Skip to comments.08/10/06 FOX News Poll: 2006 Election Anti-Incumbent Fever; Job Ratings (Not Good for Republicans)
Posted on 08/10/2006 7:53:47 PM PDT by UncleJeff
click here to read article
The poll was pretty accurate wasn't it, and polling in primaries is a tricky business, particularly when it comes to turnout models?
ACU lifetime ratings:
11% Dennis Kucinich
08% Sherrod Brown
Yep, Brown is actually more of a leftist loon than Dennis Kucinich!
If that seat gives the Democrats control of the House Tom Delay should be horsewhipped.
Yes they were! . . . I analyzed the topline results for 99.9% of the polls conducted during the 2003-2004 election cycle. [Re 2002, read Gerharty's comparative analysis (National Review) of electoral predictions during the summer of 2002 and this summer of 2006.]
I do. I'd like Bush to finish his job in appointing more conservative-leaning judges. Policies' impacts last only until several years. Judges' impact last about one generation. While speed-wise the Bushes haven't done the job well, having a Democratic Senate would surely make the job more difficult.
I wish I could do that this year, but my Rino senator's name starts with John and ends with McCain.
Just remember to vote!
I wouldn't say accurate since they missed the number just a few days earlier by 9%. If polling in primaries is that tricky for pollsters and there are that many variables then they really shouldn't put their little credibility on the line with such a risk of getting it too wrong
Yeah, but my point was that if they turned out 250,000 for a Primary, in an off-year, what will November look like nationwide??
If Republicans keep whistling past this graveyard they stand fair to get plowed under. It's fun to tell each other that Democrats are "traitors" and "hate America" but the number of voters buying it is declining by the day.
Then the day after they take control of the House (probable) and/or Senate (unlikely, but more possible now than six months ago) we can start blaming somebody else for our hubris.
Looking around at assessments of the midterm elections in the heat of August:
IN USA TODAY, Economy, more than war, setting tone for elections,:
A battle for control of the most closely divided Congress in 70 years enters its final and decisive phase... But for many voters, the economy appears to have eclipsed terrorism as a top concern. And that has made Democrats more optimistic than they have been in months...
Steve Moore of the Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee dominated by well-to-do investors, is even more blunt. "If the economy doesn't pick up and the stock market doesn't rebound, the Republicans are going to lose the House and could lose seats in the Senate," he says.
Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans.
"For most of the cycle, we were slogging against the wind," says Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the Democrats' House campaign committee. "It's nice in the home stretch to have a changing political atmosphere." At the party's Senate campaign headquarters, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sees "a great opportunity to make gains."
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Bush's deep investment in midterm elections raises stakes for White House,:
President Bush's vigorous campaigning to elect Republicans in November could make the elections a referendum on his presidency.
Bush has been more active than most presidents in the midterm election cycle. He has personally recruited candidates, raised millions of dollars and traveled to dozens of states in an effort to help the GOP...
"If Republicans lose ground in the House and Senate, it'll be a major embarrassment to him," said Gilbert St. Clair, political science professor at the University of New Mexico. Still, he also said a president "doesn't have much control" over such elections.
The gain or loss of just a few seats could make a major difference in how Congress treats Bush's proposals during the final two years of his term...
Strategists in both parties say that while congressional elections depend heavily on local issues and trends, the war on terrorism and Bush's hands-on effort in many races have made him an issue, too.
RYAN LIZZA OF THE NEW REPUBLIC, writing in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Bush's political capital may buy him nothing but trouble,:
The economy is stagnant, consumer confidence is shaky and a majority of voters are pessimistic about the economy's near-term prospects. On national security, polls show that voters are not inclined to cast their ballots based on the issue; worse, according to National Journal's Charlie Cook, the recent debate over attacking Iraq may have hurt Bush's approval rating.
The danger for Bush is that the more time he spends politicking out in the country, the more the... election results will be interpreted as about him.
[In] states Bush carried or where his candidates enjoy incumbency, he has already lost the expectations game in these races. If Republicans win all of them, it will be a significant victory for him, but losing any one will be considered a giant defeat.
Bush is spending his political capital alright, but if the GOP loses at the polls this fall, he may find it has bought him nothing but trouble.
STEVE NEAL, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, Fate may smile on Democrats,:
From all indications, this fall's midterm elections should confirm the Judis-Teixeira thesis... They could win back the House on Nov. 5 and are favored to win key governorships. For the Democrats, happy days may be here again.
DEL ALI, Del Ali, writing in the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Deciding the fall elections,:
Which side will be successful this November? Polling numbers and historical patterns may provide the best clues.
Little has changed since the 2000 election in terms of voter attitudes toward the two major political parties. For example, Democrats are still faring better among women, and Republicans better with men. Women voters rank the need to improve education and the economy as the two most important issues, while men rank fighting terrorism and reducing taxes as the their top two issues this fall. The racial gap among white and black voting preferences persists. A majority of white voters prefers to see more Republicans elected to Congress, while less than 5 percent of black voters feel the same.
While President Bush's overall ratings are high, his ratings on dealing with the economy and education are significantly lower. In some states, they are hovering around the 50 percent threshold of approval. Historically, high overall approval numbers for a sitting president do not translate into midterm election gains for the party controlling the White House. Indeed, the party controlling the White House generally loses seats in Congress during the midterm elections.
But there have been exceptions. During the 1962 midterm election under John F. Kennedy, the Democrats gained seats in Congress. Many feel that President Kennedy's handling of the cuban missile crisis was directly responsible for those gains. More recently, in the 1998 midterm elections, the Democrats gained seats in Congress in spite of President Clinton's forthcoming impeachment.
Yet if history is a true judge, President Bush, like his father years earlier who also enjoyed high-approval ratings among voters during midterm elections, will see his party lose House seats in Congress. And the delicate Republican hold on that chamber will be lost.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, all of these analyses are from August 2002, the year Republicans successfully held 19 seats in the Senate and picked up two additional Democratic seats to regain control of that chamber, and expanded their House majority by an additional seven seats. (I deleted references to the year and races that were specific to that year, like Jeb Bush's reelection.)
But funny how much campaign coverage can get recycled from year to year, huh?
So, instead of it being Delay's fault for not knowing Texas Election Law, it's the Democrat's fault for knowing it??
Delay, and nobody else, screwed that pooch, and the convoluted write-in effort isn't likely to salvage it.
My quick scan of your post does not notice any polls adduced. Maybe it is my eyes.
"Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans."
This from '02 also?
If the election were held today, 48 percent of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district and 30 percent for the Republican candidate. This 18-percentage point edge is up from an 8-point advantage in mid-July and a 13-point lead in June.
Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from August 8 to August 9. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
So 46% would vote for the challenger and 21% would vote for the incumbent so what do the other 33% do?!
I know there is some analytical science going on here that is somewhat legitimate but with 435 congressional offices up for grabs that equals 2 registered voters per Congressional district (I won't bother with the Senate stats breakdown). That's too fickle for me to give a lot of creedence to.
PS: Don't forget how Lieberman almost closed a huge gap that was a nick under 20 points two weeks ago.
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.