:15 PM (GFaLW)

11 I think that the hot girl-on-girl action coming from the Republicans is really turning the tide.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at October 31, 2006 12:17 PM (PKXNo)

12 Republicans have all the hot fun.

Democrats get deranged and walk along berms with OBL masks trying to get shot by cops.

Seriously, Which side would you rather be on? Its a no brainer.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 31, 2006 12:40 PM (AuPsg)

13 If you believe the polls, John Kerry is now President.

Posted by: TallDave at October 31, 2006 01:00 PM (oyQH2)

14

TN wasn't really considered a border state. However, East TN was heavily pro-union during the civil war (which is why the union spent great resources to take and defend it) and remiains republican territory today. Middle and W TN were more pro-confederate and lean democratic today.


I have little, if any, confidence in public polling at this point.


Posted by: cynic at October 31, 2006 01:46 PM (cAv5L)

15 "I've never heard someone call Tennessee a border state. I don't see how they could."

You *could* make an argument that Tennessee was more divided about secession than the Deep South states - Eastern Tennessee was, like Western Virginia, a hotbed of Southern Unionism. But that's a pretty forced argument - and besides, even Mississippi had its pro-Union regions.

Remember Biden's weird statement a few months back about how *Delaware* was a border state?

Posted by: Knemon at October 31, 2006 01:48 PM (k4zdv)

16 "Today, the phrase ("border state") is also sometimes applied in common usage to the states of the upper South that formed the northern tier of the Confederacy, such as Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina."

But, since that's only Wikipedia, I'll offer this as well:

"Like Kentucky, another border state, Tennessee seemed 'winnable' to President Lincoln on a political level, and he was determined to lend support to the large numbers of Unionists in East Tennessee.

Geographically, Tennessee represented a crucial border between North and South. Three major western rivers—the Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland—pointed southward across Tennessee, and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad ran straight to the state capital. If not properly defended, all four routes offered avenues for military invasion of the South....

The split between Unionists and Confederates was, if anything, more fractious and violent in eastern Tennessee than in the rest of the state. Politically and geographically, the mountainous East was distinctive. Although there were slaveowners, particularly in Chattanooga and Knoxville, most east Tennesseans lived apart from the cotton economy and strongly opposed secession."

Can we accept that, since after all, it's produced by the state of Tennessee itself?

Posted by: The Black Republican at October 31, 2006 01:53 PM (Edy/C)

17 Good job ignoring the troll, guys.
I'm proud.

Posted by: Birkel at October 31, 2006 02:20 PM (6zsFC)

18 Yeah, I read that about east Tennessee too. After West Virginia (which did, in the end, secede and join the Union) east Tennessee was the region least impressed with the slaveowners' "plight". I'd call it "border", much more so than SC, LA, and MS.

Also there were great swathes of central Texas which went for unionist Independent Sam Houston in the 1857 gubernatorial election. Even northern Alabama was pretty cool to the Confederate ideal, IIRC (it being every bit as Appalachian, scots-irish, and ornery as eastern TN). Mind you, on the other side of the Mason, the North had to deal with the Copperhead Democrats...

Which is why it was, in fact, a civil war on both sides; and not a "war between the states" as Southern Partisan twits like John Ashcroft would label it.

Posted by: David Ross at October 31, 2006 10:53 PM (6RvR2)

19
Which is why it was, in fact, a civil war on both sides;


The War of Northern Aggression.

Posted by: toby928 at November 01, 2006 03:42 AM (PD1tk)

20 Toby is right.

The War Between the States was NOT the confederate term for it. It was the War of Northern Aggression.

Lots of people, in the union, called it the war between the states back then.

Why the hell people think that term is loaded with crypto-racist confederate sympathies I do not know. They are wrong.

Posted by: Entropy at November 01, 2006 04:55 AM (m6c4H)

21 I’ve had your blog in my bookmarks for a couple of days now and just wanted to say that I really love your articles!

physician disability insurance

mobility products

Posted by: kkay at January 17, 2012 04:23 AM (KJwZQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
84kb generated in CPU 0.18, elapsed 1.0977 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0588 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.